Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 295-06TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 6 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JULY 17, 2006 CMR: 295:06 ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - ADOPTION OF NEW CHAPTER 18.66 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE (PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT) PERTAINING TO THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A), as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), to establish a new Chapter 18.66 of the Zoning Ordinance, encompassing a rezoning process and specifying allowable uses and development standards for the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District. Staff further recommends the addition to Section 18.66.040(d)(4) of "traffic-reducing resident priority programs" as one of the examples of parking and traffic demand measures. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Programs L-11 and L-14 direct the City to develop standards and criteria for Transit Oriented Residential Development. This zoning would provide for higher density residential uses in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a walkable distance (a 2,000 foot radius is specified) of the City’s two multi-modal transit stations. Other Comprehensive Plan policies focus on the California Avenue area specifically, including maintaining the scale, character and function of the California Avenue business district (Policy L-28), improving the transition between the California- Cambridge area and the single family neighborhood of Evergreen Park (Policy L-30), and developing the Cal-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two- to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets providing links to California Avenue. On May 10, 2006, the P&TC recommended (5-1 vote) approval of the proposed PTOD ordinance, with very minor changes to the prior draft, including adding a parcel at 411 Pepper Ave. The P&TC review followed three prior meetings of the Commission, two Architectural Review Board (ARB) meetings, community outreach meetings with three of the immediate neighborhoods, and a meeting with the general public. Further background information is CMR: 295:06 Page 1 of 5 provided in the P&TC staff report from May 10 (Attachment D). The minutes from the Commission meeting are included as Attachment E. DISCUSSION The draft ordinance (Attachment A) reflects the changes recommended by the P&TC. The May 10 P&TC staff report discusses the process for rezoning to PTOD, the allowable uses, and the proposed development standards of the PTOD district. Purpose and Benefits of the California Avenue PTOD District The Comprehensive Plan outlines the basic purpose and parameters of a Transit Oriented Residential zone, which is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation, especially the use of Caltrain. The Comprehensive Plan, however, does not identify additional benefits of such a zone, such as its integration with pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and with mixed uses that are necessary to successfully support such a zone. In many cases, it is the pedestrian accessibility and mixed use nature of a transit area that reduce the need for vehicle trips. Staff and the P&TC have therefore reformulated the Transit Oriented Residential land use into a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development overlay and believe that such a district in the California Avenue area would have the following key benefits: 1.Support the use of public transportation and other non-vehicular transportation modes; 2.Encourage mixed use (mix of housing types, retail, and limited office uses) to reduce the need for vehicle trips and parking; 3.Provide streetscape design that is attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists; 4.Support the economic vitality of California Avenue and nearby businesses; and 5.Implement the City’s Housing Element. Key Components of the Ordinance Staff believes that the proposed ordinance furthers the City’s goals of sustainability, enhancing the potential for use of non-vehicular transportation modes, and providing for neighborhood transitions while allowing increased opportunities for mixed use and residential development in a pedestrian and transit oriented area. Some of the key components of the ordinance include: 1.Boundaries that encompass properties within 2,000 feet of the Caltrain station, but which generally exclude Rol zones, and extend to the south to encompass the Fry’s site. 2.Flexibility to accommodate mixed use, allowing for (and encouraging) commercial use in what are currently exclusively residential (RM-30, RM-40) or industrial (GM) zones. 3. Residential densities, FARs, and heights that are consistent with those already existing in the area. 4. Context-based design criteria (form-based code) that provide for pedestrian oriented design and transition requirements that recognize the need to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods. 5. Parking requirements that may only be reduced where specific measures are proposed to minimize traffic or parking impacts. 6. An overlay district that is only applied to a specific site through a rezoning request, and otherwise allows the property owner to develop pursuant to the existing (underlying) zoning. CMR: 295:06 Page 2 of 5 o A review process that provides extensive discretion for community input and review by the ARB, P&TC and City Council, and that requires environmental review for each project. A detailed discussion of the ordinance provisions is included in the May 10, 2006 P&TC staff report. Housing Element Implications Two of the properties within the Califon~a Avenue PTOD area (195 Page Mill Road and 2785 Park Blvd.) are designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the City’s Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Residential uses, however, are not allowed on those sites since the October 2005 revision to the Zoning Ordinance, which now prohibits housing in the GM (General Manufacturing) district. The City has committed to the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) that a certain number of units can be built on the designated Housing Oppommity Sites. The PTOD ordinance would allow for those properties to be developed residentially, but only upon request for rezoning and full review by the ARB, PT&C, and City Council. Frv’s and Retail Sites The PTOD ordinance would allow for Fry’s Electronics to retain a significant retail component on the site, in conjunction with a mixed use project. The property owner for the Fry’s site spoke in support of the PTOD district at the P&TC meeting and indicated that the zoning would open the door for meaningful discussions with the City about the future of Fry’s. Ground floor retail provisions for sites along California Avenue and side streets would be retained under the proposed PTOD zoning. Additionally, the zoning would allow RM (multi-family) and GM zoned sites to accommodate retail or other non-residential use as part of a mixed use, which those zones do not currently permit. Application of PTOD to Potential Public Safety Building Site on Park Blvd. The City Council’s preferred site for a new public safety building is located within the PTOD boundaries at 2785 Park Blvd. The new zoning district should not, however, have an impact on the police building discussion. The creation of the district would not automatically apply it to the Park Blvd. site. PTOD is an overlay zone that is applied only upon request of the property owner and requires a subsequent rezoning and discretionary review by the Plarming and Transportation Commission and the City Council. If the City Council proceeds with development of the site for a public safety building, it would be rezoned to Public Facilities (PF), so the PTOD zoning would not be relevant. Traffic-Reducing Resident Priority Programs Staff has been reviewing the concept of "traffic-reducing resident priority programs" to consider in light of the adoption of a PTOD district. These housing programs would provide selection preferences to potential residents who either work in close proximity to the California Avenue PTOD area or who demonstrate a commitment to using non-vehicular transportation modes. Housing preferences have been used in a number of cities as criteria for affordable housing projects, and to some extent are used as well to reduce traffic (e.g., Stanford West, where first priority includes Stanford employees, second priority includes employees of the Medical Center, CMR: 295:06 Page 3 of 5 Shopping Center, and the Research Park), and third priority includes other employees in Palo Alto or Men!o Park. A summary of some of these efforts is included in Attachment F. Staff believes there is merit to considering this kind of program in a PTOD area, but that there are also a number of enforcement, legal and equity issues to be reviewed prior to implementation. Staff nevertheless suggests that "traffic-reducing resident priority programs" be added to the list of available transportation demand management (TDM) efforts outlined in Section 18.66.040(d)(4) of the proposed ordinance. Appropriate TDM measures are required whenever applicants request a parking reduction, along with monitoring and reporting requirements. If and when a "traffic-reducing resident priority program" is proposed, it would be considered in conjunction with the review ofrezoning by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council to determine the specifics of the program and its viability. RESOURCE IMPACT The implementation of the proposed ordinance amendment is not expected to impact staff resources or the City’s budget. Staff costs to process rezoning requests would be recovered through required fees and deposits. Some additional staff time will be required to provide guidance to monitoring and reporting for TDM programs, but this time may also be recoverable through project fees. The overall intent of the ordinance is to provide for an enhanced mixed use community and increased economic vitality of the area. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Commission believe that the proposed amendments are a significant step in providing for enhanced pedestrian and transit oriented development opportunities, while allowing for project-specific public input and environmental review. Additionally, the PTOD zoning would allow for implementation of Housing Element programs for the two designated Housing Opportunity Sites in the PTOD area. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has prepared an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR and Housing Element EIR Addendum (attached to the May 10, 2006 P&TC staff report) to address additional development potential within the 2010 timeframe. The Addendum concludes that the impact of the action will not be significantly different from that anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan EIR and the Housing Element EIR Addendum. Each specific site request for rezoning will, however, need to undergo environmental analysis to comply with CEQA. PREPARED BY: CURTIS WILLIAMS Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ISLIE Director of Plalming and Community Environment CMR: 295:06 Page 4 of 5 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Draft Ordinance Attachment B: PTOD Context-Based Design Criteria Attachment C: Map of California Avenue PTOD Boundaries Attachment D: May 10, 2006 P&TC Staff Report and Attachments Attachment E: May 10, 2006 P&TC Minutes Attachment F: Background re: Traffic-Reducing Resident Priority Programs COURTESY COPIES Planning and Transportation Commission Architectural Review Board Bruce Knoblock, Essex Property Trust Harold Hohbach, Courthouse Plaza Company Robert Wheatley, Wheatley Properties Maryarm Welton, Rob Quigley Architects California Avenue Area Development Association Chamber of Commerce Elaine Johnson Joy Ogawa Suzanne Bayley, Emerson Street Neighborhood Sherry Furman, Midtown Residents Association Terry Holzemer, Palo Alto Central Homeowners Kate Rooney, Ventura Neighborhood Association CMR: 295:06 Page 5 of 5 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACH]MENT A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 18.66 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A CALIFORNIA AVENUE PEDESTRIAN TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Findings and Declarations. finds and declares as follows: The City Council (a) That in December 2000, the City Council approved a work plan for the Zoning Ordinance Update involving the preparation of a new Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), including the update of existing land use chapters and processes as well as the preparation of chapters for new and revised land uses; (b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several programs and policies related to transit-oriented residential development. The Zoning Ordinance Update was initiated in part to accomplish these programs and policies. (c) The last comprehensive update of the Palo Alto Zoning Code took place in 1978. Provisions for pedestrian and transit-oriented deve!opment were not included in the zoning provisions in that update. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.66 of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: // // // // // // 060608 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED Sections: 18.66.010 18.66.020 18.66.030 18.66.040 18.66.050 18.66.060 18.66.070 Chapter 18.66 PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT Purposes Applicability Land Uses Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations Context-Based Design Criteria Review Process Non-conforming Uses & Non-complying Facilities 18.66.010 Purposes (a)California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Combining District The California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station, while protecting low density residentia! parcels and parcels with historical resources that may also be located in or adjacent to this area. The combining district is intended to foster densities and facilities that: (i support use of public transportation; (2 encourage a variety of housing retail and limited office uses; types, commercial (3 encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the PTOD overlay area; (4 require streetscape design elements attractive pedestrians and bicyclists; that are (5 increase connectivity to surrounding existing planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and and (6 implement the City’s Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan. 060608 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (b) [Reserved] 18.66.020 Applicability (a)The California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) may be combined with any R-I, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM30, or RM40 district or combination of such districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD boundary (Exhibit A, reflected on the City’s Zoning Map), consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.98. Where so combined, the regulations established by this Chapter shal! apply in lieu of the provisions established by the underlying CC(2), CN, GM, RM30, and/or RM40 zoning district(s). Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 18.46 Retail Shopping (R) and Chapter 18.47 Pedestrian Shopping (P) combining districts shall also be required where such combining districts are applicable. (b) [Reserved] (c)A Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Deve!opment Combining District may be applied to a parcel through rezoning of the site, within the specified boundaries of the District, as shown on the City’s approved zoning maps, pursuant to the provisions and process outlined in Section 18.66.060 of this Chapter and Chapter 18.98 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.66.030 Land Uses (a)The following land uses shall be permitted in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, subject to limitations outlined in Sections 18.66.040 and 18.66.050. // // // // // // 060608 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED Table 1 - Land Uses Land Uses Multiple-family residential housing Mixed-use development, where residential and non- residential uses are combined Live/Work Units Hotel PTOD - California Avenue P P See Section 18.66.030(b) below for specific uses CUP Subject to limitations of Sec. 18.66.040(b) P Subject to limitations of Sec. 18.66.040(c) PTOD - University Avenue [Reserved] (P) = Permitted Use; (CUP) = Conditional Use, Use Permit Required (b)Mixed Use development, where residential and non- residential uses are combined, may include two or more of the following uses: (1) (2) Multi-family residential Non-residential uses, limited to: (A)Retail and personal services (B)Eating and drinking services (C)Other non-residential uses allowed except on the ground floor where an (R) overlay exists: (i)Offices; (ii)General business services; (iii)Business and trade schools; (iv)Private education facilities; (v)Day care center; (vi)Community center; (vii)Commercial recreation; (viii)Convalescent facility; and (ix)Research and development, limited to sites where the underlying zoning district is GM and involving the use and storage of hazardous materials in quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code). 060608 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (c)Prohibited uses in the California Avenue PTOD: (i Single-family and two-family uses; (2 Manufacturing,processing, distribution; and warehousing and (3 Research and development where hazardous materials are used or stored in excess of quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code) (d)All land uses must be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Counci! at the time of rezoning to PTOD. 18.66.040 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations (a)Properties in the PTOD combining district are subject to the following regulations: Max Dwelling Units: Table 2 Development Standards PTOD - California Ave 40 DU/AC2 PTOD - Downtown Not Adopted At this Time Max FAR: 100% Residential FAR 1.0:12 1.25:12,3Mixed Use FAR Total: 0.354Mixed Use Non- Residential FAR Cap Office and research and development uses: 0.25 FAR Hotels 2.0 Height:40 feet2 Open Space 5 or fewer units: 200 s.f. per unitMinimum area required 6 or more units: 100 s.f. per unit 5 060608 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED Private open space: 6 feetMinimum dimensions Common open space: 12 feet Rates established by use, per SectionParking:18.83.050 Parking Adjustments:See Section 18.66.040 (d) Setbacks and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zones: Setbacks On portion of site that abuts: 1. Interior side yard: 6 feet 2. Rear yard: 20 feet On portion of site that abuts: 1. Interior side yard: a. Initial height at interior side lot line: 10 feet Daylight Plane b. Angle (degrees): 45 2. Rear yard: a. Initial height at rear setback line: 16 feet b. Angle (Degrees): 45 Setbacks and daylight and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to Caltrain Right-of-Way: Setbacks Daylight Plane On portion of site that abuts Caltrain right-of-way: 5 feet (landscaped) On portion of site that abuts Caltrain fight-of-way: a. Initial height at property line w/Caltrain fight-of-way: 16 feet b. Angle (Degrees): 45 ~ Non-residential development that is not consistent with the mixed-use limitations set forth above, with the exception of Hotels, must be developed per the underlying zoning district regulations. 2 See Section 18.66.040(e) for Below Market Rate (BMR) bonus provisions. 3 The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0:1. 4 The non-residential component of a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square-footage of the project. 060608 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (b)Live/Work Units (i (2 (3 (5) (6) 7) 8) 9) A live/work unit, for the purposes of this chapter, is defined as a rental or ownership unit comprised of both living space and work area, with the living space occupying a minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area of the unit, and such that the resident of the living space is the owner/operator of the work area. The work area shal! be located on the ground level, oriented to the street and provide for at least one external entrance/exit separate from the living space. The work area may be used for office, retail, personal services, or handcrafted goods (unless otherwise limited by this Chapter), but shall not be used for restaurants or cafes or for any business involving the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipa! Code (Section 105.8 of the Fire Code). The maximum number of employees who do not reside within the unit is two (2). The signage shall not exceed the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and shall require approval and recommendation by the architectural review process prior to approval by the Director. The parking requirements shall include a maximum tota! of two spaces for the residentia! unit, plus one space per 200 square feet for the gross square footage of the work area, less one space from the total (to reflect the overlap of the resident and one employee). The live/work units are subject to the development standards of the PTOD zone outlined in Table 2 for a 100% residential development, except that the maximum non-residential FAR is limited to 0.40. The maximum size of a live/work unit shall be limited to 2,500 square feet. The design of street frontage of a live/work unit shall be consistent with the context-based criteria outlined for street frontage in Section 18.66.050 below. A live/work unit may be converted to an entirely residential unit where residential use on the ground floor is not otherwise prohibited. (c)Hotels (i) Hotels for the purpose of this section are defined as hotels, motels, or other lodging for which City of Pa!o Alto transient occupancy tax is collected. 7 06~08 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (d) (2) (3) Hotels may be constructed to a maximum FAR of 2.0 and a maximum height of 50 feet. Al! hotels are subject to the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.66.050 below. Parking Adjustments: Adjustments to the required parking standards may be allowed with the Director’s approva! pursuant to the provisions outlined in Section 18.83.120, with the following additional allowances and requirements: i)For multi-family residential or mixed use projects on sites rezoned to the PTOD combining district, the Director may waive a portion of or all guest parking requirements, and may waive any requirement to provide a landscape reserve for parking, subject to the following conditions: (A)The project includes a minimum of 4 residential units; (B)The average residential unit size is 1,250 square feet or less; and (C)Not more than one parking space per residential unit shall be assigned or secured, such that other required parking spaces are available to other residents and guests. Projects providing more than 50% of the project residential units at !ow or very-low income housing rates may further reduce parking requirements by an additional 20%. 060608 syn 8260189 In no case, however, shall total parking requirements for the site be reduced by greater than 30% from the standard requirements, or by greater than 40% for an affordable housing project consistent with (2) above, or by more than 50% if housing for the elderly is proposed pursuant to Section 18.83.120(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. For any request for parking adjustments, the project applicant shall indicate parking and traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: limiting "assigned" parking to one space per residential unit, providing for Caltrain and/or other transit passes, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the Director, 8 NOT YET APPROVED shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Director not later than two (2) years after building occupancy and again not later than five (5) years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. (e)Density, FAR, and Height Bonus Provisions The following provisions are intended to allow for increased density, FAR, height, and other development bonuses upon construction of additional below market rate (BMR) housing units. The bonus allowances shall be al!owed subject to the following limitations: (i)Bonuses are only applicable where below market rate (BMR) units are provided in excess of those required by Palo Alto’s BMR program as stated in Program H-36 of the Housing Element adopted on December 2, 2002. Key elements of Program H-36 include: (A)Five (5) or more units: Minimum 15% of units must be BMR units; (B)Five (5) or more acres being developed: Minimum 20% of units must be BMR units; and (C)BMR units shall meet the affordability and other requirements of Program H-36 and the City’s BMR Program policies and procedures. (2)The following BMR bonuses shall be considered and may be approved upon rezoning to the PTOD district: 060608 syn 8260189 (A)Density Increase: Density may be increased above the maximum base density allowed (40 units per acre), such that at least 1 additional BMR unit is provided for every 3 additional market rate units constructed. The resultant density may not exceed (50 units per acre). Density shal! be calculated based on the gross area of the site prior to development. (B)FAR Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than 30 units per acre, the allowable residentia! FAR may be increased. The 9 NOT YET APPROVED (3) (c) FAR increase shall be equivalent to 0.05 for each additional 5% (in excess of the City requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed 50% of the residential FAR prior to the bonus, and may not exceed a total FAR of (1.5). Height Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than 30 units per acre,the allowable project height may be increased.The height increase shall be equivalent to one (i) foot above the maximum for each additional 5%(in excess of the City requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed a maximum height (50 feet). Other incentives for development of BMR units, such as reduced setbacks and reduced open space, may be approved where at least 25% of the total units constructed are BMR units and subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board. The provisions of this section are intended to address the density bonus requirements of State Law within the PTOD District, and the maximum bonus density, FAR, and height may not be further exceeded. 18.66.050 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Context-Based Design Criteria (a)Contextual and Compatibility Criteria Development in a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District shal! be responsive to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of a pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood. (!)Context 060608 syn 8260189 (A)Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the site’s development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natura! features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies. !0 NOT YET APPROVED (B)The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response. (2)Compatibility (A)Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the intent of achieving a pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. // (B)Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means, including but not limited to: i)the siting, scale, massing, and materials; ii)the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; iii)the pattern of roof lines and projections; iv)the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; (v)the location and treatment of entryways; (vi)the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; and (vii) the treatment of landscaping // // // // // // // 060608 syn 8260189 !1 NOT YET APPROVED (b)Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Deve!opment Combining District, as further illustrated on the accompanying diagrams: (i)Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements such as: A.Connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with external and internal (if any) streets, pathways, or bike facilities (Figure i-i) ; B. Pathways and streets that present a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks; (Figure i-i) // // // // // // // // 060608 syn 8260189 12 NOT YET APPROVED C.Wide sidewalks (built as easements beyond the property line if needed, but not to the detriment of existing or future bike lanes) along Park Boulevard to reinforce the street as a primary pedestrian and bicycle linkage to the multimodal station; D.Bicycle amenities that contribute to the area’s bicycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths (Figure 1-2); E. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians (Figure 1-2) through well-designed visibility and access (Figure 1-2); F.On primary pedestrian routes such as Park Boulevard and California Ave., climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings (Figure 1-3); (Figure 1-3) Residential :Residential Residential Residential Comm£rcia!.... ., (Figure 1-4) 060608 syn 8260189 13 NOT YET APPROVED G.Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area’s streetscape environment such as street trees, bulb-outs, benches, landscape elements, and public art (Figures 1-4 and 1-5); and H.Vehicle access from alleys or sidestreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. (Figure i-5) (2)Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: A.Facade articulation reflecting the rhythm of nearby commercia! and residentia! areas such as California Avenue; B. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street (Figures 2-1 and 2- 2); C.Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass (Figures 2-1 and 2-2); Cden~ doorways and wl~do;vs to create strong relationship to street (Figure 2-1) 060608 syn 8260189 14 NOT YET APPROVED D.Entries and windows that face onto the street (Figures 2-1 and 2-2); E.Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale (Figures 2-1 and 2- 2); and F.Residentia! units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward. (Figure 2-2 (3)Massing and Articulation Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and design variety through elements such as: A.Buildings that include pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation and craftsmanship of the faqade (Figure 3-1); B. Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies (Figure 3-1); (Figure 3-1) 060608 syn 8260189 15 NOT YET APPROVED C.Corner buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles (Figures 3-2 and 3-3); (Figure 3-2) (Figure 3-3) // // // // // // // // // 060608 syn 8260189 16 NOT YET APPROVED D.Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest from the train and neighborhood east of the tracks; E.Limiting facades such that no more than seventy percent (70%), and no more than !00 continuous linear feet of the street fagade exceeds a height of 25 feet (Figure 3-4); F. Landscape elements to buffer the rear of the lot and the railroad tracks, with trees spaced at a maximum of 25 feet on center and combined with other landscape elements such as fencing, hedges or shrubs (Figure 3-4); G. Application of daylight plane requirements for R-I and R-2 adjacencies to property boundaries adjacent to the railroad right-of-way (Figure 3-5); and H.Maintaining view corridors from Colorado Avenue and E1 Dorado Avenue west to the hills. Landscapee~emen~sshou~dbeus~dtocreate a bufferto the ad}acentrailroad tracks. (Figure 3-4 (Figure 3-5 No more than70 percent of street facade should exceed 25 fcet ~O provide 060608 syn 8260189 17 NOT YET APPROVED (4)Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built adjacent to existing lower- scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties through: A.Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses (Figure 4-1); B.Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match adjacent R-I and R-2 zone requirements (Figure 4-2); C. Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties (Figure 4-3); existing future PTOD development c--, {~ low density I I (Figure 4-1) (Figure 4-2) 060608 syn 8260189 18 NOT YET APPROVED D.Minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties (Figure 4-3); E.Limiting sun and shade impacts on adjacent properties; F. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses; G. Design with articulation, varied setbacks, and materials that minimize sound reflection to neighboring properties adjacent to the railroad. (Figure 4-3) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // 060608 syn 8260189 19 NOT YET APPROVED (5)Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. A.The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropriate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; B. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups and active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users (e.g., residents, employees, or public); C. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natura! amenities of the site and its surroundings (Figure 5-2); D.Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces; E.Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground (Figure 5-1); F. Open space should be located to activate the street fagade and increase ~eyes on the street" when possible (Figure 5-3); G. Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where feasible; and H.Parking may not be counted as open space. (Figure 5-1) (Figure 5-2) (Figure 5-3 060608 syn 8260189 2O NOT YET APPROVED (6)Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment such that: A.Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; B.Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible (Figure 6-1); C. Parking that is semi- depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art (Figure 6-2); D.Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorporated into surface parking !ots (Figure 6-3); and E.Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calming on the street. Parking shoutd be wrapped by habi[abl~ uses when possible. (Figure 6-i) 5~mVdepressed parkin9 (an be used [o raise r~sidentiaI uses to provide p[iva(y and porIunities for sloops and porches. (Figure 6-2) Landscaoing should be inco~poraled into any surface parking lots (Figure 6-3) 060608 syn 8260189 21 NOT YET APPROVED (7)Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: A.New development of large sites maintains and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with the Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); B. The diversity of building types increases with increased !ot size (e.g., <i acre = minimum 1 housing type; 1-2 acres = minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types) (Figure 7-1); and C.Where a site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g., lower density building types facing or adjacent to existing single-family residences) (Figure 7-1). (Figure 7-1) 060608 syn 8260189 22 NOT YET APPROVED (8)Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the loca! environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: A.Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation (Figure 8-1); B.Design landscaping to create comfortable micro- climates and reduce heat island effects (Figure 8- 2); C.Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access; D.Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement (Figure 8-3); E. Use sustainable building materials. F. Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use; G.Create healthy indoor environments; Direct Sunlight, through South facing windows would improve the l~ssive heat* ing in Winter Use of Shading Devices to Control Solar loads in Summer and gain Passive heat in Winter (Figure 8-1) (Figure 8-2) 060608 syn 8260189 23 NOT YET APPROVED H.Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements (Figure 8-2); and I. Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. Minimize Stormwater Runoff to Impermeable areas (Figure 8-3 c) [Reserved] Diagrams to be Added d) Historic Preservation Historic resources review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is required for alterations or modifications to any structure designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Municipal Code or any contributing structure located within a locally designated historic district. The Category 1 or Category 2 designation process for becoming a historic structure is contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. e)Performance Standards All development subject to the PTOD District requirements must also comply with the performance standards outlined in Chapter 18.64 (Additiona! Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercia! and Industrial Districts), pertaining to noise, lighting, visual, and access impacts. 060608 syn 8260189 24 NOT YET APPROVED 18.66.060 Review Process Rezoning and review of a site to a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District shall be made pursuant to the following procedures: (a)Application to apply the PTOD overlay district may be made by an owner of record of any property located or partially located within the PTOD boundary, or may be initiated by vote of the Planning and Transportation Commission or City Council; (b)Applications for rezoning shall be made and reviewed in accordance with Chapter 18.98 (Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations), including Section 18.98.020 regarding Changes in District Boundaries. Planning and Transportation Commission review and City Council approval shall establish limits on allowable or required uses (e.g., the types and appropriate mix of uses, including revenue-generating uses) and intensity (e.g., density, floor area ratio, height, site coverage) of deve!opment. The specified limitations shall be part of the rezoning and shall be recorded as property restrictions enforceable by the City of Palo Alto. Revisions to these restrictions requires rezoning through the same process, except that the Director of Planning and Community Environment may determine that a revision is minor and does not materially alter the City Council’s restrictions or intent regarding land use and intensity. As used in this subsection, the term "minor" means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improvements, is not proposed to change the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. If the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major change, a new application for approval of a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development is required and shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and/or City Council, as determined by the Director. Submittal requirements for the PTOD Combining District may be supplemented as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment; (c)Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to designate a site consistent with Transit Oriented Residential Development shall be made and reviewed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19.04.080 (Amendments to Comprehensive Plan); and 25 060608 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (d)Upon approval of rezoning of a property to Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, the project plans shall be submitted as a Major Architectural Review to the Architectural Review Board, who shall review the project for compliance with the Architectural Review criteria specified in Section 18.76 of the Zoning Code, as wel! as Section 18.66.050 of this Chapter. A single preliminary review by the ARB may be allowed in advance of rezoning approval if plans are submitted and reviewed prior to Planning Commission consideration of the rezoning request. 18.66.070 Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Facilities Owners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non- complying facilities within the PTOD boundary may request the application of the PTOD Combining District to the site through the rezoning process referenced in Section 18.66.060 above. In applying the PTOD combining district, the use and/or facility would then be subject to the PTOD overlay standards. // // // // // // // // // // // // 060608 syn 8260189 26 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after the date of its adoption. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance or the Palo Alto Municipal Code, all applications submitted prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be subject to the PAMC Title 18 Zoning Regulations in effect on the date the application is received by the City. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Deputy City Attorney Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment 060608 syn 8260189 27 California Avenue PTOD Boundary ATTACHMENTB Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design Context-Based Design Criteria Palo Alto: Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone for California Avenue Caltrain Station O~/tO/06 Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design Context-Based Design Criteria- California Avenue PTOD The diagrams below outline appropriate transitions between a project site and adjacent residential or commercial uses, roadway frontages or environmental features. The proximity of development to other uses can create varied, lively neighborhoods, but for the relationships to have a positive impact transitions between different building scales need to be carefully considered and designed. I. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements such as: a.Connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with external and internal (if any) streets, pathways, or bike facilities; b. Pathways and streets that present a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent side- walks; Wide sidewalks (built as easements beyond the property line if needed, but not to the detriment of existing or future bike lanes) along Park Boulevard to rein- force the street as a primary pedestrian and bicycle linkage to the multimodal station; d.Bicycle amenities that contribute to the area’s bicycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths. e.Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-designed vis- ibility and access; Wide side,.calks Residential Residential Easements along Park Boulevard ~ll allow for ~d&" sidewalks in f~nt of cc~-nmerdal storefronts and a double row of stre~ trees in front of residential projeC& Upper floors of buildings should be set back to scaJe do~,m massing along the street. Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design f. On primary pedestrian routes such as Park Boulevard and California Ave., climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings; g. Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area’s streetscape environment such as street trees, bulb- outs, benches, landscape elements, and public art; and h. Vehicle access from alleys or sidestreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. Awnings provide v.~ather protec’Jon and Wide sidewalk~ prcMde a posi~ve pede_~ria~ e~peri- 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: a.Facade articulation reflecting the rhythm of nearby commercial and residential areas such as California Avenue; b.Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street; c.Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architec- tural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass; d. Entries and windows that face onto the streel:~ e.Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; and f. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward. Orient doorways and -- windo~ to create strong relationship to s~u-eet. Clearb, defined en÷~es that ~e proportional to size of building and use. Clearly defined en*~es that are propo~on~ to s~e of building and use. Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 3. Massing and Articulation Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and design variety through elements such as: a. Buildings that include pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation and craftsmanship of the facade; b. Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies; c.Corner buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important inter- sections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles. ~ should be used to reinforce re~t ~t~y c~n used to reinforce impor- O/06 Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design d.Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest from the train and neigh- borhood east of the tracks; e.Limiting facades such that no more than seventy percent (70%), and no more than 100 continuous linear feet of the street facade exceeds a height of 25 feet; f. Landscape elements to buffer the rear of the lot and the railroad tracks, with trees spaced at a maximum of 25 feet on center and combined with Other land- scape elements such as fencing, hedges or shrubs; g.Application of daylight plane require- ments for R-I and R-2 adjacencies to property boundaries adjacent to the railroad right-of-way; and h. Maintaining view corridors from Colo- rado Avenue and El Dorado Avenue west to the hills. No more than70 pe.ment of street facade should exceed 25 feet to provide for open v~e~v con’idors f~orn adjacent neighborhood, Landscape elements should be used to create a buffen to the adjacent railroad t~--acks. y~d day~ig~ plane defines se~nack requirements adiacent so railroad. Daylight plane has ini’~i~ height of 16 ff and a 45 degree angle. A ~’r~ foot la.ndscape s~p ~bh trees planted a¢ a maximum 2.5 feet on centen should be used so buffer building from a~acent tracks. 0/06 Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 4. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built adjacent to existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties through: a.Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compat- ible with the lower intensity surrounding uses, existing future PTOD development b.Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neigh- boring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match adjacent R-I and R-2 zone requirements; c.Respecting privacy of neighboring struc- tures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties; d. Minimizing sight lines into and from neigh- boring properties; e. Limiting sun and shade impacts on adja- cent properties; f. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses; and g. Design with articulation, varied setbacks, and materials that minimize sound reflec- tion to neighboring properties adjacent to the railroad. i Design windows to ComblnaUon of Trees & Hedges Combination of Trees and hedges for Screening Existing SF Homes O5/! Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. a.The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropriate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; b.Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups, active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the us- ers (e.g., residents, employees, or public); c. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natural amenities of the site and its sur- roundings; d. Usable open space may be any combina- tion of private and common spaces; e. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground; f. Open space should be located to activate the street facade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible; g. Both private and common open space ar- eas should be buffered~from noise where feasible; and h.Parking may not be counted as open space. Usable o~en space may be located on parking podiums p~<thways Open sp~ce c~n be pro-vided in any combination spaces. Dpen space to be located to activate the facade and increase "eyes on the 09/10/06 Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 6. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: a.Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; b.Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible; c. Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art; should be wrapped by habitable uses v,-hen possible. Semi-depressed pazking ~n be used ~o ~ise ~idend~ u~ to p~de p~ ~d op- pomunhd~ for ~o~s ~d pomps. d.Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorpo- rated into surface parking lots; e. Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calm- ing on the street. Landscaping should be incorporated into any surface parking lots. 09/10/06 Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 7. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: a.New development of large sites main- tains and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with Palo Alto’s Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); b.The diversity of building types increases with increased lot size (e.g., < I acre = minimum I housing type; I-2 acres = minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types). c. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g., Village Residential building types facing or adjacent to existing single-family residences). have at le~t~ building o~/!o/o6 Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incor- porated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserv- ing, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The fol- lowing considerations should be included in site and building design: a.Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation. b.Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects. c.Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. d.Maximize onsJte stormwater manage- ment through landscaping and permeable pavement. e. Use sustainable building materials. f. Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy use. g. Create healthy indoor environments. h. Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments, One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to sEisfy a portion of project open space requirements. i. Provide protection for creeks and ripar- ian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space tO minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. W~terSun -Direct Sunlight, through South facing wi~o~tswould improve the passive heat. ing ~n Winter Use of Shading Devices to Control Solar loads in Summer and gain Passive heat in Winter "- Agricuitu~e ’Urban Agriculture’ and rooftop/balcony gardens Minimize Stormwater Runoff to Impermeable areas Section 18.66,050 Context-Based Design 09/I 0/06 California Avenue PTOD Boundary ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Curtis Williams, Contract Planner May 10, 2006 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment Zoning Ordinance Update - Review and Recommendation Regarding Adoption of New Chapter 18.66 (Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District) of the Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to the California Avenue Area RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend to the City Counci! adoption of the attached ordinance (Attachment A) establishing Chapter 18.66 of the Zoning Ordinance to create a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District in the vicinity of the California Avenue Caltrain station. Alternative Recommendations Staff has outlined two alternative options to the staff recommendation for the Commission’s consideration, allowing for different levels of intensity and scope, if desired: Lesser Intensity Option A: ¯Reduce allowable density to a maximum of 30 units per acre (rather than 40) ¯Delete BMR bonus provisions, allowing applicants to request bonuses pursuant to State law ¯Further restrict allowable office FAR to 0.20 or limit the maximum square footage of office space allowable on a site Limited Boundary Option B: ¯All or part of Option A modifications ¯Delete the Fry’s site, Olive Ave. residential, and GM sites south of Olive Avenue from the PTOD boundaries A brief discussion of each alternative is included later in the staff report. City of Palo Alto Page ] BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Programs L-11 and L-14 direct the City to develop standards and criteria for Transit Oriented Residential Development. This zoning would provide for higher density residential uses in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a walkable distance (a 2,000 foot radius is specified) of the City’s two multi-modal transit stations. Some of the components of this program include net densities of up to 50 units per acre and performance standards to ensure that projects contribute to the street environment and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation. Design standards should be prepared to minimize potential negative impacts and to assure that housing is compatible with the California Avenue commercial center. Relevant Housing Element policies direct that increased housing density be a!lowed immediately surrounding commercial areas and particularly near transit centers, and that parking requirements be modified to allow higher densities in appropriate areas. Other Comprehensive Plan policies focus on the California Avenue area specifically, including maintaining the scale, character and function of the California Avenue business district (Policy L-28), improving the transition between the California-Cambridge area and the single family neighborhood of Evergreen Park (Policy L-30), and developing the Cal-Ventura area as a well- designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two- to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets providing links to California Avenue. An extensive list of relevant Comprehensive Plan policies and programs is included as Attachment L. Several other Comprehensive Plan policies relate generally to protecting neighborhood character throughout the city. Housing Constraints and Opportunity Sites On October 11, 2005, the City Council reviewed and adopted revisions to the Office, Research and Manufacturing Districts of the Zoning Ordinance, and amended the proposed ordinance to prohibit all residential uses (including mixed use) in the General Manufacturing (GM) district. The Council discussion recognized that there were some GM-zoned areas in close proximity to the California Avenue Caltrain station that may be appropriate for multi-family residential development, but Council members indicated they would prefer to address that potential when the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning is addressed. At the time of rezoning to PTOD, appropriate safeguards such as parking management and trip reduction measures can be considered in conjunction with land use procedures. The Housing Element identifies three housing opportunity sites within the California Avenue study area, including two in the GM zone. There are project applications pending for those sites, requesting residential use. In the longer term, the Fry’s site may eventually be redeveloped as residential or mixed use and staff has been approached by owners of properties surrounding Fry’s regarding redevelopment of their sites, primarily for residential use. Staff believes that these projects and future requests are better addressed by developing the PTOD zoning as soon as possible since these projects will impact the character and direction of this area well into the future. Prior Planning and Transportation Commission Review On November 9, 2005, the PTC conducted a study session to consider the overall approach to a PTOD district, including the boundaries, the process for applying the zoning, and preliminary City of Palo Alto Page 2 standards for development. On November 30, 2005, the Design and Environment Working Group discussed the approach and proposed context-based design criteria. On December 1, 2005, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) considered the same material and focused its discussion on development standards and context-based design criteria. On December 7, 2005, the PTC and ARB conducted a joint study session to review the proposed land uses, development standards, and context-based criteria. On December 14, 2005 the PTC held a public hearing to review the. draft ordinance and directed staff to modify some provisions of the ordinance and to provide additional information. The PTC considered the ordinance again on January 11, 2006, and heard concerns from community members about impacts to specific neighborhoods, as well as concerns about citywide impacts on schools and parks. The PTC continued the item to allow staff time to meet with potentially affected residents and to provide further inforn~ation in response to the community questions. Commuuity Outreach Staff has conducted four community meetings to discuss the proposed PTOD zoning changes to interested neighborhoods or business representatives. Those presentations included a general community meeting in the Council Chambers on February 27, and meetings with the Emerson Street neighborhood (March 7), Palo Alto Central homeowners and area residents (March 30), and the Ventura neighborhood (April 5). Summaries of comments from the meetings are included in Attachment L. Some of the common themes heard at the meetings included: a) density and height relative to existing development in the area, b) transition impacts to residents east of Alma Street, including massing, noise, and lighting; c) transition impacts of massing and uses on the Ventura neighborhood, particularly if Fry’s were to redevelop; d) visual impacts of taller buildings on Park Blvd., potentially creating a tunnel effect; e) traffic generation and parking, f) traffic safety at certain intersections, g) the extent of office development allowed, especially on the Fry’s site, h) potential change to the Fry’s site; i) impacts on schools, j) impacts on parks, and k) displacement of revenue-generating uses. Each of these issues is addressed in the remainder of the report and in some cases revisions to the ordinance and/or the context-based desig-n criteria have been incorporated. DISCUSSION Staffhas prepared a draft California Avenue PTOD Ordinance (Chapter 18.66) based on comments and direction from previous PTC and ARB meetings and from the more recent public outreach effort. A redlined (underlined!strikeout) copy of Chapter 18.66 is included in Attachment C, reflecting changes made since the PTC review on January 11. Summary of Ordinance Revisions from the January 11, 2005 PTC Meeting The following substantive modifications to the draft ordinance outline changes since the January 11 PTC meeting and are reflected in Attachments A (ordinance) and B (context-based design criteria diagrams). Table 2 (Development Standards) has been revised to add setback and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent the Caltrain right-of-way, requiring a stepping back away from the tracks and a landscape buffer. City of Palo Alto Page 3 ¯The maximum density, height, and FAR are listed in Table 2, with a footnote to Section 18.66.040(e) regarding below-market rate (BMR) housing bonuses (bonus density, height, and FAR are no longer shown on the table). ¯The Context Based Design Criteria (Section 18.66.050(b)(3)(D)-(H)) text and diagrams also reflect this requirement, as well as provisions for breaking up long walls and protecting view corridors from Colorado and E1 Dorado Ave. Criteria 4(g) is added to suggest design techniques to minimize noise reflection. ¯Office and research and development uses are further limited to an FAR of 0.25 in mixed use developments. Total non-residential FAR remains at 0.35, allowing for additional retail or services. ¯Allowances for parking adjustments (Section 18.66.040(d)) are revised to reduce the maximum cumulative reduction to 30% (rather than 40%), except for senior housing projects, where up to 50% reduction (from existing residential parking rates) could be allowed (note: staff has recently been using parking rates for senior adult residential facilities from ITE’s Parking Generation Manual in parking studies and expects to add those to the ZOU parking requirements, which may eliminate this adjustment). ¯Allowances for parking adjustments are also revised to require the applicant to provide measures for traffic and parking demand management, such as limiting "assigned" parking or providing for transit passes, etc. In addition, the program would require reporting after 2 and 5 years regarding the effectiveness of the measures to reduce trips and parking needs, in order to provide local data on these techniques to guide continuing and future TDM programs. ¯The Context Based Design Criteria (Section 18.66.040(b)(4)(A)) for transitions of development intensity has been illustrated on a diagram to better reflect the intent of such transitions. ¯The Context Based Design Criteria (Section 18.66.040(b)(1)) for streetscape design has been illustrated on a diagram for Park Blvd. to identify the desired relationships between the travel lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and building setbacks. The diagram also indicates how upper floors of buildings must be set back to break up massing along the street. ¯Language is added to the Review Process Section 18.66.060(b) to define the term "minor" relative to changes made to an approved PTOD project, which may be approved by the Director. The language is identical to existing language for Director approval of minor changes to Architectural Review permits, and precludes changes of ~’use" from being considered as ’~minor" changes. ¯References to Village Residential housing types were deleted, since that designation does not yet exist. The alternatives presented in the staff report provide further options for revisions to the scope or intensity of the PTOD provisions. Purposes and Benefits of PTOD The Comprehensive Plan outlines the basic intent and parameters of a Transit Oriented Residentia! zone, intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation and especially the use of Caltrain. The Comprehensive Plan, however, does not identify additional benefits of such a zone, such as its integration with pedestrian and bicycle City of Palo Alto Page 4 accommodations and with mixed uses that are necessary to successfully support such a zone. In many cases, it is the pedestrian accessibility and mixed use nature of a transit area that reduce the need for vehicle trips (see Planning magazine article by Nelson!Nygaard 2005, summarized in Attachment I). Staff has therefore reformulated the Transit Oriented Residential land use into a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development overlay and believes that such a district in the California Avenue area would have the following key benefits: 1.Support the use of public transportation and other non-vehicular transportation modes; 2.Encourage mixed use (mix of housing types, retail, and limited office uses) to reduce the need for vehicle trips and parking; 3.Provide streetscape design that is attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists; 4.Support the economic vitality of California Avenue and nearby businesses; and 5.Implement the City’s Housing Element. Existing PTOD Area Development Intensity Existing zoning in the proposed California Avenue PTOD area is comprised primarily of RM (multi-family residential, mostly RM-40 units per acre), CC(2) (conmaunity commercial), and GM (General Manufacturing) zoning, ~vith isolated pockets of other commercial zoning and several Planned Community (PC) sites, most of which are for multiple family residential or mixed use. Attachment G outlines the zoning standards in these commercial and residential zone districts and compares those to the standards proposed for the PTOD district standards in Table 2. Attachment H summarizes the density and height of existing multi-family residential projects in the vicinity. The standards proposed for the PTOD are generally consistent with those existing in other zones and for existing development (especially RM-40, which is prevalent), with the added flexibility that 1) residential uses would be atlo~ved in the GM zones, 2) mixed use would be allowed throughout, and 3) a hotel could be considered, if a PTOD zoning was deemed appropriate by the PTC and Council. The PTOD zoning is not likely to be used extensively in the California Avenue CC(2) area, as that zoning already provides for similar uses and heights, and a greater FAR than the PTOD. Also, in conjunction with rezoning to the PTOD district, the highly discretionary review process will allow the PTC and City Council to determine the appropriate use and intensity of each site. The potential application of the PTOD zoning to the Fry’s site is discussed in a later section. PTOD Area Boundaries The proposed boundaries of the California Avenue PTOD district are shown in Attachment D. This map differs in a few key respects from the 2,000-foot radius around the train station, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan, by excluding most R-1 areas and some frontage on E1 Camino Real, and by adding the Fry’s site and nearby GM parcels. The map and boundaries have not been modified from the January 11 meeting. The process for amending the boundary would require modifying the PTOD Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. Transitions to Adjacent Residential Areas A key concern of residents living within or adjacent to the California Avenue PTOD area is the transition from the higher density zoning proposed to their low density neighborhood. While the City of Palo Alto Page 5 proposed intensity of development in most cases does not materially differ from the zoning now existing, staff recognizes that there are better ways to address those transitions than exist in current zoning. Section 18.66.050 of the proposed ordinance provides for "context-based design criteria," intended to specify both in text and diagrams how buildings should relate to adjacent residential areas and streets, and assuring a more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design. In particular, the following provisions are made for transitions to adjacent low-density (R-1 and R- 2) residential uses: ¯Ventura neighborhood: The boundaries of the PTOD are drawn to provide a buffer of existing uses (currently commercial and light industrial) between the residential area and the Fry’s site. The context-based design criteria further requires transitions in intensity (Section 18.66.050(b)(4)(A)) and illustrates the concept in the accompanying diagram. These provisions would be used by the PTC, Council and ARB in considering the uses and intensity across the Fry’s site to emphasize that transition. ¯Palo Alto Central: Uses and densities proposed for the PTOD are generally consistent with the Palo Alto Central and neighboring multi-family residential uses. Additional provisions in the context-based design criteria do, however, outline the relationship of buildings to the street, especially Park Blvd., to step back above two stories and to accommodate trees and wider sidewalks to provide for a more attractive transition along the street. ¯College Avenue (north of PTOD): The boundary for the PTOD has been drawn to exclude a row of multi-family (generally RM-30) zoning on the south side of College Avenue to buffer the PTOD from the lower-density residential area to the north. Also, as indicated previously, it is unlikely that the PTOD will have a substantial effect on the areas zoned CC(2) along Cambridge and California Avenues. ¯Pepper Avenue (west of PTOD): The PTOD boundary has been drawn to exclude the R-1 areas along Pepper Avenue and portions of Page Mill Road and Olive Avenue. The context-based design criteria and the ordinance standards require that adjacent sites, if developed under PTOD standards, must mimic the R-1 setback and daylight plane on any abutting lot line. The few lots adjacent to these homes are fairly small and narrow and would likely only accommodate relatively smaller structures, such as a "village residential" style use or small mixed use, with the setback and daylight plane constraints. ¯AlmaJEmerson Street: The draft ordinance and context-based design criteria have been revised to provide for 1) a daylight plane for properties along the railroad tracks, 2) a minimum 5-foot landscaped setback from the railroad right-of-way, 3) requirements to break up the massing and height of the buildings so that no more than 70% of the length of the buildings and no building length greater than 100 feet may exceed 25 feet in height, and 4) view corridor protection from Colorado and E1 Dorado Avenues. Building techniques (materials, varied setbacks, and articulation) to lessen noise reflection impacts are also suggested. Staff believesthat transition issues are now adequately addressed in the standards and criteria as proposed. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Train Noise Reflection A related transition issue of concern to the Alma/Emerson Street residents is the extent to which new buildings along the railroad track may result in train noise being reflected into their neighborhood, increasing the already high noise levels. Staff commissioned a study by the ZOU environmental consultant (EIP Associates) to measure and analyze this potential noise source (Attachment J). The consultant measured noise levels at points adjacent to or in front of the Palo Alto Central buildings and at points where no buildings exist, both between the building (or vacant lot) and the tracks and across (on the east side of) Alma Street. Measurements were taken at different times of the day and evening. The consultant concluded that: 1.There is no perceptible difference in noise levels between measurements in locations with noise-reflecting surfaces (walls) andthose without (vacant parcels). 2.The potential for reflected noise impacts would likely become a concern only if building walls were long, high, flat, non energy-absorptive and continuous, if the road or track were long and straight, and if there were no air/ground absorption and path interruption effects. 3.At peak noise periods (generally traffic peak periods), vehicular noise along Alma was considerably more of a factor for noise levels than the trains. 4.Techniques to assure that noise reflection is not an issue include articulation of buildings and/or angling of buildings or windows other than parallel to the tracks, use of absorptive materials, and avoiding sustained flat surfaces over 100 feet in length. Staff believes that the ordinance provisions for articulation of buildings and for use of non- absorptive materials address these concerns and will benefit adjacent property owners and PTOD building residents. Traffic and Transportation Issues A number of traffic and transportation issues have been raised by the public at Commission or community meetings, including the implications of the PTOD district on pedestrian and bicycle facilities, parking, Caltrain ridership, trip generation, and traffic congestion and safety. Pedestrian Facilities: The California Avenue PTOD overlay will require upgrading pedestrian facilities throughout the district and particularly along Park Blvd. Context- based design criteria (Section 18.66.050(b)(1)) provide for connectivity for pedestrians (and bicyclists) between streets, paths, and bicycle routes or facilities and wide sidewalks are also specified. Streetscape requirements include ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians, weather protection, and street trees, benches, landscape elements, and public art. Bicycle Facilities: Many of the same criteria that benefit pedestrians will provide for safer and more integrated bicycle facilities, including improved bike lanes along Park Blvd. The City plans, later in 2006, to begin implementation of a planned bike boulevard on Park Boulevard between Lambert Avenue and West Meadow Drive. There is presently a continuous north-south bike route that extends from Sand Hill Road through the PTOD area to Lambert Avenue. To the south of West Meadow Drive, the bike boulevard will be provided along Wilkie Way, where there is an existing crossing of City of Palo Alto Page 7 Adobe Creek at the street’s southerly end. Implementation of the bike boulevard will involve installation of signage and painting of pavement markings, and redesigning the half closure located on Park Boulevard south of Lambert Avenue in order to make it more accessible for cyclists. In the interest of reducing vehicular traffic speeds and enhancing good safety conditions, additional traffic calming devices could potentially be established on the bike boulevard. Staff advises retaining the bike route on Park Boulevard without the need for constructing a north-south bike path along the west side of the Caltrain tracks. Location of bike routes along lively city streets is preferable to increase the cyclists’ sense of personal security. Parking: Some area residents have expressed concern about the potential for parking overflow into neighborhoods, on the streets, or into existing residential parking garages. While there is documentation (see Attachment I for summary of reports and articles) that vehicles per household near the City’s transit stations are the lowest in the city, and that trip and parking reductions for development with mixed use or near transit stations is generally recommended by traffic professionals, the PTOD ordinance presents a conservative approach to parking. The proposed PTOD parking requirements d__~o not reduce the standard parking requirements that apply throughout the City. Allowable parking reductions for mixed use, senior housing, and transportation and parking alternatives, etc. (Section 18.83.120 of the current code) are available as they are elsewhere in the City, but the PTOD ordinance ties some of those reductions to either smaller unit sizes and/or parking or transportation demand management programs to reduce parking needs. Also, requirements are included to periodically (after 2 years and after 5 years) report on the effectiveness of these parking or transportation demand management programs. This will allow the City to begin to develop some relevant data on the effectiveness of these measures without modifying current parking criteria. Caltrain ridership: Staff has discussed the proposal for the PTOD district with Caltrain and how it relates to ongoing service at the California Avenue transit station. Caltrain has expressed support for the development of transit-oriented development around existing train stations, and identifies pedestrian or transit-oriented land use as important to the agency’s short and long term goals. According to Caltrain’s last annual boarding survey in February 2005, the California Avenue station averaged 839 daily rides, giving it a rank of 11 th out of 34 total stations. It is expected that service reductions at the California Avenue station due to implementation of the Baby Bullet service will show reduced ridership numbers in the next annual survey. Despite these reductions, there are no current plans or indication from Caltrain that they are planning to further reduce service at the California Avenue station. In fact, improvements are planned to provide that two trains may stop at the station at one time (not currently possible given the existing track and platform configuration) and to add safety improvements for crossing from one side of the tracks to the other. Staff believes that moving forward with the PTOD is a proactive measure demonstrating to Caltrain that Palo Alto wants continuing service at the California Avenue station, and shows support for the Caltrain objective of promoting transit oriented land uses near transit stations. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Trip generation: Potential trip generation or changes in traffic patterns in the PTOD area could occur from the increased residential density on GM-zoned sites or from the conversion of large sites like Fry’s or Agilent to residential or mixed use. The nature of residential trips, however, is generally less impacting at peak hours than office or research and development uses on the same site. For example, on a one-acre site, at 40 units (apartments or condominiums) per acre vs. a 0.5 FAR for a non-residential development (currently allowed by GM zoning), peak hour traffic is estimated as shown below: Condominiums and 17.6 - 20.5 20.8 - 24.8 Apartments Office and Research and Development ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7t~ Edition. 27.0-33.8 23.5 -32.5 For mixed use development, the totals would probably fall in the higher end of the range, but would be dependent on the extent of each use, and retail uses would not typically contribute significantly to the peak hour traffic. On the other hand, mixed use development can result in trip reductions that would offset other increases (see documents and articles summarized in Attachment I). The specifics of traffic patterns (when inbound and outbound trips occur) would also affect traffic levels at particular intersections, but are site and project specific. A traffic study would be required for any project in the PTOD to assess these various impacts prior to project review and approval. On sites such as Fry’s or Agilent, a traffic study would be especially critical to determine and justify the appropriate land use or mix of uses. Additionally, for any project that requests parking reductions due to proximity to transit or mixed use would be required to present a transportation demand management (TDM) progam outlining measures to reduce trips, and to follow up with reports not later than 2 and 5 years after occupancy to assess the effectiveness of the measures. This will allow the City to begin to develop some relevant data on the effectiveness of these measures without modifying current parking or traffic criteria. Traffic congestion and safety: Area residents expressed concern regarding existing traffic congestion, particularly at Park Blvd. at Page Mill/Oregon Expressway, and the queuing onto Park Blvd. The City’s traffic engineer has indicated that a left turn lane on northbound Park Blvd. will be required when substantial new development occurs in that vicinity, so that cars waiting for a through movement will not be backed up from cars waiting to turn onto the ramp. Signalization at the Park Blvd. and Page Mill Road intersection will also be required to assure safe movements from Page Mill Road at those developments across or onto Park Blvd. Safety issues associated with pedestrian access across Page Mill/Oregon Expressway (across the ramps) and in the vicinity were also voiced by residents. There are, however, multiple pedestrian routes that avoid the ramps. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Improved crosswalks and pedestrian signals are likely to be required along and across Park Blvd., to enhance the other pedestrian design features on that street. With regard to the pedestrian access to the train station, pedestrians could use the sidewalks provided on both sides of Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road, then walk along the frontage road abutting the Caltrain tracks until they reach the station. The City will require new development at the Park Boulevard housing opportunity sites (195 Page Mill and 2785 Park Blvd.) to provide for sidewalks on the west side of the frontage road and the south side of Sheridan Avenue. Also, the City and the Valley Transportation Authority plan to upgrade pedestrian undercrossings of the railroad tracks for pedestrian safety. In addition, traffic calming devices along Park Blvd. and in neighborhoods to the north and south of the PTOD area are proposed to remain. Further improvements to enhance traffic calming will be evaluated with the implementation of the bike boulevard project. Parks Attendees at the community meetings and PTC hearings have expressed concern about park facilities and open space to serve the new residential population in the PTOD area. The PTOD zoning will require private and common open space (courtyards, balconies, etc.) for residents, but generally not for the public. On large sites of more than a few acres, the City may require area to be set aside for public parkland, but otherwise imposes park impact fees to fund future acquisition of parkland and improvements to parks. The City is also in the process of considering adoption of a Quimby Act park dedication requirement or fee to address parkland needs. There is one small park within the PTOD area, and several small parks exist within walking distance of the PTOD area. In addition, the Mayfield soccer complex is under construction within waning distance of the area. Stanford University’s facilities and open space are also nearby. The need for playfields or tot !ots to serve proposed residential units in the PTOD is uncertain, and is dependent on the resultant demographics for such apartment and condominium units. However, because each project will be required to have open space provisions such as a courtyard or green, a quality living environment will be ensured. Schools The new housing in the PTOD area could incrementally increase demand on area schools. The degree of impact is uncertain, however, because a) much of the area already allows housing, and b) the types of housing proposed (generally apartments and condominiums) typically generate a lower level of students, based on Palo Alto Unified School District student generation projections. Additionally, new development must pay school impact fees to help offset costs of school construction, and the increased property taxes will help provide additional operating revenues for the school district. The Palo Alto Unified School District has indicated to staff that there is sufficient capacity districtwide for the additional students from PTOD development, however, attendance at the nearest school may not be available. The City intends to continue to coordinate with the District in its study of school capacity and impacts. Development Potential The Environmental Review section at the end of this staff report summarizes the development potential for the California Avenue PTOD area through 2010, as outlined in the Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR (Attachment K). The key questions posed by the public in meetings and hearings have been 1) how many housing units could be constructed in the area, 2) what is City of Palo Alto Page ] 0 the potential for office development in the area, 3) what level of development would occur on the Fry’s site, and 4) can the existing revenue-generating uses (retail, auto dealers, Fry’s) be excluded to retain those uses? Multifamilv Units: The Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element Update projections assume that a total of 444 new multifamily units could be constructed in the Cal-Ventura subarea through 2010, though the only development to date has been the 81 units of senior housing at the Sunrise Assisted Living site. The Addendum to the EIR projects another 67-72 units above that total in the 2010 timeframe due to the use of the PTOD combining district. The Comprehensive Plan update will look further at the buildout potential in the area. The Fry’s site is discussed below. Office Use: The PTOD would permit mixed use, if approved by the PTC and Council, allowing a maximum 0.35 FAR for non-residential uses. This FAR is less than the 0.5 FAR allowed in the GM district and is considerably less than the FARs allowed in the CC(2) district that surrounds California Avenue. Due to the concern about office uses, the proposed ordinance has been revised to limit office uses to a 0.25 FAR maximum (of the total 0.35 FAR). Office uses are not allowed on the ground floor on most sites on California Avenue and on sites one block in either direction. Staffbelieves that the further restriction on office FAR and the discretion for the PTC and the Council to determine the appropriate uses will adequately limit office uses. Fry’s Electronics Site: The existing Fry’s Electronics retail site is designated as Multifamily Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RM-30. The property is amortized to allow the existing retail/office/warehouse use only until 2019. Redevelopment of the site was not included within the timeframe of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and E[R, based on the amortization date. The application of the PTOD overlay and related design criteria to the site would allow flexibility to consider redevelopment of this site as a mixed-use project so that preliminary planning could begin to occur. The site would require discretionary review (zone change) by the PTC and City Council to set the allowable uses and density/FAR, and would require full environmental review (likely an EIR) for that large a site. This review would include evaluation of the appropriateness and extent of the non-residential use proposed, including the type of use (retail, office, etc.). The Fry’s site is an integral part of the PTOD, anchoring the southern portion of the area, to help facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movements to California Avenue and the Caltrain station. Redevelopment of the site also holds potential for incorporating additional parkland or open space into the area. Staff and the ZOU urban design consultants have developed scenarios of potential development on the Fry’s site. The site is about 12.6 acres in size and contains approximately 250,000 square feet of office/retail/warehouse uses. Based on a gross 12.6 acres at 40 units/acre and a 0.35 non-residential FAR, the site could theoretically accommodate approximately 190,000 square feet of non-residential use and 390 multifamily units. City of Palo Alto Page ] l This scale of development, however, is not likely to occur because the requirements for streets and other improvements would reduce the net acreage available for development, and because other PTOD goals, such as providing a variety ofhousing types, may dictate a different mix of uses on such a large site. Van Meter Williams Pollock (VMWP), the ZOU urban design consultant, has developed some calculations for a more realistic potential development scenario. VMWP looked at the Fry’s site allowing for a street network and a mix of housing types, which would result in a total development potential of: ¯Residential: 380 units ¯Non-Residential: 87,500 square feet VMWP noted at the December 14, 2005 PTC meeting that a more typical mixed use development would include a non-residential component in the 5% to 10% range of the overall floor area. Without a Fry’s or other commercial anchor, neighborhood-serving uses might therefore be closer to 30,000 to 45,000 sf of non-residential area. This amount of commercial area in this location would augment residential needs, but would not compete with the core California Avenue commercial area. Staff has included in the context-based design criteria (Section 18.66.050(b)(4)) of the ordinance requirements that development intensity transition from higher density building types to lower density building types closer to residential neighborhoods. A diagram has been added to stress this principle, and the site should become less intense as it progresses south towards the Ventura neighborhood. The design criteria (subsection 7) also outline requirements that larger sites provide for multiple housing types, again anticipating a more compatible townhome or small-lot residential product at the southern edge of the site. Revenue Generatin~ Uses: Most retail uses in the PTOD area are on California Avenue or the nearby streets zoned CC(2) with Retail (R) and Pedestrian (P) overlays. These overlays restrict ground floor uses in these areas to retail uses, so there is not an incentive to replace them with office or residential uses. The PTOD ordinance provides the City with complete discretion as to whether to allow conversion of retail sites elsewhere in the district, as well as what uses to require. There is one auto dealership on Park Blvd. (Stanford European), which has an Auto Dealership (AD) overlay. Another dealership at 3290 Park Blvd. (Park Avenue Motors), has an AD overlay, but is just outside the PTOD boundaries. The potential to use the PTOD zoning may provide more flexibility for redevelopment of the 3290 Park Blvd. site, but is only one of many factors that would enter into that decision. Staff believes that retention of the auto dealers should be addressed with a more proactive economic development approach, not by further restricting use of the site. Nevertheless, if the Commission desires, the PTOD could exclude any site with an Auto Dealership (AD) overlay. The Fry’s site is discussed above, and staff believes that the PTOD is an appropriate mechanism to provide the flexibility to retain Fry’s or other revenue-generating uses. City of Palo Alto Page ]2 Housing Opportunity Sites The two Housing Opportunity sites (195 Page Mill Road and 2785 Park Boulevard) within the California Avenue PTOD GM zoned area are not on this agenda. If the applicants desire, the rezoning requests will subsequently come to the Commission for initiation ofrezoning to PTOD before scheduling Commission consideration and recommendation to the City Council. The 195 Page Mill Road project applicant is exploring avenues other than the PTOD for consideration of that project. ALTERNATIVES Alternative approaches to the proposed PTOD ordinance were presented to staff at prior PTC hearings or community meetings. Staffhas outlined two options below, with a brief discussion of each: Lesser Intensity Option A: ¯Reduce allowable density to a maximum of 30 units per acre (rather than 40) ¯Delete BMR bonus provisions, allowing applicants to request bonuses pursuant to State law ¯Further restrict allowable office FAR to 0.20 or limit the maximum square footage of office space allowable on a site Limited Boundary Option B: ¯All or part of Option A modifications ¯Delete the Fry’s site, Olive Ave. residential, and GM sites south of Olive Avenue from the PTOD boundaries Option A would limit the potential number of units and amount of office space that could be constructed in the PTOD (and potentia! traffic, parks, and school impacts), but would result in lesser densities than most of the existing residential developments in the area. It would not facilitate provision of more BMR units, and would put the City at risk of an even geater density being required under State law. Reduced office space allowances may minimize the feasibility of mixed use. Option B would allow for further consideration of the Fry’s site in subsequent planning for the area, likely through the Comprehensive Plan Update. This option would, however, remove an important component of the PTOD, anchoring the southern end of the area. This alternative would also prevent the site owners from looking ahead at potential scenarios to redevelop the site, well in advance of the amortization date. Portions of these options or other revisions may be considered individually or in combination to create other alternatives as well. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has reviewed the potential for additional (or decreased) development potential in the Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR (Attachment K). The Addendum compares potential housing units and non-residential floor area through 2010 to the assumed development projections of the Comprehensive Plan EIR and the 2002 Housing Element EIR Addendum. The City of Palo Alto Page 13 total estimated development in the Cal-Ventura subarea under the EIR analyses included an increase of 309 residential units and 102,000 square feet of non-residential space. The Housing Element Amendment included development of Housing Inventory site parcels totaling 135 additional units within the California Avenue PTOD combining district. The net additional change projected through 2010 if the PTOD district is adopted would be an increase of 67-72 residential units and a decrease of 200 to 15,000 square feet of non-residential space (the range is dependent on whether mixed use or residential developments occur). This would be in addition to the 444 residential units already projected in the Comprehensive Plan EIR and Housing Amendment (309 + 135 = 444). Staff notes that, despite the projections in those documents, no new residential units have yet been constructed in the study area, other than the Sunrise Assisted Living Facility project. Staff does not expect the PTOD overlay to be used on all, or even most, sites throughout the zone and, because the PTOD combining district is not applied to specific lots except through subsequent rezoning, the Addendum concludes that the impact of the action will not be significantly different from that anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan EIR and the Housing Element EII~ Addendum. Each specific site request for rezoning will, however, need to undergo environmental analysis to comply with CEQA. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the PTC, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council for review and adoption. The Council would likely hear this item in late June or July, 2006. The rezoning of the two Housing Opportunity Sites will return to the Commission (or will proceed separately under applicant requests) at a later date and then will be considered by the Council thereafter. Staff has deferred development of a Downtown PTOD until after the Zoning Ordinance Update is completed in order to expedite completion of the ZOU and to focus on mixed use requirements for downtown and commercial zones. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft PTOD Ordinance B. Context-Based Criteria with Diagrams C. Red-lined Version of PTOD Chapter (Changes Since January 11, 2006) D. Map of Cal-Ave PTOD Area E. Flow Chart of PTOD Review Process F. Frequently Asked Questions G. Table Comparing Development Standards for Zone Districts and PTOD Standards H. Table of Existing Multi-Family Development in Cal-Ave PTOD Area I. Summary of PTOD Articles and Papers J. Noise Report, prepared by EIP Associates, dated April 17, 2006 K. Addendum to Comprehensive Plan EIR L. Summary Comments from Community Meetings (4) M. PTOD Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs N. December 14, 2005 PTC Minutes O. January 11, 2006 PTC Minutes P. March 15, 2006 PTC Minutes City of Palo Alto Page ] 4 COURTESY COPIES: City Council Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Bruce Knoblock, Essex Property Trust Harold Hohbach, Courthouse Plaza Company Robert Wheatley California Avenue Area Development Association Chamber of Commerce Elaine Johnson Joy Ogawa Suzanne Bayley, Emerson Street Neighborhood Sherrie Furman, Midtown Residents Association Terry Holzemer, Palo Alto Central Homeowners Kate Rooney, Ventura Neighborhood Association PREPARED BY:Curtis Williams, Contract Planner Clare Campbell, Planner Heba E1-Guendy, Transportation Engineer PLANNING MANAGER REVIEW:Julie Caporg-no, Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: ~teve Emslie,~Director Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Page I5 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 18.66 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A CALIFORNIA AVENUE PEDESTRIAN TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Findings and Declarations. finds and declares as follows: The City Council (a) That in December 2000, the City Council approved a work plan for the Zoning Ordinance Update involving the preparation of a new Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), including the update of existing land use chapters and processes as well as the preparation of chapters for new and revised land uses; (b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several programs and policies related to transit-oriented residential development. The Zoning Ordinance Update was initiated in part to accomplish these programs and policies. (c) The last comprehensive update of the Palo Alto Zoning Code took place in 1978. Provisions for pedestrian and transit-oriented development were not included in the zoning provisions in that update. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.66 of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as fol!ows: // // // // // // 060105 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED Sections : 18.66. 010 18.66. 020 18.66. 030 18.66. 040 18.66. 050 18.66.060 18.66.070 Chapter 18.66 PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT Purposes Applicability Land Uses Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations Context-Based Design Criteria Review Process Non-conforming Uses & Non-complying Facilities 18.66.010 Purposes (a)California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Combining District The California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources that may also be located in or adjacent to this area. The combining district is intended to foster densities and facilities that: (i support use of public transportation; (2 encourage a variety of housing retail and limited office uses; types, commercial (3 encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the PTOD overlay area; (4 require streetscape design elements attractive pedestrians and bicyclists; that are (5 increase connectivity to surrounding existing planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and and 060105 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (6)implement the City’s Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan. (b) [Reserved] 18.66.020 Applicability (a)The California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) may be combined with any R-I, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM30, or RM40 district or combination of such districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD boundary (Exhibit A, reflected on the City’s Zoning Map), consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.98. Where so combined, the regulations established by this Chapter shall apply in lieu of the provisions established by the underlying CC(2), CN, GM, RM30, and/or RM40 zoning district(s). Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 18.46 Retail Shopping (R) and Chapter 18.47 Pedestrian Shopping (P) combining districts shall also be required where such combining districts are applicable. (b) [Reserved] (c)A Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District may be applied to a parcel through rezoning of the site, within the specified boundaries of the District, as shown on the City’s approved zoning maps, pursuant to the provisions and process outlined in Section 18.66.060 of this Chapter and Chapter 18.98 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.66.030 Land Uses (a)The following land uses shall be permitted in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, subject to limitations outlined in Sections 18.66.040 and 18.66.050. Table 1 - Land Uses Land Uses PTOD - California PTOD - University Avenue Avenue [Reserved] Multiple-family residential P housing Mixed-use development,P where residential and non- 060105 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED residential uses are combined Live/Work Units Hotel See Section 18.66.030(b) below for specific uses CUP Subject to limitations of Sec. 18.66.040(b) P Subject to limitations of Sec. 18.66.040(c) (P) = Permitted Use; (CUP) = Conditional Use, Use Permit Required (b)Mixed Use development, where residential and non- residential uses are combined, may include two or more of the following uses: (i) (2) Multi-family residential Non-residential uses, limited to: (A)Retail and personal services (B)Eating and drinking services (C)Other non-residential uses allowed except on the ground floor where an (R) overlay exists: (i)Offices; (ii)General business services; (iii)Business and trade schools; (iv)Private education facilities; (v)Day care center; (vi)Community center; (vii)Commercial recreation; (viii)Convalescent facility; and (ix)Research and development, limited to sites where the underlying zoning district is GM and involving the use and storage of hazardous materials in quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code). (c)Prohibited uses in the California Avenue PTOD: (i) Single-family and two-family uses; (2)Manufacturing, distribution; and processing,warehousing and 060105 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (3)Research and development where hazardous materials are used or stored in excess of quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code); (d)All land uses must be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council at the time of rezoning to PTOD. 18.66.040 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations (a)Properties in the PTOD combining district are subject to the following regulations: Table 2 Development Standards Max Dwelling Units:40 DU/AC2 Max FAR: 100% Residential FAR 1.0:1 1.25:1Mixed Use FAR Mixed Use Non- Residential FAR Cap Total: 0.354 Office and research and development uses: 0.25 FAR 2.0 40 feet2 Hotels Height: Open Space 5 or fewer units: 200 s.f. per unitMinimum area required 6 or more units: 100 s.f. per unit Private open space: 6 feetMinimum dimensions Common open space: 12 feet Rates established by use, per SectionParking:18.83.050 Parking Adjustments:See Section 18.66.040 (d) 060105 syn 8260189 5 NOT YET APPROVED Setbacks and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zones: Setbacks On portion of site that abuts: 1. Interior side yard: 6 feet/8 feet5 2. Rear yard: 20 feet On portion of site that abuts: 1. Interior side yard: a. Initial height at interior side lot line: 10 feet Daylight Plane b. Angle (degrees): 45 2. Rear yard: a. Initial height at rear setback line: 16 feet b. Angle (Degrees): 45 Setbacks and daylight and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to Caltrain Right-of-Way: On portion of site that abuts CaltrainSetbacksright-of-way: 5 feet (landscaped) On portion of site that abuts Caltrain right-of-way: Daylight Plane a. Initial height at property line w/Caltrain right-of-way: 16 feet b. Angle (Degrees): 45 ~ Non-residential development that is not consistent with the mixed-use limitations set forth above, with the exception of Hotels, must be developed per the underlying zoning district regulations. 2 See Section 18.66.040(e) for Below Market Rate (BMR) bonus provisions. ~ The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0:1. 4 The non-residential component of a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square-footage of the project. 5 8 foot interior side setback required in R-1 (7,000), (8,000), (10,000) or (20,000) zones, (b)Live/Work Units (I)A live/work unit, for the purposes of this chapter, is defined as a rental or ownership unit comprised of both living space and work area, with the living space occupying a minimum of 60% of the tota! gross floor area of the unit, and such that the resident of the living space is the owner/operator of the work area. (2)The work area shall be located on the ground level, oriented to the street and provide for at least one external entrance/exit separate from the living space. 060105 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (3 (4 (5 (6 (7 9) The work area may be used for office, retail, personal services, or handcrafted goods (unless otherwise limited by this Chapter), but shall not be used for restaurants or cafes or for any business involving the storage or use of hazardous’ materials in excess of the quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Fire Code). The maximum number of employees who do not reside within the unit is two (2). The signage shall not exceed the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and shal! require approval and recommendation by the architectural review process prior to approval by the Director. The parking requirements shall include a maximum total of two spaces for the residential unit, plus one space per 200 square feet for the gross square footage of the work area, less one space from the total (to reflect the overlap of the resident and one employee). The live/work units are subject to the development standards of the PTOD zone outlined in Table 2 for a 100% residentia! development, except that the maximum non-residential FAR is limited to 0.40. The maximum size of a live/work unit shall be limited to 2,500 square feet. The design of street frontage of a live/work unit shall be consistent with the context-based criteria outlined for street frontage in Section 18.66.050 below. A live/work unit may be converted to an entirely residential unit where residential use on the ground floor is not otherwise prohibited. (c)Hotels (i)Hotels for the purpose of this section are defined as hotels, motels, or other lodging for which City of Palo Alto transient occupancy tax is collected. (2)Hotels may be constructed to a maximum FAR of 2.0 and a maximum height of 50 feet. (3)All hotels are subject to the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.66.050 below. (d)Parking Adjustments: Adjustments to the required parking standards may be allowed with the Director’s approval pursuant to the provisions outlined in Section 18.83.120, with the following additional allowances and requirements: 060105 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (1 (2 (3 (4 For multi-family residential or mixed use projects on sites rezoned to the PTOD combining district, the Director may waive a portion of or all guest parking requirements, and may waive any requirement to provide a landscape reserve for parking, subject to the following conditions: (A) (B) (c) The project includes a minimum of 4 residential units; The average residential unit size is 1,250 square feet or less; and Not more than one parking space per residential unit shal! be assigned or secured, such that other required parking spaces are available to other residents and guests. Projects providing more than 50% of the project residential units at low or very-!ow income housing rates may further reduce parking requirements by an additiona! 20%. In no case, however, shall total parking requirements for the site be reduced by greater than 30% from the standard requirements, or by greater than 40% for an affordable housing project consistent with (2) above, or by more than 50% if housing for the elderly is proposed pursuant to Section 18.83.120(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. For any request for parking adjustments, the project applicant shall indicate parking and traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: limiting "assigned" parking to one space per residential unit, providing for Caltrain and/or other transit passes, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the Director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Director not later than two (2) years after building occupancy and again not later than five (5) years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets and suggestions for 060105 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. (e)Density, FAR, and Height Bonus Provisions The following provisions are intended to allow for increased density, FAR, height, and other development bonuses upon construction of additional below market rate (BMR) housing units. The bonus allowances shall be allowed subject to the following limitations: Bonuses are only applicable where below market rate (BMR) units are provided in excess of those required by Palo Alto’s BMR program as stated in Program H-36 of the Housing Element adopted on December 2, 2002. Key elements of Program H-36 include: (A) (B) (c) Five (5) or more units: Minimum 15% of units must be BMR units; Five (5) or more acres being developed: Minimum 20% of units must be BMR units; and BMR units shall meet the affordability and other requirements of Program H-36 and the City’s BMR Program policies and procedures. 4 Density Increase: Density may be increased above the maximum base density allowed (40 units per acre), such that at least 1 additional BMR unit is provided for every 3 additional market rate units constructed. The resultant density may not exceed (50 units per acre). Density shall be calculated based on the gross area of the site prior to development. FAR Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than 30 units per acre, the allowable residential FAR may be increased. The FAR increase shall be equivalent to 0.05 for each additional 5% (in excess of the City requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed 50% of the residential FAR prior to the bonus, and may not exceed a total FAR of (1.5). Height Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than 30 units per acre, the al!owable project height may be increased. The height increase shal! be equivalent to one (i) foot above the maximum for each additional 5% (in excess of the City requirements) of the total number of units that are 060105 syn 8260189 NOT YET APPROVED (5) (6) proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed a maximum height (50 feet). Other incent±ves for development of BMR units, such as reduced setbacks and reduced open space, may be approved where at least 25% of the total units constructed are BMR units and subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board. The provisions of this section are intended to address the density bonus requirements of State Law within the PTOD District, and the maximum bonus density, FAR, and height may not be further exceeded. 18.66.050 Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Context-Based Design Criteria (a)Contextual and Compatibility Criteria Deve!opment in a Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development Combining District shal! be responsive to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of a pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood. (i) Context (A) (B) Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the site’s development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natura! features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies. The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response. (2)Compatibility (A)Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood, and when new construction 060105 syn 8260189 10 NOT YET APPROVED (B) shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means, including but not limited to: i) ii) iii) iv) (v) (vi) (vii) the siting, scale, massing, and materials; the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; the pattern of roof lines and projections; the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; the location and treatment of entryways; the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; and the treatment of landscaping (b)Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District, as further illustrated on the accompanying diagrams: (i)Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements such as: (A B C D Connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with externa! and internal (if any) streets, pathways, or bike facilities; Pathways and streets that present a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks; Wide sidewalks (built as easements beyond the property line if needed), but not to the detriment of existing or future bike lanes) along Park Boulevard to reinforce the street as a primary pedestrian and bicycle linkage to the multimodal station; Bicycle amenities that contribute to the area’s bicycle environment and safety needs, such as 060!05 syn 8260189 11 NOT YET APPROVED (2) (3) bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths; (E)Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-designed visibility and access; (F)On primary pedestrian routes such as Park Boulevard and California Ave., climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings; (G)Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area’s streetscape environment such as street trees, bulb-outs,benches, landscape elements, and public art; and (H)Vehicle access from alleys or sidestreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the .public street. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: (A)Facade articulation reflecting the rhythm of nearby commercial and residential areas such as California Avenue; (B)Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street; (C)Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass; (D)Entries and windows that face onto the street; (E)Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent, centralized building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; and (F)Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward. Massing and Articulation 060105 syn 8260189 12 NOT YET APPROVED Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and design variety through elements such as: (A)Buildings that include pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation and craftsmanship of the fagade; (B)Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies; and (C)Corner buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles. (D)Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest from the train and neighborhood east of the tracks; (E)Limiting facades such that no more than seventy percent (70%), and no more than !00 continuous linear feet of the street fagade exceeds a height of 25 feet; (F)Landscape elements to buffer the rear of the lot and the railroad tracks, with trees spaced at a maximum of 25 feet on center and combined with other landscape elements such as fencing, hedges or shrubs; (G)Application of daylight plane requirements for R- 1 and R-2 adjacencies to property boundaries adjacent to .the railroad r.ight-of-way; and (H)Maintaining view corridors from Colorado Avenue and E1 Dorado Avenue west to the hills. (4)Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built adjacent to existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties through: (i) (B) Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses; Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including 060105 syn 8260189 13 NOT YET APPROVED 5) (6) (C (D (E (F (G setbacks and daylight planes that match adjacent R-I and R-2 zone requirements; Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views :into neighboring properties; Minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties; Limiting sun and shade impacts on adjacent properties; Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses; and Design with articulation, varied setbacks, and materials that minimize sound reflection to neighboring properties adjacent to the railroad. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. (A) (c) (n) (E) (G) (H) The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropriate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection,views, and privacy; Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities,groups and active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users (e.g., residents, employees, or public); Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natural amenities of the site and its surroundings; Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces; Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground; Open space should be located to activate the street fagade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible; Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where feasible; and Parking may not be counted as open space. Parking Design 060105 syn 8260189 14 NOT YET APPROVED (7) (8) Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: (A)Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; B)Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible; C)Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art; (D)Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorporated into surface parking lots; and E)Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calming on the street. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: (A)New development of large sites maintains and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with Palo A!to’s Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); (B)The diversity of building types increases with increased lot size (e.g., <i acre = minimum 1 housing type; 1-2 acres : minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types); and (C)Where a site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g., lower density building types facing or adjacent to existing single-family residences). Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green 060105 syn 8260189 15 NOT YET APPROVED c) d) e) buildings design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: A) B) c) D) E) F) G) H) I) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; Design landscaping to create comfortable micro- climates and reduce heat island effects; Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access; Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement; Use sustainable building materials; Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use; Create healthy indoor environments; Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments.One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements; and Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. [Reserved] Diagrams to be Added Performance Standards All development subject to the PTOD District requirements must also comply with the performance standards outlined in Chapter 18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts), pertaining to noise, lighting, visual, and access impacts. Historic Preservation Historic resources review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is required for alterations or modifications to any structure designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category ! or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Hunicipal 060105 syn 8260189 16 NOT YET APPROVED Code or any contributing structure located within a locally designated historic district. The Category 1 or Category 2 designation process for becoming a historic structure is contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. 18.66.060 Review Process Rezoning and review of a site to a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District shall be made pursuant to the following procedures: (a)Application to apply the PTOD overlay district may be made by an owner of record of any property located or partially located within the PTOD boundary, or may be initiated by vote of the Planning and Transportation Commission or City Council; (b)Applications for rezoning shall be made and reviewed in accordance, with Chapter 18.98 (Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations), including Section 18.98.020 regarding Changes in District Boundaries. Planning and Transportation Commission review and City Counci! approval shall establish limits on allowable or required uses and intensity (e.g., density, floor area ratio, height, site coverage) of development. The specified limitations shall be part of the rezoning and shall be recorded as property restrictions enforceable by the City of Palo Alto. Revisions to these restrictions requires rezoning through the same process, except that the Director of Planning and Community Environment may determine that a revision is minor and does not materially alter the City Council’s restrictions or intent regarding land use and intensity. As used in this subsection, the term "minor" means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improvements, is not proposed to change the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. If the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major change, a new application for approval of a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development is required and shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and/or City Council, as determined by the Director. Submittal requirements for the PTOD Combining District may be supplemented as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment; 060105 syn 8260189 17 NOT YET APPROVED (c)Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to designate a site consistent with Transit Oriented Residential Development shall be made and reviewed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19.04.080 (Amendments to Comprehensive Plan); and (d)Upon approval of rezoning of a property to Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, the project plans shall be submitted as a Major Architectural Review to the Architectural Review Board, who shall review the project for compliance with the Architectural Review criteria specified in Section 18.76 of the Zoning Code, as well as Section 18.66.050 of this Chapter. A single preliminary review by the ARB may be allowed in advance of rezoning approval if plans are submitted and reviewed prior to Planning Commission consideration of .the rezoning request. 18.66.070 Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Facilities Owners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non- complying facilities within the PTOD boundary may request the application of the PTOD Combining District to the site through the rezoning process referenced in Section 18.66.060 above. In applying the PTOD combining district, the use and/or facility would then be subject to the PTOD overlay standards. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after the date of its adoption. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance or the Palo Alto Municipa! Code, all applications submitted prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be subject to the PAMC Title 18 Zoning Regulations in effect on the date the application is received by the City. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 060105 syn 8260189 18 ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: NOT YET APPROVED City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment 060105 syn 8260189 19 Califomia Avenue PTOD Boundary Exhibit A ATTACHMENT Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design Context-Based Design Criteria Palo Alto: Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone for California Avenue Caltrain Station oa/io/o6 Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design Context-Based Design Criteria- California Avenue PTOD The diagrams below outline appropriate transitions between a project site and adjacent residential or commercial uses, roadway frontages or environmental features. The proximity of development to other uses can create varied, lively neighborhoods, but for the relationships to have a positive impact transitions between different building scales need to be carefully considered and designed. I. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements such as: a.Connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with external and internal (if any) streets, pathways, or bike facilities; b. Pathways and streets that present a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent side- walks; Wide sidewalks (built as easements beyond the property line if needed but not to the detriment of existing or future bike lanes) along Park Boulevard to rein- force the street as a primary pedestrian and bicyc!e linkage to the multimodal station; d.Bicycle amenities that contribute to the area’s bicycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths. e. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-designed vis- ibility and access; W~de sidewalks Bike racks ~ Actr~e ground floor uses activate the street pedest~an safety Swong pedestrian!bike ~----’-" connections to CaI.Ave / , Residential ~ Residential Residential Easement3 along Park Boulevard v411 al!~,v for w~der sidewalks in front of commercial storefronts and a double r~w of street trees in buildings should be set back to scale down massing alon~ the stneet Residential Residential Commercial front o{ residential proiects. Upper floors of Section 18.6&050 Co~text-Based Design f. On primary pedestrian routes such as Park Boulevard and California Ave., climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings; g. Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area’s streetscape environment such as street trees, bulb- outs, benches, landscape elements, and public art; and h. Vehicle access from alleys or sidestreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. Av~nings pn:Mde weather pmIection and create a pedestrian scale Wide sidewalks provide a positive pedestrian experi- ence in front of retail uses 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: a.Facade articulation reflecting the rhythm of nearby commercial and residential areas such as California Avenue; b.Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street; c.Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architec- tural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass; d. Entries and windows that face onto the street; e.Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; and fi Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward. Clearly defined entr~es, that ar~ proportional to size of building and use. Orient doorways and windows to create strong relationship to s~reet. Clearly defined ent~es that are proportional to size of building and use. Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 3. Massing and Articulation Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and design variety through elements such as: a. Buildings that include pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation and craftsmanship of the facade; b.Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies; Rooflines can emphasize significant elements entries and bays. E~uildinss should prc~ide pedestrian-scaled detail, a~iculation and craftrnanship o[ the facade. c.Corner buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important inter- sections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles. Comer buildings should be used to reinforce important intersections. A retail entry can strengthen Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design d.Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest from the train and neigh- borhood east of the tracks; e.Limiting facades such that no more than seventy percent (70%), and no more than 100 continuous linear feet of the street facade exceeds a height of 25 feet; f. Landscape elements to buffer the rear of the lot and the railroad tracks, with trees spaced at a maximum of 25 feet on center and combined with other land- scape elements such as fencing, hedges or shrubs; g.Application of daylight plane require- ments for R-I and R-2 adjacencies to property boundaries adjacent to the railroad right-of-way; and h. Maintaining view corridors from Colo- rado Avenue and El Dorado Avenue west to the hills. Landscape elements should be used to create a buffer to the adiacent railroad tracks. A f~ve foot landscape ~tdp w~h trees planted at a rn.a~imurn 25 feet on cen~ shoutd be used to buffer building from adjacent tracks No more ~han70 percent of s~reet facade should exceed 25 feet to provide for open view con’Tdors from adiacent neighborhoo~ degree angle. Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 4. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built adjacent to existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties through: a.Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compat- ible with the lower intensity surrounding USES, existing !i future PTOD development low density b.Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neigh- boring structures by stepping back upper stories to ~ransition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match adjacent R-I and R-2 zone requirements; c.Respecting privacy of neighboring struc- tures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties; d. Minimizing sight lines into and from neigh- boring properties; e. Limiting sun and shade impacts on adja- cent properties; f. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses; and g. Design with articulation, varied setbacks, and materials that minimize sound reflec- tion to neighboring properties adjacent to the railroad. Combtrmtton of Trees end hedges for Screening ExlsUng SF Homes Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. a.The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropriate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; b. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups, active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the us- ers (e.g., residents, employees, or public); c. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natural amenities of the site and its sur- roundings; d. Usable open space may be any combina- tion of private and common spaces; e. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground; f. Open space should be located to activate the street facade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible; g. Both private and common open space ar- eas should be buffered from noise where feasible; and h.Parking may not be counted as open space. Usable open space may be located on parking podiums Common open spaces to connect to the pedes’u~an path~vays Open space can be pro- vided in any combination o~" p~va~e and common spaces Open space to be located to activate the facade and increase "e~es on the o /i o/o6 Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 6. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: a.Parking is Io~ated behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; b.Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible; c.Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art; Parldng should be ~Tapped by habitable uses when possible. Semi-depressed paring can be used to raise m.siden~ial uses to p~ov~de privacy and op- portuni’das for s~oops and porches. Landscaping such as trees shrubs v nes or groundcover is incorpo-~ ~ ,~ ~, /~ ~,~,’ ~,~ ~\~_ e" St reet Pa r king ~l~liZaendd f~rj~:it~ ~d I I Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 7. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: a.New development of large sites main- tains and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with Palo Alto’s Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); b. The diversity of building types increases with increased lot size (e.g., < I acre = minimum I housing type; I-2 acres = minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types). c. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g., Village Residential building types facing or adjacent to existing single-family residences). s gr~a~er than one acre types Building type and scale should relate to adjacent or f~ure ~~., Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incor- porated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserv- ing, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The fol- lowing considerations should be included in site and building design: a.Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation. b.Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects. c.Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. d.Maximize onsite stormwater manage- ment through landscaping and permeable pavement. e. Use sustainable building materials. f. Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy use. g. Create healthy indoor environments. h. Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments, One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements. i. Provide protection for creeks and ripar- ian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. Use of Shading Devices to ContTol Solar loads in Summer a.d gain Passive heat in Winter ’Urban Agriculture’ and rooftop/balcony gardens Minimize Stormwater Runoff to Impermeable areas Section 18.66.050 Context~Based Design Ofi/lO/06 The following is a draft- NOT ADOPTED - copy of the proposed ZOU PTOD Combining District Chapter. Please contact Zoning Ordinance Update staff at (650) 329-2603 or zoneupdate(&,cityofpaloalto.org with any questions. Chapter 18.66 PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT ATTACHMENT C Sections: 18.66.010 18.66.020 18.66.030 18.66.040 18.66.050 18.66.060 18.66.070 Purposes Applicability Land Uses Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations Context-Based Design Criteria Review Process Non-conforming Uses & Non-complying Facilities 18.66.010 Purposes (a)California Avenue Pedestrian an~d Transit Oriented Combining District The California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels xvithin a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources that may also be located in or adjacent to this area. The combining district is intended to foster densities and facilities that: (i)s u p p o r t ~..s.e...o_f. p_ _u. _b.l.i.c_. g _a_n_ .s~p.o..ft..a. t_! 9.n.) ............................................................(Deleted: substantial (2)encourage a variety of housing types, commercial retail and limited office uses; (3)encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the PTOD overlay area; (4)require streetscape design elements that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists; (5)increase connectivity to surrounding existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and (6) implement the City’s Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan. (b)IReservedl,....--]Deleted: Downtown Pedestrian Transit Oriented Combining District [to be added] 18.66.020 Applicability (a)The California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) may be combined with any R-l, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM30, or RM40 district or combination of such districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD boundary (Exhibit A, reflected on the City’s Zoning Map), Draft May 10, 2006 Page 2 consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.98. Where so combined, the regulations established by this Chapter shall apply in lieu of the provisions established by the underlying CC(2), CN, GM, RM30, and/or RM40 zoning district(s). Compliance with the provisions of Chapter 18.46 Retail Shopping (R) and Chapter 18.47 Pedestrian Shopping (P) combining districts shall also be required where such combining districts are applicable. .-~ Deleted: The Downtow~ Pedestrian (b) [Reserved] ....................... ..................................................................................."’" | TransitOrieotedDeveloprnent(PTOD) | Combining District may be combined(c)A Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District may be applied | with...[to be added] to a parcel through rezoning of the site, within the specified boundaries of the District, as shown on the City’s approved zoning maps, pursuant to the provisions and process outlined in Section 18.66.060 of this Chapter and Chapter 18.98 of the Zoning Ordinance. ¯ t Deleted: <~>The boundaries of a8.66.030 Land Uses .."¯ / Pedes~ian Traosit O,ented Development .............................................................................................................................. -[ Combining District may be amended | concurrent with rezonmg of a site, subject [ to the provisions m~d process outlined in(a)The following land uses shall be permitted in the California Avenue Pedestrian and ! Section 18.66.070 of this Chapter alxdTransit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, subject to limitations t Chapter 18.98 of the Zoning Ordinmace.¶ outlined in Sections 18.66.040 and 18.66.050. Table 1 - Land Uses ...{ Deleted: Downtown Multiple-family residential housing Mixed-use development, where residential and non- residential uses are combined Live/Work Units Hotel P See Section 18.66.030(b) below for specific uses CUP Subject to limitations of Sec. 18.66.040(b) P Subject to limitations of Sec. 18.66.040(c) (P) = Permitted Use; (CUP) = Conditional Use, Use Permit Required Deleted: Village residential housing j (b)Mixed Use development, where residential and non-residential uses are combined, may include two or more of the following uses: "’~ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Draft May 10, 2006 Page 3 2. Non-residential uses, limited to: (A) (B) (C) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) Retail and personal services Eating and drinking services Other non-residential uses allowed except on the ground floor where an (R) overlay exists: Offices; General business services; Business and trade schools; Private education facilities; Day care center; Community center; Commercial recreation; Convalescent facility; and Research and development, limited to sites where the underlying zoning district is GM and involving the use and storage of hazardous materials in quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code). (c)Prohibited uses in the California Avenue PTOD: 1.Single-family and two-family uses, other than as part of a Village Residential housing use; 2. Manufacturing, processing, warehousing and distribution; and 3.Research and development where hazardous materials are used or stored in excess of quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code). (d)All land uses must be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council at the time of rezoning to PTOD. 18.66.040 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District Regulations (a)Properties in the PTOD combining district are subject to the following regulations: Table 2 - Development Standards Max Dwelling Units: 40 DU/AC~ Max FAR: Deleted: 50 DU/AC vAth bonus BMR" I Draft May 10, 2006 Page 4 100% Residential FAR Mixed Use FAR Mixed Use Non- Residential FAR Cap 1.0:1z 1.25:1~--A3 Total: 0.35 Deleted: 1.5:1 wibouus BMR: Deleted: 1.5 w/bonus BMR" Office and research and development uses: 0.25 FAR ,Hote~ .......................................... .2_._0_ ..................................................................Deleted: s Height:40, feet.., f. .............................................................:: ,...(Deleted:’ ""-{ Deleted: (50’ w/bonus BMR"~) Open Space_: Minimum area required 5 or ew~_%units: 200 s.f. _p__e.r__u_n_!! ................................................ 6 or more units: 100 s.f. per unit Private open space: 6 feet Minimum dimensions Common open space: 12 feet Rates established by use, per SectionParking:18.83.050 Parking Adjustments:See Section 18.66.040 (d) Setbacks and daylight plane requirements for properties adiacent to R-1 and R-2 zones; On portion of site that abuts: Setbacks 1. Interior side yard: 6 feet/8 feets 2. Rear yard: 20 feet On portion of site that abuts: 1. Interior side yard: a. Initial height at interior side lot line: 10 feet Daylight Plane b. Angle (degrees): 45 2. Rear yard: a. Initial height at rear setback line: 16 feet b. Angle (Degrees): 45 Setbacks and da¥tight plane requirements for properties adjacent to Caltrain Right-of-Way: Setbacks Deleted: less On portiou of site that abuts Caltrain right-of-way: 5 feet (landscaped) Draft May 10, 2006 Page 5 On portion of site that abuts Calla-am right-of-way: Daylight Plan~a. initial height at property line w/Caltrain ri~ht-of-wa¥: 16 feet b. Angle (Degrees): 45 1 ~.~.o..n.-.r.e.s.i.d._e_n.t.i.a.l_ _d_e..v.e.lp.pment that is not consistent with the mixed use limitations set forth above, with the ..exception o f~_ .o.t.eJs~,..m..u_ .s .t .b..e_ .d.e.y .e_l_o_p _e_d. 2_ey_ t__h_e_ _u. .n _d_ e. .r 1.y. ! _n_g .z.g.n. _m. g" .dj.s..m. .c_t_r..eg.u. ! .a.t! o ns. _ ....... 2&.e.e..S..eF.t.~9~.! .8...6..6:959.(.e)_ f.o.~_ ~J~,y. N ~;Le L~.t.e..(.~.~) .b..o..~.u.s. ~.~.o_xt~.kqn._s: ........................................ 3 The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0:1.4 The non-residential component of a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square~_o_p.t.a.g.e..o_f" .... the project. 5 8 foot interior side setback required in R-t (7,000), (8,000), (10,000) or (20,000) zones,_ ........................ (b)Live/Work Units (1) A live/work unit, for the purposes of this chapter, is defined as a rental or ownership unit comprised of both living space and work area, with the living space occupying a minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area of the unit, and such that the resident of the living space is the owner/operator of the work area. (2)The work area shall be located on the ground level, oriented to the street and provide for at least one external entrance/exit separate from the living space. The work area may be used for office, retail, personal services, or handcrafted goods (unless otherwise limited by this Chapter), but shall not be used for restaurants or cafes or for any business involving the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Fire Code). (3)The maximum number of employees who do not reside xvithin the unit is two_(2). (4)The signage shall not exceed the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and shall require approval and recommendation by the architectural review process prior to approval by the Director. (5)The parking requirements shall include a maximum total of two spaces for the residential unit, plus one space per 200 square feet for the gross square footage of the work area, less one space from the total (to reflect the overlap of the resident and one employee). (6)The live/work units are subject to the development standards of the PTOD zone outlined in Table 2 for a ! 00% residential development, except that the maximum non-residential FAR is limited to 0.40. (7)The maximum size of a live/work unit shall be limited to 2,500 square feet. (8)The design of street frontage of a live/work unit shall be consistent with the context-based criteria outlined for street frontage in Section 18.66.050 below. .--{ Deleted: 100°/o n --- ( Deleted: Maximum dwelling units, FAR and height represent the "ceilings" that a project can develop to, even with all bonus FAR and densities; s "-’{ Deleted:- ..-{ Deleted:, Draft May 10, 2006 Page 6 (9)A live/work unit may be converted to an entirely residential unit where residential use on the ground floor is not otherwise prohibited. (c)Hotels (1) Hotels, for the purpose of this section, are defined as hotels, motels, or other lodging for which City of Palo Alto transient occupancy tax is collected. (2) Hotels may be constructed to a maximum FAR of 2.0 and a maximum height of 50 feet. (3)All hotels are subject to the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.66.050 below. (d)Parking Adjustments: Adjustments to the required parking standards may be allowed with the Director’s approval pursuant to the provisions outlined in Section 18.83.120: with the following additional allowances and requirements: (1) ~ulti-family. residential or .,-,-~..xed~se prgjects on sites rezoned to the .....{ oeletea:................................................................................. PTOD combining district, the Director may waive a portion of or all guest",-."-~ Deletea: ~a parking requirements, and may waive any requirement to provide a landscape ",.,’£ ~e~etea: ~ rese~e for parking, subject to the following conditions:’~e~etea: u (A) The project includes a minim~ of 4 residential units; (B)The average residential unit size is 1,250 square feet or less; and (C)Not more than one parking space per residential unit shall be assigned ........t Formatted: Bullets and Numbering or secured, such that other required parking spaces are available to other residents and ~uests. 2~_;rojects providin~ more than 50% of the project residential units at low or ......~ Deleted; <~>The project applicant shall] ........... . ................: ............................................". ...........: .....~i~1}~" -~"" - 2ti ....indicate park4anz demaud measures to be~ ery-low income housing rates may further reduce parking reqmrem y n [ implemented tffreduce parldug need, additional 20%.[ which may include, but ....t limited to: however, shall total parking""for the site" be reduced / limiting "assigned" parking to 1 space per(3) In no case,reqmrements | mfi~, providing for transit passes or other by greater than,~% from the standard requirements, or by greater than 40%| measures to encourage transit use; or ......... : ........: ...........: .........: .........................................."-other innovative parking approaches.¶for an affordable houstno, prolect consistent with (2) above, or bv more than -. | 50% iflaousin~ tTor the elderly is proposcd pm;suant to Section 18.83.120(d) of "~Deleted: 40 the Zonin~ Ordinance. For an’~, request for parking adjustments, the project applicant shall indicate parkina and traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: limiting "assigned" parkina to one space per residential unit, providing Caltrain and/or other transit passes, or other measures to encouraae transit use or to reduce parking needs. The prodam shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the Director, shall inclnde proposed performance targets tbr parking and/or trip reduction, and shall designate a single entity (properW owner. homeowners association, etc.! to implement the proposed measmes. M.onitofinfz reports shall be snbmitted to the Director not later than two years after building occupancy and again not later than five (53 years after buildin~ occupanc’v, notina the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance taraets, and sua,,.,estions for modifications if necessary to enhance parkinu and/or trip rednctions. Draft May 10, 2006 Page 7 (e)Density, FAR, and Height Bonus Provisions The following provisions are intended to allow for increased density, FAR, height, and other development bonuses upon construction of additional below market rate (BMR) housing units. The bonus allowances shall be allowed subject to the following limitations: (1) ,Bonuses a..r_e..o..n.!y .a.p.p_l_i_c. _a.b..l_e..}v..h..e.r.e...b_ .e_l_o..w...m..a.r..k.e..t _r. _a.t.e_. _(B_ .M. _ .R_)..u.n.j.t.s_ .a_ .r ~ ....................( Deleted: provided in excess of those required by Polo Alto’s BMR program as stated in Program H-36 of the Housing Element adopted on December 2, 2002. Key elements of Program H-36 include: (A)Five (5) or more units: Minimum 15% of units must be BMR units; (B)Five (5) or more acres being developed: Minimum 20% of units must be BMR units;_and (C) BMR units shall meet the affordability and other requirements of Program H-36 and the City’s BMR Program policies and procedures. allo~ved (40 units per acre), such that at least 1 additional BMR unit is provided for every 3 additional market rate units constructed. The resultant density may not exceed,50 units per acre, Density shall be calculated based on .....{ Deleted: the maximum bonus density ............................................................................. : 2. [ allowed, as shown in Table 2 (the gross area of the site prior to development. - (3),FAR Increase" For rojects with a residential density reater than 30 units er "(Deleted:)gi ........................... P. acre, the allowable residential FAR may be increased. The FAR increase shall .......-~ Deleted: be equivalent to 0 05 for each additional 5% (in excess of the City o--~ Deleted: 10 requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed 50% of the residential FAR prior to the bonus, and may not exceed ~ FAR o,9f_,f 1..57 ......Deleted: the maximum bonus (4),Height I~d~"-t?~r r};:edi;~i-tffh~;-i~{ati~id~;ii-~f~}ii~iii~-r]-~-~)~}{~ ......~;: .....Deleted: allowed......¯p.__~_ .......................................Y_ ...................................’,-. per acre, the allowable project height may be increased. The height increase ’~, ~,~ Deleted: ( shall be equivalent to one (1) foot above the maximum for each additional 5%"’,," Deleted:) (in excess of the City requirements) of the total number of units that are ",Deleted:proposed as BMR units, but maynot, exceed maximum ei ht f 0 feet~........... -~- ..............~---- g- ---~t5 ...............-,~ ....~ however,(5) ,.O._t_h._e_r_.i_n._c..e.n.!!.v..e.s..f..o.r..d..e..ve.lopment o..f .BMR units, such as reduced setbacks and ~: -’ reduced open space, ma~,i~~-a)~,;:dvid~vfiei~~il~a-~i-5_3°~3-~~;igi;i~]i?" ..........0.:: ,~’~ Deleted: the constructed are BMR units and subject to approval by the Architectural ’. ,.,,.,,’( Deleted: bonus Review Board.",,")’i~ allowed (6) ,The provisions of this section are intended to address the density bonus ",", ’( Deleted: (requirements o f,~_ _t.a..t.e...L..a?y..w_ !_t.h_!.n_ _t.h. _e. _P__.T.Q.D" .D. !.s.t.n..c.t_: _a. _n_ .d_ .~.e_ ..m_.a_.x.i_.m..u. _m. _ .b_ _o_ _n__u_s_..",. ’,,’ Deleted: ) density, FAR, and height may not be further exceeded."","I Deleted: 18.66.050 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development ,ii~t~.~!~_t.?~.! s~.!~l_8 0f ...................................j (PTOD) Combining District Context-Based Design Criteria (a)Contextual and Compatibility Criteria Draft May 10, 2006 Page 8 Development in a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District shall be responsive to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of a pedestrian and transit oriented neighborhood. (1) Context (A)Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the site’s development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies. (B)The ~vord "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response. (2) Compatibility (A)Compatibility is achieved ~vhen the apparent scale and mass of ne~v buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian and tTansit oriented neighborhood, and when new consm~ction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. (B)Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means, including but not limited to: (i)the siting, scale, massing, and materials; (ii)the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; (iii)the pattern of roof lines and projections; (iv)the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; (v) the location and treatment ofentryways; (vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; and (vii) the treatment of landscaping_. Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District. as further illustrated on.the accompanying diagrams: (1)Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Draft May 10, 2006 Page 9 (2) The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements such as: (A)Cormectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with external and internal (if any) streets, pathways, or bike facilities; (B)Pathways and streets that present a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks; (C)Wide sidewalks (built as easements beyond the property line if needed, but not to the detriment of existing or future bike lanes) along Park Boulevard to reinforce the street as a primary pedestrian and bicycle linkage to the multimodal station; ........................................................................................( I~e|ete~t: and (D)Bicycle amenities that contribute to the area’s bicycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths. (E)Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-designed visibility and access; (F)On primary pedestrian routes such as Park Boulevard and California Ave., climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings; (G)Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area’s streetscape environment such as street trees, bulb-outs, benches, landscape elements, and public art; and (H)Vehicle access from alleys or sidestreets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements such as: (A)l=acade articulation reflecting the rhythm of nearby commercial and residential areas such as California Avenue; (B)Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street; (C)Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass; (D)Entries and windows that face onto the street; (E)Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent~.u.i.l.d_!.n_g_ ...............{ I~elete~t:, centralized entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; and (F)Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward. (3)Massing and Articulation Draft May 10, 2006 Page 10 (4) Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and design variety through elements such as: (A)Buildings that include pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation and craftsmanship of the fagade; (B)Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building (such as entries, bays, and balconies; .................................................................l Deleted: a~d (C)Comer buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles;. ..........................................................................................................{ Deleted:. (D)Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, ÷ .......~ Formatted: au~lets and Numbering break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest from the train and neighborhood east of the tracks: (E)Limiting facades such that no more than seventy percent (70%], and no more than 100 continuous linear feet of the street fagade exceeds a height of 25 feet: (F)Landscape elements to buffer the rear of the lot and the railroad tracks, with trees spaced,.at a maximum of 25 feet on center and combined with other landscape elements such as fencing, hedges or shrubs: (G)Application of daglight plane requirements for R-1 and R-2 adiacencies to property boundaries adiacent to the railroad right-of-way; and (H)Maintaining view corridors from Colorado Avenue and E1 Dorado Avenue west to the hills. Deleted: Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built adjacent to existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties through: (A)Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible ~vith the lower intensity surrounding uses~ ........................................ .....t~eele~d:, such as Villagc Rcsidm~l:ial (B)Massing and orientation of buildings that respect ~a-~i~:~--ii~&~-~;i~-~: -~ l~a ~ neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match adjacent R-1 and R-2 zone requirements; (C)Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties; Minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties;(D) (E) Limiting sun and shade impacts on adjacent properties;(F) 2rovidina.~9_d__e__s_t_r.!.a.n" p__a.s_.e.9.s...a_n.J...m..e2v..s_!9__c__r_e__a_t_e...s.e.p?.K?~9~ .bg.t3.v.~.e.n. ....... :,~ ......~Deleted: <#>Desi~ creativity to G_(_G_)__Design with articulation, varied setbacks, and materials that minimize ’,’, ~ sound reflection to neighboring properties adjacent to the railroad.’,,1 Deleted: P ’( Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Draft May 10, 2006 Page 11 (6) (7) Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. (A)The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropriate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; (B)Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups and active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users (e.g., residents, employees, or public); (C)Conmaon,9.pen spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathway.s and existino .--( Deleted" O natural amenities of the site and its surroundings; (D)Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces; (E)Usable open space does not need to be !ocated on the ground; (F)Open space should be located to activate the street fagade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible;(G) Both private and common open space areas should ~__e_._b__u._f.f.e..r_e_d...f.r.q..m.~.n.9.i.s.e- ............... [ Deleted: ~vhere feasible: and ..... ( Deleted: buffering from surrounding (H) Parking may not be counted as open space. "’~ Deleted: and where privacy can be Parking Desi, .ma [ maintained Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: (A)Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.; (B)Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible; (C)Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art; (D)Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorporated into surface parking lots; and (E)Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calming on the street. Large (multi-acre) SitesLarge (in excess of~.a.c..r..e)_ ..sj.t.e.s...s.h..a.l.1..b..e..d..e_s. jg.n.e..d..s_9- _t__h_a.t..s.g.e..e.t:..b.l.p.c._k.:.a__n._d_ ........... . ....{ Deleted: two building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and .....{ Deleted: s such that: (A)New development of large sites maintains and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with Palo Alto’s Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); Draft May 10, 2006 Page 12 (B)The diversity of building types increases with increased lot size (e.g., <1 acre = minimum 1 housing type; 1-2 acres = minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types); and (C) Where a_site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g., lower de~a_@_~.b_.u.!l._d.’.m._g_t__yp__e.s.._f.a.c__’_m_g__o__r__a__djacent to existino single-family .--~ Deleted" Village Residential: residences). (8)Sustainabilit,/and Green Buildin~ Design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design .g.o..n..s.i.d..e.r&~.e ............: .....{ Deleted: mea~s environment during design and construction. Green buildin~.a.!..m..s_._f.o..r ............i ....( Deleted: ~ compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it."( Deleted: s In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: (A)Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B)Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (C)Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access; (D)Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement; (E)Use sustainable building materials. (F)Design,!ighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use; ......~ Deleted: for efficient energs’ use ............................................................................................[ through(G)Create healthy indoor environments; (H)Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments~_O__n__e. .....: .....{ Deleted:, example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants .....~ s~c~ as to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements;_and (I)Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. (c)[Reserved] Diagrams to be Added ...... H___i_s.t..o.r._i.~...p_r__e_s..e.r__v.~[.’_l_O_~ ............................................................. ............................~ Deleted: 9. Historic resources review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is required for alterations or modifications to any structure designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Municipal Code or any contributing structure located within a locally designated historic district. The Category 1 or Category 2 designation process for becoming a historic structure is contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. ~_Performance Standards Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Draft May 10, 2006 Page 13 All development subject to the PTOD District requirements must also comply with the performance standards outlined in Chapter 18.64 (Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts), pertaining to noise, lighting, visual, and access impacts. 18.66.060 Review Process Rezoning and review of a site to a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District shall be made pursuant to the following procedures: (a)Application to apply the PTOD overlay district may be made by an owner of record of any property located or partially located within the PTOD boundary, or may be initiated by vote of the Planmng and Transportation Commission or City Council; (b) (c) Applications for rezoning shall be made and reviewed in accordance with Chapter 18.98 (Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations), and more specifically with Section 18.98.020 regarding Changes in District Boundaries. Planning and Transportation Commission review and City Council approval shall establish limits on allowable or required uses and intensity (e.g., density, floor area ratio, height, site coverage) of development. The specified limitations shall be part of the rezoning and shall be recorded as property restrictions enforceable by the City of Palo Alto. Revisions to these restrictions requires rezoning through the same process, except that the Director of Planning and Community Environment may determine that a revision is minor4and does not .m..a..t.e~.ri.a.!!y._a.!.t_e.r_ ..........{ De|eted: the City Council’s restrictions or intent regarding land use and intensity. As used in this subsection, the term "minor" means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improvements, is not proposed to change the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. If the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major chan~e, a new application for approval of a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development is required and shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Plannina and Transportation Commission. and!or City Council. as determined by the Director. Submittal requirements for the PTOD Combining District may be supplemented as ~letermined by the Director of Plannin.g__a_.n_d___C..o.__.mo?...u.~!_ty...E.n..v.!_r_o.._nyo_.~t.;~ .........................{ Deleted: directed Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to designate a site consistent with Transit Oriented Residential Development shall be made and reviewed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19.04.080 (Amendments to Comprehensive Plan);_and (d)Upon approval of rezoning of a property to Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, the project plans shall be submitted as a Major Architectural Review to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), who Draft May 10, 2006 Page 14 shall review the project for compliance with the Architectural Review criteria specified in Section ! 8.76 of the Zoning Code, as well as Section 18.66.050 of this Chapter. A single preliminary review by the ARB may be allowed in advance of rezoning approval if plans are submitted and reviewed prior to Planning Commission consideration of the rezoning request. 18.66.070 Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Facilities O~vners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non-complying facilities within the PTOD boundary may request the application of the PTOD Combining District to the site through the rezoning process referenced in Section 18.66.060 above. In applying the PTOD combining district, the use and/or facility would then be subject to the PTOD overlay standards. Attachment E REVIEW PROCESS Pedestrian Transit Oriented District (PTOD) Initial Application Request for rezone and Comp Plan amendment to PTOD Initiated by Applicant, CC, or P&TC Planning & Transportation Commission Review development plan with land uses, ntensities (density/sf/FAR) and consistency with Comp Plan Policies (1) CEQA Review 30 days from P&TC Recommendation City Council Final Action on rezone and Comp Plan amendment to PTOD. [ Preliminary Design Review by ARB -r Formal ARB application with design submitted for approval (21 IRArchitectural Review Board eview & Recommendation to Planning| Director Additional CEQA review, if necessary Planning Director Final Action ’,Appeal to City Council ’, ,,within 14 days ’, Section 18.66.060(b) Review Process and 18.98; Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations Section 18.66.050; Contextual and Compatability Criteria and 18.76; ARB Standards of Review FAQ Page 1 of 7 Attachment F ............. 1~ Advanced Browse By Topic ~ ,~::,Search: Home ~ Departments ~ Planninc! & Community Environment ~" Planning. ~ ~ PTOD Frequently Asked Questions 1.What is Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD~ 2.Why is the PTOD District being proposed? What are the benefits to the community_~? 3.Where will the PTOD zonincL~p_p/y_Z 4.How is a PTOD project reviewed? Is PTOD a rezonin..q_? S.Will I as a member of the community, be able to comment on a proposed PTOD project and design? 6.What kinds of uses will be allowed under the PTOD zoning? Who decides? 7.What densities heir: and floor area would be allowed b_y_ the PTOD? What about 8.What bonuses are allowed for increasing these allowances? 9.What can be done now under existing standards? How will the PTOD zoning change the extent of allowable development on these sites? 10.Will everyone build to the PTOD maximum standards? 11.I currently walk and bike to California Avenue. How will the PTOD zoning create a more pleasant _e._.x_perience for me when I g_o to California Avenue or to Caltrain? 12.How will the PTOD regulations affect businesses on California Avenue and in the rest of the PTOD area? 13._.V’~]D_aLre_gulations are being_proposed to ensure that developments are comp___a_tj.ble_...w_ith_qop_r _n_~hborhoods? 14.What studies have been done that demonstrate that this type of development enhances transit use and pedestrian activity? 15.Are there requirements to facilitate the use of pedestrian bicycle and transit modes? 16.Does the decreased ridership at the California Avenue Caltrain station jeopardize the success of the PTOD? 17.How wilt PTOD projects impact traffic and parking in the area? 18.Will new development along the railroad tracks increase the noise reflection in the neiqhborhoods east of Alma Street? http://ww~.cityofpaloalto.org!planning-community/FAQ.html _/a/2006 FAQ Page 2 of 7 19.How will schools be impacted by the additional students generated by new housing in the PTOD area? 20.Will there be public parks for new residents especially children, to use? 1. What is Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD)? The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program L-11 directs the City to develop standards and criteria for Transit Oriented Residential Development. This zoning would provide for higher density residential uses in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a walkable distance (a 2, 000 foot radius is specified) of the City’s two multi-modal transit stations. Some of the components of this Comprehensive Plan program include net densities of up to 50 units per acre (this is not what is being proposed for the California Avenue PTOD district) and performance standards to ensure that projects contribute to the street environment and encourage use of non-vehicular modes of transportation. Relevant Housing Element policies direct that increased housing density be allowed immediately surrounding commercial areas and particularly near transit centers, and that parking requirements be modified to allow higher densities in appropriate areas. The Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) combining district responds to the directives of the Comprehensive Plan program, but equally emphasizes the importance of mixed use and pedestrian oriented design and uses to minimize trips and to support local retail and service businesses. An environment that supports pedestrians may be more significant for reducing vehicle trips as it allows errands to be run on foot and to be combined, rather than generating additional vehicle trips. 2. Why is the PTOD District being proposed? What are the benefits to the community? The California Avenue PTOD combining district is proposed primarily to implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City’s Housing Element identifies three "housing opportunity sites" within the California Avenue study area, including two in the General Manufacturing (GM) zone. Project applications are pending for those two sites, requesting residential use or mixed residential/commercial uses. In October of 2005, the City Council revised the GM district requirements such that residential uses are no longer allowed, which results in the City’s Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan being out of compliance with State housing law. The application of the PTOD zoning to those sites will allow housing on sites within proximity to transit, but will retain housing prohibitions in other areas of the city, where industrial uses should be preserved. The benefits of the PTOD zoning to the community are to: ¯Support the use of public transportation, pedestrian, bicycle, and other non- vehicular modes of transportation; ¯Provide for a mix of uses to minimize the need for external trips; ¯Contribute to the pedestrian design and environment of area streets; ¯Implement the City’s Housing Opportunity sites and address the City’s jobs/housing imbalance; and ¯Support retail and service uses on California Avenue and in the immediate vicinity Return to top 3. Where will the PTOD zoning apply? http://x~v.cityofpaloalto.org/planning-community/FAQ.html 5/3/2006 FAQ Page 3 of 7 The Cafifornia Avenue PTOD combining district area is generally bounded by Cambridge Avenue to the north, El Camino Real to the west, the Caltrain rail line to the east, and Lambert Avenue to the south. There are a few pockets of areas that are excluded from the boundary, such as the R-1 area around Pepper Avenue and some El Camino Real areas that are governed by the City’s El Camino Real Design Guidelines. A minimum half-block of land is generally excluded from the zoning between surrounding single-family (R-l) zones and the PTOD district. A map of the California Avenue PTOD zone boundaries is attached for a more specific delineation. The boundaries of the district do not imply that the PTOD criteria automatically apply to properties ling within the boundaries (see the next question). 4. How is a PTOD project reviewed? Is PTOD a rezoning? The PTOD combining district is different from most zoning districts in that the boundaries of the district do not imply that the PTOD criteria automatically apply to properties lying within the boundaries. Instead, the boundaries only provide that such properties are "eligible" for rezoning to PTOD. A full rezoning process is required for each property requesting to use the PTOD criteria. Unless rezoning is requested, the property remains governed by existing zoning, such as Community Commercial, General Manufacturing, or Multiple Family Residential. The steps required for a PTOD rezoning include a) initiation of rezoning by the Planning and Transportation Commission, b) submittal of a preliminary design to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), c) ~ublic hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and d) ~ubfic hearing and action by the City Council. The Council’s actions would include specification of ¯ he types of uses and density/intensity of development that could occur, and then final design may proceed through the ARB hearing and action. Environmental review, including traffic, noise, or other studies that may be needed, must also be conducted prior to action by the Commission ~nd Council. See the attached flow chart for a summary of this process. Return to top 5. Will I, as a member of the community, be able to comment on a proposed PTOD project ]nd design? There are several opportunities for review and comment by the public on a PTOD rezoning. The ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council reviews are all public hearings, involving public notice to al! property owners and residents within the PTOD area and within 600 feet of the PTOD boundaries. The environmental review generally requires simllar public noticing. The rezoning process is highly "discretionary," meaning that City officials have considerable latitude to determine the appropriateness and compatibility of a project and to place conditions or restrictions to minimize project impacts. 6. What kinds of uses will be allowed under the PTOD zoning? Who decides? The land uses proposed to be allowed with the application of the PTOD combining district include multiple-family residential, village residential, live/work units, hotels, and residential mixed-use projects (including a potential mix of residential with retail, personal services, eating and drinking services, and other nonresidential uses). The mix of land uses proposed for any zoning change would be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission with public notice and input, and would require approval by the City Council as part of the rezoning process. Return to top 7. What densities, heights, and floor area would be allowed by the PTOD? What about ~arking? The proposed development standards (please refer to Section 18. 66. 040 of the draft ordinance for a complete list) reflect many of the allowable development standards already in the area and http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planning-community/FAQ.html 5/3/2006 FAQ Page 4 of 7 incorporate additional standards for mixed use development. Residential development standards are generally similar tothose found in the RM-40 (multiple family zone allowing up to 40 units per acre) zone and include maximum densities up to 40 units per acre, a floor area ratio (FAR*) up to 1. O, height of up to 40 feet, residential unit open space requirements, and setback and daylight plane limitations when developments abut single- and two-family residential districts. Mixed use development would allow for a FAR of up to 1.25 to accommodate the additional non-residential space, but with a cap of 0.35 FAR on the non-residential portion (leaving a predominantly residential development). Hotel FAR would be allowed up to a maximum of 2. O. Parking rates and allowable adjustments are the same as required by existing regulations contained in Chapter 18.83 of the Municipal Code. Some of the parking reductions now allowed, however, could only be achieved in the PTOD where smaller average unit sizes are proposed and where parking and transportation management measures are included to encourage transit, walking, or bicycling (see question #14 below). *FAR = the ratio of allowable developed building square footage to lot size, e.g., a 1.0 allowable floor area ratio would allow 10,000 square feet of development on a 10,000 square foot lot. 8. What bonuses are allowed for increasing these allowances? State legislation requires that cities grant development standard bonuses for projects with significant amounts of below market rate (BMR) housing. Below market rate housing (BMR) bonuses have been included in the PTOD combining district to encourage more affordable units and so the City can specify and cap the extent of bonuses that developers are allowed to request in response to the existing State legislation. Without these limitations, applicants could potentially propose extensive density increases and incentives on top of the maximum development ~llowances. The PTOD combining district allows for bonuses to be considered for projects that )rovide BMR units in excess of the existing city BMR requirements (generally 15% of the total 1nits). Bonuses in height (up to 50 feet maximum), floor area (up to 1.5 FAR), and density (up to 50 units per acre) may be allowed proportional to the additional percentage of BMR units orovided. In order to achieve a 1.5 FAR and 50 foot height, for example, the standards would require that at least 65% of the units are affordable, according to City and State housing criteria. Return to to~ 9. What can be done now under existing standards? How will the PTOD zoning change the extent of allowable development on these sites? Existing development standards for zoning districts in the California Avenue area include residential densities of 30 - 40 units/acre (except that no residential is currently allowed in the GM district), heights ranging from 35 - 50 feet, floor area ratios from 0.5 - 2.0, and daylight plane requirements when adjacent to low density residential districts. Changes to the existing standards are minimal in most instances, particularly in areas now zoned RM-40 (multi-family) or CC(2) (community commercial), each of which is prevalent within the PTOD area and which have development standards similar or more intense than those proposed for the PTOD overlay. The most significant areas of potential change are likely to be those now zoned General Manufacturing (GM), particularly along Park Blvd. These areas would now allow residential zoning if a PTOD rezoning is approved, though the density, height and FAR would be similar to other multi-family residential in the area. A table comparing development standards for existing zone districts with the proposed PTOD standards is attached. 10. Will everyone build to the PTOD maximum standards? Most future development, particularly in the RM-40 and CC(2) zoned areas, will likely use the ~zoning, as the PTOD standards do not provide for more density, FAR, or height than what is already permitted under existing zoning. Property owners wishing to maintain or build non-residential uses only (research and development, office, for example) must do so under the httD ://v,~vw.citv o fpaloalto, or£/plannin£-community/FAq).html 5/3/2 0 0 6 FAQ Page 5 of 7 existing zoning, as the PTOD zoning is only for residential, mixed use, and hotel uses. The zoning will likely be most advantageous to properties now zoned General Manufacturing (GM), where a residential or mixed-use project is desired. For sites zoned RM-30 (30 units per acre), there is potential for some higher density or mixed use, which might particularly apply to the Fry’s site. The zoning might also be useful for an affordable housing project, though that is likely to be rare. Estimates of the extent to which the PTOD zoning will be used would be highly speculative at this point. Return to top_ 11. I currently walk and bike to California Avenue. How will the PTOD zoning create a more pleasant experience for me when I go to California Avenue or to Caltrain? The proposed PTOD design criteria largely focuses on requiring developments to enhance the pedestrian, and bicycle facilities related to their development, including provisions for wider sidewalks, landscaping, pedestrian amenities (lighting, street furniture, etc.), additional streetscape design elements (bulbouts and other traffic calming devices, enhanced crossing facilities, etc.), and pedestrian scale entrances, as well as to consider contextual connections to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Improvements adjacent to roadways would not generally impact the existing roadway width and instead would be required through dedication of easements on private property. Additionally, designating this area as a pedestrian and transit area could foster both private and public investment into pedestrian, bicycle, and transit ~mprovements in the area. The new developments may also justify additional traffic control and calming measures such as new signalized intersections and lighted pedestrian crossings. The deployment of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures will be expected of new developments within the PTOD area. 12. How will the PTOD regulations affect businesses on California Avenue and in the rest of the PTOD area? Owners of businesses on Califomia Avenue, like any other property owner or business, are not required to use the PTOD regulations and in many cases are likely not to find the regulations advantageous. In other areas of the PTOD, particularly south of Page Mill Road / Oregon Expressway, however, businesses may find opportunities to add a residential component or property owners may prefer to replace marginal businesses with a residential or mixed-use project. The implementation of the PTOD provisions, however, should increase the number of residents in the area and thereby provide additional customers to help bolster retail and service businesses on Califomia Avenue. ~etur_0 t~._kqp 13. What regulations are being proposed to ensure that developments are compatible with our neighborhoods? The boundaries of the PTOD have been drawn to exclude almost all low density residential neighborhoods in the vicinity from the zoning area. In most cases, a row of existing uses is retained to provide a buffer between the PTOD uses and the homes. Design criteria within the PTOD include daylight planes for setbacks and privacy when any use is proposed adjacent to R- 1 or R-2 residential uses. For residences east of the railroad tracks and Alma Street, design criteria would require a daylight plane and setbacks, building articulation, and protection of view corridors to minimize the massing of structures built adjacent to the railroad tracks. t4. What studies have been done that demonstrate that this type of development enhances transit use and pedestrian activity? Recent studies are available on the City’s zoning website at www.cityofpalotalto.org/planning- http ://www. city o fpalo alto. org/planning- community/FAQ.html 5/3/2006 FAQ Page 6 of 7 community/ptod.html. One of these studies (Nelson/Nygaard 2005) outlines the elements for success of transit oriented development zones, and concludes that housing density and mixed use are vital factors, as well as the availability of transit. Another study (Lund, Cervero, and Wilson 2005) evaluated several rail transit stations in California, including Palo Alto’s University Avenue Caltrain station, and determined that providing increased housing density was a critical element of successful transit-oriented development, and that households in proximity to transit used transit at a rate three (3) times the rate used by office workers near transit. A third study (Nelson/Nygaard 2004) analyzed vehicle ownership per household throughout Palo Alto and indicated that the lowest vehicle ownership in Palo Alto is for households in the Census tracts around the California Avenue and University Avenue Caltrain stations, where transit is available and a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented environment exists. The City follows the County’s Congestion Management Program which allows for a 3% trip reduction of an office development located within 2000 feet of a Caltrain station, while it allows a 9% trip reduction (i.e. three times the value) of a residential development within the 2000 feet walking distance of the station. Return to top 15. Are there requirements to facilitate the use of pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes? The proposed PTOD district would require that, for any request for parking reductions, an applicant would need to provide for a series of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures geared towards facilitating use of other modes of transit. These measures may include provision of transit passes, loaner or rented bicycles, car sharing, leasing parking separate from the unit rent or sales price, shuttle services, or similar techniques. Design requirements are also included that are intended to provide more pedestrian-friendly design on area streets. 16. Does the decreased ridership at the California Avenue Caltrain station jeopardize the success of the PTOD? No. The success of the PTOD is closely tied not only to Caltrain, but also to linkages to Cafifomia Avenue and surrounding areas to minimize vehicle trips, even if transit is not the preferred mode. The PTOD zoning, however, is expected to enhance the potential for increasing ridership at the California Avenue station by increasing the number of available households that could use the train. Caltrain level of service is directly tied to ridership numbers, so an increase in ridership at the California Avenue station could justify increased service. Additionally, Caltrain and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) are planning improvements at the Califomia Avenue station that will provide for improved service by allowing for two trains to be stopped at the station at one time. Some of those improvements will also enhance safety for pedestrians’ crossings of the tracks. Return to top 17. How will PTOD projects impact traffic and parking in the area? Staff believes that the PTOD zoning will improve traffic and parking in the area by a) reducing the need for vehicle use by enhancing access to the train and to local services; b) requiring adequate 3arking for projects so that spillover on adjacent streets does not result, and c) spreading the 3eak hours impact from residential development that would otherwise be developed :ommercially. Existing traffic calming measures to minimize traffic impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to the PTOD area will remain and additional measures will be considered if appropriate. 18. Will new development along the railroad tracks increase the noise reflection in the neighborhoods east of Alma Street? No. The City commissioned a study by a local noise expert (EIP 2006), who measured noise in areas east of the railroad tracks adjacent to buildings that might reflect railroad noise and http ://ww~v. c ity o fpaloalto.org/plannin g-community/FAQ.html 5/3/2006 FAQ Page 7 of 7 adjacent to vacant areas without buildings. The noise measurements showed no detectable difference in the noise level. The consultant also recommended measures for design of buildings (materials, building articulation, window treatments) that are to be incorporated into the design criteria of the ordinance, and that will further minimize the noise impacts on and off the site. The study noted that the peak hour noise impacts in the area are generated primarily by vehicle traffic on Alma, not by the train. The train noise is more significant in off-peak hours, but reflection from buildings appears to be negligible. Return to to_~ 19. How will schools be impacted by the additional students generated by new housing in the PTOD area? The new housing would incrementally increase demand on area schools. The degree of impact is uncertain, however, because a) much of the area already allows housing, and b) the types of housing proposed (generally apartments and condominiums) typically generate a low level of students (Cupertino 2006). Additionally, new development must pay school impact fees to help offset costs of school construction, and the increased property taxes will help provide additional operating revenues for the school district. The City intends to reevaluate the impact of residential development on the local schools as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, and expects to commission a study of school impacts as one of the initial tasks in that effort. 20. Will there be public parks for new residents, especially children, to use? The PTOD zoning will require private and common open space (courtyards, balconies, etc.) for residents, but not for the public. On large sites of more than a few acres, the City may require area to be set aside for public parkland, but otherwise imposes park impact fees to fund future acquisition of parkland and improvements to parks. There is one small park within the PTOD area, and several small parks within walking distance of the PTOD area. In addition, the Mayfield soccer co.m, plex will soon begin construction within walking distance of the area. Stanford University s facilities and open space are also nearby. Studies of the demography of the type of residential development proposed (generally apartments and condominiums) again generally show that these units include relatively few children, so that the need for playfields or tot lots is not likely to be substantial. However, because each project will be required to have open space ~rovisions such as a courtyard or green, a quality living environment will be ensured. Return to top Copyright © 2001, City of Palo Alto. Please read our This page was last reviewed: April 27, 2006 http ://www.cityo fpaloalto.org/planning-community/FAQ.html 5/3/2006 Attachment G Attachment H 0 Attachment ! ............EIP Attachment J Evaluation of the Potential for Train Noise Reflection near the California Avenue Caltrain Station in Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto is considering the establishment of a new overlay zoning district, the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD), in an area surrounding the California Avenue Caltrain station west of the Caltrain tracks. Community comments that have been received on this project include concerns about the potential for increased train noise in the residential neighborhood east of the station due to reflection from tall buildings proposed for two of the track-side parcels. Existing zoning on these parcels allows a 50-foot maximum building height, though PTOD provisions could drop the maximum height to 40 feet. Most of the existing buildings near and south of the California Avenue station are 20 to 35 feet high, though the Danger Building near Olive Avenue is 46 feet high. Study Approach EIP Associates was asked by the Palo Alto Planning Department to evaluate the potential for increased train noise reflection from the taller proposed buildings in the PTOD. Because of the presence of a number of existing structures west of the Caltrain tracks, near to and south of the California Avenue station, the first priority was to determine the magnitude of any existing train noise reflection effects. Also, Cattrain operations were not the only source of noise in the area. Alma Street, which parallels the Caltrain tracks east of the station, seemed likely to have a significant effect on local noise levels in the residential areas east of Alma Street. It was determined that measurements should be taken at two pairs of locations: the first pair, in locations west of the Caltrain tracks, where traffic noise from Alma Street was expected to be secondary to train noise; the second pair, east of the Caltrain tracks, in the east sidewalk of Alma Street, closer to the residential neighborhoods concerned about train noise and likely to provide data on the joint influence of train and traffic noise there. One location from each pair was sited near an existing building that had the potential to produce significant noise reflection (in this case, Pato Alto Central, a multi-story residentia! structure with a frontage of several hundred feet a!ong the entire length of the California Avenue station parking lot); the other location was chosen far from any buildings that could produce significant reflection. After determining the magnitude of train noise reflection from existing buildings, the likelihood of enhanced train noise reflection with implementation of the PTOD would be addressed by relating what is known about noise reduction/enhancement effects to what is known about plans for proposed buildings in the area. Data Regarding Reflected Train Noise from Existing Structures After a preliminary survey of the California Avenue station vicinity on February 24, 2006, four key locations were chosen for noise measurements, as shown in Figure 1. Short-term measurements (i.e., 10-15 minutes duration) were made at these locations on March 2 and March 8, 2006. Two noise measurements were taken west of the Caltrain tracks: the first at Location #1 in the parking lot of the California Avenue Caltrain station about 70 feet from the track centerline; the second at Location #2 equally close to the tracks but several hundred feet south of the station. Noise levels at each location were recorded over periods that included two train operations. Data from Location #1 shows the signatures of train idling at the station (see Figure 2; two broad, flat peaks, each 2 to 3 minutes in duration, centered at 14:27 and 14:36), while data from Location #2 shows the signatures of train pass-bys with no idling (see Figure 3; two narrow, sharp peaks, 10 to 20 seconds duration, centered at 15:32 and 15:33). Another series of noise measurements were taken east of the Caltrain tracks: two measurements at Location #3 near Alma Street across from the California Avenue Caltrain station (and Location #1), one during the early morning, the other during the morning commute peak; another three measurements at Location #4 near Alma Street but further south of the station (across from Location #2), one each during the early morning, the morning commute peak, and after the morning commute peak. At Location #3, data from the early morning measurement period clearly shows the signature of train idling at the station (see Figure 4; one broad, flat peak, about 2 minutes in duration, centered at about 5:32), while the signature is much less obvious in data from the morning commute peak (see Figure 5; for two train operations, noise from the first, a broad peak about 1 minute in duration beginning just before 8:31, is somewhat distinguishable, but noise from the second, a train arrival noted at about 8:33, is largely obscured by motor vehicle traffic noise). At Location #4, noise from one train operation during the early morning measurement period is somewhat distinguishable (see Figure 6; a narrow, sharp peak, 10 seconds duration, centered just after 4:55, compared with the many narrower, lower motor vehicle peaks), but the noise signatures of train operations during the morning commute peak (see Figure 7; train arrival was noted after 8:09) and post peak (see Figure 8, train arrivals was noted at about 10:06 and 10:07) are indistinguishable from motor vehicle traffic noise. The measurement data from all seven noise measurements at the four locations are summarized in Table 1, including Leq, (i.e., average noise intensity), standard deviation (i.e., a measure of the variability of the instantaneous noise intensity), Lmin/Lmax (i.e., minimum!maximum instantaneous noise level), and, in the last row, an estimate Of Ldn (i.e., the average noise intensity over a 24-hour period with 10 dB ~°penalty" added to the noise intensity measured during 10 PM and 7 AM, when people are more sensitive to noise intrusion) at Location #4. All these parameters are specified in decibels (dBs), the common unit of noise intensity. Since the duration of train operations within each measurement period was much less than the duration of the measurement, a further segregation and analysis of the measurement data was performed to distinguish the noise levels produced when train and motor vehicle operations occur concurrently from noise levels produced only by motor vehicles. Table 2 shows the Leq, standard deviation, Lmin and Lmax for selected data sets at the four measurement locations. Table 1 - Palo Alto Noise Measurement Data Noise Measurement Location/Time #1 West of Caltrain tracks; parking lot of California Avenue Caltrain Station. Thursday, March 2, 2006, between 14:26 and 14:43. West of Caltrain tracks; end of Page Mill Road. Thursday, March 2, 2006, between 15:24 and 15:40. #2 #3 #4 Influential Noise Sources East of Caltrain tracks; east sidewalk along Alma Street, across from Station and measurement location #1. Wednesday, March 8, 2006, Between 5:25 and 5:40 (Early AM) Between 8:25 and 8:35 (AM Peak) East of Caltrain tracks; east sidewalk along Alma Street, near Colorado Avenue, across from measurement location #2. Wednesday, March 8, 2006. Between 4:50 and 5:!0 (Early AM) Primary: Caltrain operations (two; one at 14:27, another at 14:36) with pauses at the station (each about 2 minutes). Secondary: Traffic on Alma Street; very few vehicle operations in parking lot. ~: Caltrain operations (two; one at 13:32, another at 15:33) with no pauses at this measurement location. Secondary: Traffic on Alma Street; no vehicle operations on Page Mill Road. Primary: Traffic on Alma Street. Secondary: Caltrain operations (one at 5:32) with pause at the station (about 2 minutes). Primary: Traffic on Alma Street. Secondary: Caltrain operations (two; one at 14:27, another at 14:36) with pauses at the station (each about 2 minutes). Primary-: Traffic on Alma Street. Secondary: Caltrain operations (one at 4:55) with no pause opposite the measurement location. Noise Level Statistics (dB) Leq Standard Deviation Lmax 74.4 10.2 48.8/ 84.4 70.5 5.5 52.3/ 88.7 68.3 9.7 45.7/ 81.2 77.5 4.4 62.7/ 85.0 66.5 8.7 43.8/ 82.8 Between 8:05 and 8:15 Primary_: Traffic on Alma Street.79.3 4.3 64.2/ (AM Peak)Secondary: Caltrain operations (one at 86.6 8:09) with no pause opposite the measurement location. Between 10:00 and 10:15 Primary_: Traffic on Alma Street.76.6 6.5 57.6/ (AM Off-Peak)Secondary: Caltrain operations (one at 85.4 10:07) with no pause opposite the measurement location. La. (Estimate)Using the 3 short-term measurements 75.0 above Noise measurements were made in the City of Palo Alto at the locations shown in Figure 1 on March 2 and March 8, 2006. Measurement periods were 10-15 minutes in duration. L~q is the average noise intensity during a given measurement period; the Standard Deviation is a measure of the variability of the instantaneous noise intensity during a given measurement period, /Lmax is the minimum/maximum instantaneous noise level during a given measurement period; Lan is the average noise intensity over a 24-hour period with 10 dB added to the noise intensity measured during 10 PM and 7 AM. Source:EIP Associates, 2006 Table 2 - Palo Alto Noise Measurement Data Separated into Train+Traffic and Traffic-Only Categories Noise Measurement Location/Time #1 West of Caltrain tracks; parking lot of California Avenue Caltrain Station. Thursday, March 2, 2006, between 14:26 and 14:43. Portion of Data Used for Noise Level Statistics During Caltrain operations, includes traffic on Alma Street Only traffic on Alma Street; very few vehicle operations in parking lot. Noise Level Statistics (dB) Leq Standard Lmi./ Deviation Lma~ 79.4 8.3 56.8/ 84.4 58.8 3.2 48.8/ 75.2 #2 West of Caltrain tracks; end of During Caltrain operations, includes traffic 80.6 9.1 60.9/ Page Mill Road.on Alma Street 88.7 Thursday, March 2, 2006, between 15:24 and 15:40.Only traffic on Alma Street; no vehicle operations on Page Mill Road. 58.6 2.2 52.3/ 65.8 #3 East of Caltrain tracks; east During Caltrain operations, includes traffic 73.1 7.2 50.8/ sidewalk along Alma Street,on Alma Street.81.2 across from Station and measurement location #1. Wednesday, March 8, 2006, between 5:25 and 5:40 Only traffic on Alma Street.65.3 8.0 45.7/ 80.7 (Early AM) #4 East of Caltrain tracks; east During Caltrain operations, includes traffic 76.5 8.4 58.1/ sidewalk along Alma Street,on Alma Street.82.8 near Colorado Avenue, across from measurement location #2). Wednesday, March 8, 2006, between 4:50 and 5:10 Only traffic on Alma Street.64.1 7.9 43.8/ 79.9 (Early AM) Noise measurements were made in the City of Palo Alto at the locations shown in Figure 1 on March 2 and March 8, 2006. Measurement periods were 10-15 minutes in duration. L~q is the average noise intensity during a given measurement period; the Standard Deviation is a measure of the variability of the instantaneous noise intensity during a given measurement period, Lm,,/Lm~ is the minimum/maximum instantaneous noise level during a given measurement period. Source:EIP Associates, 2006 The aim of this procedure was to isolate the train noise effect when noise from other sources (i.e., motor vehicles) was relatively low, making any potential reflection effects more apparent, and then to compare the train noise levels at locations with and without a reflective surface present. The data sets selected were the mid-afternoon measurements at Locations #1 and #2, and the early morning measurements at Locations #3 and #4. Comparisons were made only between Location #1 and Location #2, and between Location #3 and Location #4. Had all the measurement locations been equally far from the Caltrain tracks, useful comparisons could have been made between Location #1 and Location #3, and between Location #2 and Location #4. But Locations #1 and #2 were closer to the tracks than Locations #3 and #4, and it would have been difficult to sort out the signature of any reflected noise from the higher noise levels that would be expected at locations closer to the tracks. For the purposes of this study, the most important conclusions that can be drawn from these data are as follows: The major difference in circumstances between Location #1 and Location #2 is the presence near Location # 1 of a surface potentially reflective of train noise (i.e., Palo Alto Central’s multi-story residential structures with a frontage of several hundred feet along the entire length of the California Avenue station parking lot); in contrast, there is a vacant lot behind Location #2. Comparing the Leq at Locations #1 and #2 during Caltrain operations (i.e., 79.4 dB and 80.6 dB, respectively, in Table 2), one finds a difference much less than the standard deviations of the Lens. Similar comparisons of the Leqs at Locations #3 and #4 yield similar results. This is strong evidence that there is no significant train noise reflection effect east or west of the Caltrain tracks in the vicinity of the California Avenue station. Graphs of the measurement data at Location #4 (see Figures 6, 7 and 8) show that, on the average, motor vehicle traffic noise has a much more influential effect there than tram noise, though the highest peak noise (Cmax) events occur during train operations. These measurements are characteristic of the worst-case noise exposure of the residential neighborhood east of the Caltrain tracks and Alma Street, suggesting that train operations may be the main focus of noise complaints from the residents, even though traffic is the main source of ambient noise. The Ldn at Location #4, 75 dB, is very high for a residential neighborhood. The US Environmental Protection Agency has found that an Ldn less than or equal to 55 dB is "requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety." The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan sets a guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas at an Ldn of 60 dB. Even with account taken of the additional drop-off in noise level due to the setback of homes facing Alma Street, and with the shielding afforded by the Alma Street homes to the residents on the west side of Emerson Street, it is likely that both groups of residents would still experience noise levels above 55 dB Ldn. The main contributor to this high noise exposure is motor vehicle traffic, not train operations. 6 Factors Influencing the Potential for Increased Train Noise Reflection from the Proposed Structures The following paragraphs briefly discuss the general factors that affect the intensity of noise as it travels outward from common sources. The specific sources considered are on-road motor vehicles and trains. Noise propagating outward from motor vehicles traveling on a road or from trains traveling on a track behaves as if the road or track were a "line source" of noise energy. The intensity of the noise, as commonly measured in decibels (dBs), decreases as it spreads out into space from this line source. In the absence of any absorption of the noise energy by the air or ground, or without additional attenuation caused by the interruption the direct noise propagation path (i.e., by walls, buildings, terrain features, etc.), the intensity of noise radiating from a long, straight line source would decrease by 3 dB with each doubling of distance from the source. For example, if the noise intensity at 50 feet from a road were 60 dB, it would decrease to 57 dB at 100 feet. When air/ground absorption and path interruption effects become important, as they would with increasing distance between noise source and receiver, the decrease of noise intensity with distance would be greater than 3 dB per distance doubling. In contrast to the effects mentioned above, reflection can increase noise intensity. For instance, if a wall were erected a!ong one side of a road or train track, the noise energy reflected by the wall would be additive to the noise energy reaching a receiver directly from the source. The size of the additive effect would depend on the characteristics of the wall and on the relative locations of the source, the wall and the receiver. If the wall were very long, very high, very flat, non- energy-absorptive and continuous, if the road or track were long and straight, and if there were no air/ground absorption and path interruption effects, the resultant noise intensity at a receiver location could be much as 3 dB higher than it would have been without the wal!. This maximum 3 dB noise enhancement would be experienced at locations far from the road or track; at closer points, the increase would be less. Although it may appear that noise reflection would always significantly worsen noise exposure, the following two qualifications should be kept in mind. First, the intensities of both direct and reflected noise decrease with distance from the source. Thus, the noise intensity at !000 feet from a road or railroad track would be much less than at 100 feet, with or without reflection from a wall. For example, if the noise intensity from a road or railway would be 60 dB at 100 feet, it would drop to at least 50 dB at 1000 feet and probably much lower when air/ground absorption and path interruption effects are important. At this low level of traffic/train noise intensity, the increment added by the introduction of a wal! near the source would not have a significant disruptive effect at the receiver location. Second, the greater the distance from the primary noise source, road or track, the greater the likelihood that other noise sources in the vicinity of the receiver would dominate the resultant local noise level. For example, if the noise intensity from a road or railway were 47 dB at some distant location, and if the noise intensity there from other closer sources is already 60 dB, the resultant noise level would only be a fraction of a dB higher than 60 dB (60.2 dB, to be exact). If a wall were added near the road or track, reflection from it would increase the automobile or train noise intensity at the same distant location to 50 dB. However, the resultant noise level would also be only a fraction of a dB higher (i.e., 60.4 dB) than it would have been without the wall. [Note: the resultant noise levels were obtained by applying the accepted rules of decibel addition to the primary and local noise intensity components] The following conclusions can be drawn from the application of these principles to plans for the future configuration of the PTOD: In order for the magnitude of train noise reflected from the future fagade of the PTOD to reach the full 3 dB per distance doubling maximum potential, a substantial length of the PTOD frontage facing the Caltrain tracks ~vould have to be built up to a substantial height and consist of a continuous, flat, non-energy-absorptive surface. It is our understanding that measures are proposed to prevent this occurring in the PTOD district. Most of the frontage will remain as it is now: structures of varying heights with varying vertical setbacks and varying horizontal gaps. The new track-side buildings, though they may be somewhat higher than the present average height, would not be as high as the existing Danger Building and they would have varying setbacks and articulation. The reflective potential of the future fagade is not likely to increase substantially. There is a substantial non-train-related noise effect from Alma Street traffic on the residential neighborhood east of the California Avenue station. Even the train noise reaching the homes facing Alma Street directly from train operations is secondary in comparison to the noise effects of motor vehicle traffic. The main source for worsening noise levels in the residential neighborhood east of Alma Street would be an increase in motor vehicle traffic on Alma Street. By providing new residential uses in areas close enough for those occupants to walk to the California Avenue station, implementation of the PTOD would lessen the growth of traffic volumes on and related noise levels along Alma Street. ¯Techniques to further reduce future noise increases/impacts in the PTOD could include a) b) c) The use of absorptive exterior building materials, such as wood, stucco, or coarse concrete, rather than finished concrete or polished stone; The installation of noise minimizing window treatments (i.e., smaller windows, thicker glass, double glazing, etc.). [Note: this measure would benefit the occupants of the buildings proposed for the PTOD by reducing interior noise from traffic and trains; it would have little effect on noise reflection]; The orientation of buildings and/or windows at angles not parallel to the Caltrain tracks or Alma Street, or with articulation that avoids sustained flat surfaces greater than 100 feet in length. slaq!oaO 0._! slaq!oaO LO L~ 0 ._l sleq!oe(] slaq!oaO 0 0 ..J slaq!oaO Z ~ (D LO 0 I,,.0 0 L.O 0")CO O0 ~~GO slaq!0e(] 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 Attachment K Addendum to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan EIR for the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development Combining District Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Palo Alto has prepared an Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed project, as described below, is considered minor under CEQA; it does not raise important new issues about the significance of impacts on the environment that were not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR and 2002 Housing Element Amendment Addendum. None of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring a subsequent EIR are applicable. Adoption of the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development combining district is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial and multifamily parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources that may also be located in or adjacent to this area. The combining district is intended to foster densities and facilities that: ¯support substantial use of public transportation; ¯encourage a variety of housing types, commercial retail and limited office uses; ¯encourage project design that achieves an overall context based development for the PTOD overlay area; ¯require streetscape design elements that attract pedestrians and bicyclists; ¯increase connectivity to surrounding existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and ¯implement the City’s Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan. The primary intent of the PTOD overlay is to encourage a mixture of housing types, including residential densities up to 40 units/acre and, to a lesser extent, to provide for mixed uses, particularly ground floor retail and services to support the residential population. The overlay would also accommodate residential and residential mixed use in the industrial zone, which is now prohibited by the recent zoning change, and would in some cases require a variety of housing types. The objective of the deve!opment criteria used for development and design review would allow the city to achieve an area wide pedestrian and transit oriented environment. Some of the basic tenets of the context based design criteria would include the following: ¯Pedestrian walkability: minimumsidewalk width, landscape, and streetscape of private development; lighting, street furniture, and how buildings respond to the street. ¯Frontage and build-to requirements. ¯Colmectivity/hierarchy of streets. ¯Open space (private/common): Performance-standard approach. ¯Compatibility of land uses, including new vs. existing. ¯Protection for low density residential and historic buildings. ¯Vary housing type with increased lot size. ¯Green building and sustainability. 1 January 5, 2006 Attachment K The increases under the PTOD zoning are not substantial compared to prior projections of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element. The primary difference in the zoning today and the PTOD zoning is a shift in emphasis to more residential and mixed use and less non-residential use, along with a focus on pedestrian-oriented design. Also, each site requesting the PTOD zoning will require full discretionary review by the Planning Commission and Council regarding the types and intensity of uses to be allowed. The Fry’s site (if proposed under the PTOD District), while not anticipated to be redeveloped within this planning period, would require discretionary review relative to allowable uses and density/FAR, as well as full environmental review, likely an EIR for this large site. Background City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan In 1998, the Palo Alto City Council adopted the City’s Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010, which, in Pro~am L-! 4 of the Land Use Element, directs City staff to "create and apply zoning standards for Transit Oriented Residential (TOR) housing." The Comprehensive Plan defines Transit Oriented Residential as follows: "Transit Oriented Residential: Allows higher density residential dwellings in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a walkable distance, approximately 2,000 feet, of the City’s two multi-modal transit stations. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation and especially the use of Caltrain. Design standards will be prepared to ensure that development successfully contributes to the street and minimizes potential negative impacts. Individual project performance standards will be developed, including parking, to ensure that a significant portion of the residents will use alternative modes of transportation. Net density will range up to 50 units per acre, with minimum densities to be considered during development of new City zoning regulations." The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan included the certification of the Comprehensive Plan EIR. tn 2002, the City adopted the Housing Element Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and prepared an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIN. The following discussion provides an overview of the Comprehensive Plan EIR and the Housing Element EIR Addendum environmental analysis, impacts and assumptions relevant to the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) area. The Comprehensive Plan identified a broader area around the PTOD study area, the Cal-Ventura area. The Plan describes the Cal-Ventura area as a mixed use area adjacent to the California Avenue business district, identifiable as a Multi-Neighborhood Center, with a diverse mix of land uses, including retail, service, office, and residential. The Cal-Ventura area was identified as an exceptional opportunity for new transit-oriented residential development due to its proximity to the Caltrain California Avenue train station. For the designation of the Transit Oriented Residential land use, the Comprehensive Plan recommended consideration of a 2,000 foot radius area surrounding the train station. 2 January 5, 2006 Attachment K The Comprehensive Plan Land use assumptions and growth projections account for population growth and anticipated development throughout the city. The Comprehensive Plan does not model full-build out conditions. Instead, projected development outlined in the Comprehensive Plan EIR is based on city,vide land use assumptions that were created by assigning reasonable levels of development allowable through the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update to each parcel in the City. These assumptions represent a level of development beyond what was forecasted by ABAG as likely to occur, and as such, represent a reasonable worst-case scenario for analysis in the EIR through the year 2010. Additionally the population growth projected for the Comprehensive Plan time period, as further discussed in the Population & Housing section below, has since been significantly decreased to represent current population growth rates. The total assumed growth in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan for the California Avenue-Ventura Area, an area slightly larger than the proposed PTOD boundary, was 309 dwelling units and 102,000 non-residential square feet. Planning approvals since 1998 for this area indicate 81 senior housing units have been approved and built in this overall area. Housing Element Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan In 2002, the City Council adopted the Housing Element Amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and with it an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR. The Housing Element Amendment was intended to encourage new housing opportunities, including reinforcing City policies supporting transit use and decreasing automobile use. The Housing Element Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan identified three Housing Opportunity Sites within or adjacent to the California Avenue study area. Each Housing Opportunity Site contains severa! parcels and all of the sites in this area are shown in Figure 1. For the p.urposes of CEQA review, the Housing Element Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR modeled the Housing Inventory Sites, including the ones within the California Avenue PTOD area, at higher densities (up to RM-40 densities) than allowed or existing under the previous zoning. The Housing Opportunity Sites within the PTOD study area boundaries included an additional 135 residential units to be developed by 2010 with a !oss of non- residential square feet (exact number was not reported). The senior housing development mentioned above was also located within a housing inventory site, just outside the California Avenue PTOD study area. The California Avenue PTOD combining district begins to implement Program H-1 of the Housing Element, "to allow for increased housing density immediately surrounding commercial area and particularly near transit centers", but it does not change the zoning, designation or entitle any transit oriented residential development to occur. Individual development applications would still need to rezone and undergo project and design review to apply the combining district. Zoning Ordinance Update for the Office/Research/Manufacturing Districts In October 2005, the City Council adopted an update to the Office/Research/Manufacturing zoning districts as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. As part of these revisions, the City Counci! prohibited residential development in the GM and GM(B) zoning districts and eliminated the (B) overlay. One of the adopted Housing Opportunity sites (with several parcels) was zoned GM(B), which, prior to the revisions, allowed residential density at up to 30 units per 3 January 5, 2006 Attachment K acre with a maximum 0.5 FAR. By removing residential as an allowable use in this district, the zoning for this Housing Inventory Site is now inconsistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. CEQA Analysis The following is a description of the proposed Pedestrian Transit Oriented Combining (PTOD) District area. As previously discussed, the adoption of the PTOD combining district does not in itself change any of the zoning or land use designations in the area, nor does it entitle any development to occur. Each individual development and application of the combining district, would require a change in the zoning and land use designation, as well as project and design review. Through this process further project-level CEQA analysis for the development would occur. The environmental analysis of the PTOD combining district, for the purposes of CEQA, analyzes general land use differences in this area between the existing zoning (as analyzed under the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan EIR and Housing Element EIR Addendum), and potential land use intensities to the year 2010 if the PTOD overlay is applied. This represents the net additional change to the study area above what was modeled for the area in the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element Amendment. Similar to the Comprehensive Plan methodology, the land use assumptions do not represent built-out conditions but do represent a reasonable level of development within the same time frame as the Comprehensive Plan EIR (to 2010) and as such, represent a reasonable scenario for this analysis. The level of realistic potential redevelopment for the area includes proposed or preliminary projects in the review process, as well as anticipated levels of redevelopment for each zoning district. Applying the California Avenue PTOD combining district will allow for residential development on the Housing Inventory Sites previously adopted with the Housing Element Amendment. To apply the combining district, or "floating overlay" zone, each development would require rezoning of the subject property and would be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council to determine appropriate uses and intensities of development. The Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment would subsequently or simultaneously conduct project and design review of the project. Each rezoning application would also be subject to review under CEQA to analyze the specific effects of the project. Project Setting Proposed Boundaries of the California Avenue PTOD Overlay Area Figure 1 shows the proposed boundaries of the California Avenue PTOD district. This boundary differs in a few key respects from the 2,000-foot radius around the train station, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: 1.The R-1 and other low-density uses are excluded, with the exception of the strip along Olive Avenue north of the Fry’s site. 4 January 5, 2006 Attachment K 2.The areas east of the railroad tracks are excluded due to the limited access to the train station. 3.The multi-family (RM-30) parcels just north of Cambridge Avenue would remain as transition areas from higher intensities to the adjacent R-1 and R-2 areas. 4. The first row of lots fronting on the eastside of E1 Camino Real are excluded, since they have an E1 Camino Real character and are not oriented toward the train station. Lots to the west of E1 Camino Real are also excluded, since they are limited in number and the most significant lots are already governed by the development agreement with Stanford. 5. The area is extended to the south to include any parcel with a portion of its site within 2,000 feet, and parcels across from Fry’s to the corner of Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue. This area has a direct connection to the train station (maximum 15 minutes walk) via Park Boulevard. Park Boulevard is a relatively pedestrian-friendly street that could be further enhanced through added design criteria. This boundary extension also allows the City to provide housing opportunities for key redevelopment sites, including the Housing opportunity sites and in the future, the Fry’s site. Implementation of the California Avenue PTOD Combining District The PTOD land use would be implemented through the establishment of the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, to be applied to parcels within the defined California Avenue PTOD area. Following the adoption of the California Avenue PTOD combining district, owners of individual parcels within the defined area who wish to redevelop can choose to 1) develop under the existing zoning; or 2) change their zoning to add the PTOD combining district and proceed under the related regulations. A change in zoning to apply the PTOD combining district standards would follow the city’s defined rezoning process for a parcel, requiring review by the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission and approval by the City Council. Major projects throughout the City are also subject to design review by the Architectural Review Board, and projects within the PTOD Combining District would be subject to additional design review criteria to address the pedestrian and transit oriented nature of the area. 5 January 5, 2006 / Attachment K The environmental impacts of the adoption of the PTOD Combining District were previously addressed by the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Final EIR, which was adopted by the City in July 1998, and the Housing Element Addendum to the EIR, which was adopted by the City Council in 2002. Specifically, the followingimpacts were reviewed and found to be adequately considered by the Comprehensive Plan EIR and Housing Element Addendum: Land Use & Planning Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Population & Housing Transportation & Traffic Aesthetics Cultural Resources Hydrology & Water Quality Public Services Utilities & Service Systems Air Quality Geology & Soils Noise Recreation Elements that have been determined to clearly have no impact such as Agricultural P~esources and Mineral Resources are not further discussed here. The attached environmental analysis completed for this project evaluates and compares each of the above mentioned categories as discussed in the Comprehensive EIR and Housing Element Addendum to the EIR in conjunction with the California Avenue PTOD Land Use amendment. Land Use & Planning The primary intent of the PTOD overlay (or combining district) is to encourage a mixture of housing types, including up to RM-40 density developments (consistent with the Housing Element Amendment) and, to a lesser extent, to provide for mixed uses, particularly ground floor retai! and services to support the residential population and to create through design criteria a more pedestrian/transit oriented environment. These uses are intended primarily for the multifamily, industrial, and commercial parcels within the defined California Avenue PTOD study area. The overlay zone would allow mixed use development, which focuses mainly on the residentia!-above-retail type of development, but could include some office use. The non- residential portion within a mixed use development is limited with a floor area cap (0.35) for non-residential. The PTOD overlay also includes design criteria to be utilized in the City’s design review process to encourage a high quality pedestrian-oriented street and transit environment within the area. The following is a general discussion of the proposed changes and how they may affect each type of land use within the area. As previously discussed, zones within the area include commercial (CN and CS), manufacturing/industrial (GM), multifamily (RM-30 and RM-40), public facilities (PF), single family residential (R-l), and planned community (PC) districts. The adoption of the PTOD combining district does not in itself change any of the zoning or land use designations in the area, nor does it entitle any development to occur. Each individual development and application of the combining district, would require a change in the zoning and land use designation, as well as project and design review. Commercial Land uses all along California Avenue are commercial in nature and existing zoning allows for a higher floor area/square footage of development for commercial or mixed use developments than would be allowed under the proposed PTOD combining district. It is not anticipated that 7 January 5, 2006 Attachment K properties in the commercial zones would generally add the PTOD combining district, as the application would actually reduce the amount of floor area allowed on a site. The one exception to this in the study area is one parcel (2515 ECR) with Neighborhood Commercial zoning which could develop a mixed-use project under the PTOD District, and therefore this parcel was inctuded in the land use assumptions for potential redevelopment. Additional small commercial space as part of an overall mixed use project may be added to the area. Some uses, when part of a mixed use project adjacent to an existing manufacturing/industrial use may create some land use conflicts, or increased complaints about existing industrial uses in the PTOD combining district study area. Individual development projects would need to address compatibility between proposed and existing uses. A hotel use is also being considered for the PTOD combining district area. Such a development would be subject to its own project level development review and related environmental analysis. Manufacturing/Industrial As discussed above, the General Manufacturing (GM) parcels within the area include two designated as Housing Inventory sites in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The recent City Council revisions to the GM district, however, prohibit all residential uses in the zone. The Housing Inventory Sites within the GM district were previously analyzed under the Housing Element Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR, and likely would be first to redevelop into multifamily projects upon the adoption of the PTOD Combining District. Other GM sites that were not designated as Housing Inventory Sites in this area, could redevelop as residential or as mixed use developments by applying the PTOD combining district, with potential increases in residential units but likely reductions in potential non-residential square footage. As discussed in the Housing Element Amendment Addendum, placing housing on industrial sites, near other industrial sites creates some land use conflicts where there may be an increase in complaints related to the adjacent non-residential use. Additiona!ly, some land uses such as daycares near an industrial use would be required to take additional safety measures in building and program development. Compatibility and potential land use conflicts with individual projects is addressed in the City’s project and design review process. Multifamily The existing multifamily residential (RM) zoning districts within the California Avenue PTOD study area range in allowable densities from 30 to 40 dwelling units per acre. The other Housing Inventory Site parcel is included in these multifamily zones. See Figure 1 for the location of these zones. RM-40 parcels (at up to 40 units per acre) would likely not redevelop to increase density (as the PTOD maximums without state-dictated bonuses would similarly allow only 40 units/acre), but could consider a mixed use development. Such an application of mixed use on an RM-zoned site would decrease the residential density and increase the non-residential square footage on the site. RM-30 zoned parcels (30 units per acre) could apply for the PTOD Combining District to potentially increase the overall density (to 40 units per acre) or to propose a mixed use development. One of the larger Comprehensive Plan designated multifamily sites in the area is the existing Fry’s retail site. This site is amortized for the existing retail/office use until 2019, although the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is for multifamily development. Although the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as multifamily, the likely redevelopment considering the amortization date is not within the timeframe of the 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Ongoing long-range planning does consider this as future development site, but not within the timeframe of the Comprehensive Plan. The PTOD overlay and related design criteria have been created with the potential redevelopment of this site in mind (for 8 January 5, 2006 Attachment K connectivity to the site, and to allow potential for mixed use development on this site), so the preliminary planning could begin to occur. As discussed in the Manufacturing/Industrial section above, locating multifamily adjacent to existing industrial uses, may create some land use conflicts resulting in increased complaints about the existing industrial uses. Multifamily projects seeking to redevelop on such parcels would need to address in the project and design review process ways to make the uses more compatible with each other. A new land use type that is being considered with defined development standards are Live/Work units. Public Facilities Public Facilities in the area include City and County facilities such as City-owned parking lots, the County Courthouse and the County Mental Health facility. Most of these uses are not anticipated to change with the potential application of the PTOD combining district. An exception would be the potential redevelopment of the City parking lots to include housing or mixed use (while still providing public parking on-site). The Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element both include programs to encourage the development of housing on parking lots. Because most of the parking tots are within the parking assessment district, any redevelopment of a city parking lot would require such a development to provide for additional parking and replace existing parking either on-site or at another nearby parking lot. Single Family Residential The PTOD boundary area cannot be applied to single family or low density residential zoning districts. There is a row of single family residential homes within the California Avenue PTOD study area, along Olive Avenue Such R-1 (Single Family Residential)parcels could consider applying the Village Residential or cottage cluster land use type, xvhen developed in the Zoning Ordinance Update. Village Residential uses may, according to the Comprehensive Plan, allow densities up to 20 units/acre, but on single family lots these densities would more likely replicate existing cottage cluster development densities at 8 - ! 5 units per acre. Development to a Village Residential use here would require consolidation of several existing lots, which could be difficult given the different property ownerships. The Comprehensive Plan considered a moderate increase in single family units along this street, which has not occurred to date. As part of the land use assumptions for this analysis, Village Residential development was also considered where common ownership of contiguous parcels occurred. Planned Community Planned Community zoning districts within the City of Palo Alto are zoned specific to a certain development, and include a component (public spaces, affordable housing, etc.) defined as a "public benefit." Since each of these zones is specific to the approved development, it is not anticipated that the existing PC developments would apply the PTOD Combining District. Changes to Planned Community zones throughout the city would require zoning change review process similar to that required for application of the PTOD combining district. Summary of Land Use Changes The 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan EIR projected 309 dwelling units and 102,000 non- residential square footage in the Cal-Ventura area. The 2002 Housing Element Amendment, within the proposed California Avenue PTOD study area proposed changing the zoning for several parcels in two Housing Opportunity Sites, adding 135 additional residential units to this area. The California Avenue Pedestrian Oriented Development combining district project an 9 January 5, 2006 Attachment K additional (above Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element projections) 67 - 72 residential units could be added, and non-residential square footage reduced from previous projections. Table 1: Existing Comprehensive Plan & Housin~ 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan growth for the Cal-Ventura Area: Housing Element Amendment within the California Avenue PTOD combining district: Comp Plan & Housing Element Total Element Amendment Projected Growth (to 2010) +309 dwelling units and + 102,000 non-residential square feet. + 135 dwelling units +444 dwelling units & +102,000 non-res sf Cal Ave PTOD (to 2010) Potential Land Use Development Summary Table +44 to +48 dwelling units & -11,555 to -25,555 GM(B) zones not on Housing Inventory nonresidential sf -33 dwelling units & -41469 nonres sf (with 2 developments occurring development of Page Mill ROW will not occur & one proposed project is a GM(B) zones on Housing Inventory mixed use project) PF +34 dwelling units & +18,697 +4 to +5 dwelling units & +5,271 (although some existing RM-30 use may be nonres) No density change (even though units are lost with mixed RM-40 use development) & +29,910 sfnon-res CN + 12 d~velling units & - 1,114 sf non-res R-1 (If VR applied)+6 dwelling units Potential Incremental Change (over Comp Plan and Housing Element) for California +67 to +72 dwelling units; -260 to -14,260 sf non- Avenue PTOD residential Note: Methodology for density estimates is consistent with that used for the Housing Element Amendment. A larger number of units, particularly with adopted state legislation, may be approved on any site when consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, building and state law. ¯As shown in Table 1 above, the incremental increase in residential units in the California Avenue PTOD study area (above the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element Amendment projections), is 67 - 72 residential units, with an overall loss on non-residential development of 200 - 14,260 square feet. ¯This represents a 16% increase in residential units relative to the Comprehensive Plan EIR & Housing Element Addendum for the Cal-Ventura area. ¯PTOD combining district could introduce residential/non-residential mixed use developments within the California Avenue PTOD study area. ¯Additional commercial development in the area would be limited to that allowed in a mixed use development, and overall there will be an incremental decrease in non-residential square footage. Any new commercial, retail or office square footage would be limited in size and supplemental to the existing California Avenue commercial. The PTOD combining district, where applied, is not intended to compete with the existing California Avenue commercial center. 10 January 5, 2006 Attachment K ¯As discussed in the Housing Element Addendum, some land use conflicts may occur between multifamily and to a lesser extent commercial uses (in mixed use projects) and the existing industrial land uses along Park Boulevard. ¯The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of housing on parking lots. The City has several public parking lots in the area that if the existing parking could be replaced may accommodate residential or mixed use development. ¯Single family residential zoning districts, even within the PTOD combining district area may not apply the combining district. Single family parcels may, however, consider a Village Residential, or cottage cluster type development when that land use is defined through the Zoning Ordinance Update. ¯The primary difference in the zoning today and the PTOD zoning is a shift in emphasis to more mixture of housing types and neighborhood serving mixed use with a focus on pedestrian-oriented design. Aesthetics As discussed in the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Palo Alto is committed to the preservation of its historic heritage, visual and aesthetic qualities including preservation of protected trees and committed to design review on a majority of projects throughout the city. The City has an Architectural Review Board and Historic Resource Board that conducts design review for a!l new commercial, mixed use and multifamily residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the view of California Avenue from the train station (along California Avenue to E! Camino) is identified as a view corridor. As previously discussed, the commercial land use around California Avenue is not anticipated to change with this project as the existing zoning allows more development and height than if the combining district was applied. Additionally the project focuses primarily on residential and mixed use development in the study area and does not change the existing road right-of way widths or requirements. Therefore, the view down California Avenue is not anticipated to change beyond that allowed under the existing zoning. The PTOD study area contains parcels that are developed with urban uses and a few vacant parcels surrounded by existing urban development. The area is relatively flat land and does not encroach on any prominent vistas or views. The scale of development within the study area would be consistent with existing land uses and zoning allowances in the area. The proposed 40’ maximum building height for the California Avenue PTOD combining district is consistent with the allowable building heights of underlying districts (GM = 50’; RM-30 = 35’; RM-40 = 40’; CC = 50’; CC(2) = 37’). The light and glare generated by residential or mixed use development is comparable to existing land use development in the area. The PTOD would provide for multifamily housing in the GM zone which is located adjacent to the Caltrain railroad line. The PTOD zoning includes design development criteria which requires design, with articulation, setbacks, and material that would address appropriate design and minimize sound reflection to neighboring properties adjacent to the railroad. If individual properties within the California Avenue PTOD study area change their zoning to apply the combining district occurs in the study area, any proposed redevelopment would be 11 January 5, 2006 Attachment K subject to review by the ARB, including additional pedestrian!transit related findings that are being adopted with this new land use. Comprehensive Plan Policies that address potential visual impacts for land use include L-4, L-5, L-11, L-18, L-20, L-21, L-29, L-30, L-31, L-36, L-49, L-51, L-52, L-60, L-63, L-69, and L-73. Development of parcels in the area are subject to CEQA themselves and similarly must show their consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Palo Alto design review standards and the city’s tree protection ordinance which all contribute to the visual character of the city. Compatibility of redevelopment in the city and this area is ensured through the application of existing land use and design policies, such as those noted above; the development standards in the existing code and proposed chapter; and the development and architectural review processes within the City. Air Quality The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for project review of potential air quality impacts. BAAQMD is the responsible agency for regulating and providing guidance to jurisdictions for air quality and pollutants of concern. Many pollutants of concern such as carbon monoxide and ozone are regulated on a region-wide basis. The BAAQMD thresholds for projects look at 1) a project’s direct contribution to pollutants of concern (those in non-attainment) to the region (most often through additional vehicle trips), 2) where project traffic causes intersections with D or worse to decline further, and 3) for projects that directly add 100 or more vehicle trips, whether those additional vehicle trips cause significant shifts in traffic patterns. The PTOD combining district does not in itself change land use designations, rezone any land or entitle any development. Development on parcels in the area would still require project level traffic review, and if wanting to apply the Combining district a rezoning and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site which would include review by the Planning & Transportation Commission and approval by City Council. When redevelopment is proposed on any parcels in the city, analysis, for the BAAQMD thresholds is addressed. As further discussed in the Population and Housing section the ABAG population growth assumptions utilized for the Comprehensive Plan EI:R have since been updated by ABAG and indicate far less population growth than previously anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. Additionally, a majority of the anticipated residential growth for this specific area has not occurred to date. Therefore, the incremental residential growth change with the potential application of the California Avenue PTOD combining district is well within growth parameters (ABAG projections) modeled for the Comprehensive Plan EIR. The implementation of the PTOD combining district boundaries near California Avenue is therefore consistent with the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan which is still the overarching BAAQMD air quality plan for the region. The BAAQMD has added addition ozone restrictions on a regional level to encourage alternative modes of transportation, and continue to modernize the mix of vehicles within the Bay Area. The City also has Comprehensive Plan policies related to encouraging alternative transportation, one of which is increasing residential densities near the two commuter rail stations. The City shall continue to encourage alternative transportation 12 January 5, 2006 Attachment K policies in the Comprehensive Plan and reduce mobile source emissions including for developments that are reviewed near the transit stations. Defining the California Avenue PTOD combining district area will not directly result in a significant impact in relation to toxic air contaminants or odors. Similar to the discussion in the Housing Element Amendment Addendum, sites developed as multifamily or residential mixed uses near industrial uses could potentially expose more people to potential sources of industrial type emissions. This could result in an increase in complaints regarding odors or emissions and in turn, result in future limitations being placed on remaining industrial uses. Developments will be subject to project and design review for the application of the PTOD combining district which will address compatibility with surrounding land uses. Biological Resources The existing land use in the PTOD study area is urban in nature, and all projects would be subject to the City’s review process for trees and creeks. Therefore, no impact would occur on species, riparian, or wetland habitat. The City has a tree protection ordinance and related requirements to address the protection of city street trees, and protected trees such as Heritage trees, Coast Live Oak, Coastal Redwoods, or designated trees on developments. Individual redevelopment projects throughout the city, including the study area are subject to determining what trees are located on or near their property and if any of the protected categories above apply, are required to add tree protection measures during construction and retain most, if not all, protected trees. The City’s project and design review process reviews proposed landscaping of new developments, including trees on- site. Individual developments rezoning to apply the PTOD combining district would be subject to additional design review criteria to address the pedestrian (and other alternative modes of transportation) facilities along public and private streets. Cultural & Archaeological Resources There are no kno~vn archaeological resources located in the proposed PTOD study area. The area, like most of the City of Palo Alto, is designated as a moderately sensitive archaeological area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The area consists of primarily urban uses with existing development which have previously disturbed the underlying ground with the existing development. In the event, however, that future individual development projects uncover any cultural, historic resource or human remains, standard County, state and tribal regulations would require construction activities be halted until the appropriate County, state, or tribal review can occtlr. There are also no Category I or II historic resources listed in the PTOD study area; however, there are some properties identified in the Dames & Moore report that have been identified as potentially eligible for the state or national list of historic resources. Many of these are located on California Avenue, where as discussed in the land use section, developments would not likely apply to change their zoning to the PTOD combining district. The Dames & Moore report assessments are preliminary, and only after each property has been thoroughly surveyed and researched can complete evaluations be made for eligibility to the nationa! or state lists. 13 January 5, 2006 Attachment K The PTOD overlay does not change zoning, land use designations or entitle any development to occur within the boundary areas; therefore it does not directly impact any cultural or archeological resources in the study area. Any redevelopment in the area would be subject to additional CEQA review. If a building found to be eligible for either the National or State Register is identified on or adjacent to any proposed development throughout the city, the following measures could be required (depending on the resource): Following the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with the Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating historic buildings per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3); or ¯Feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historic resource could be adopted through fully enforceable permit conditions, agreements, or other measures (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(4)). Geology and Soils The City of Palo Alto is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area and is subject to earthquakes as well as ground shaking potential ranging from "strong" to "very strong". The PTOD study area is not on or near any earthquake fault lines. The area is relatively flat and is not subject to, or near any area that may be subject to landslides, subsidence nor liquefaction zones. The area does not noted contain expansive soils, or soil that is otherwise unstable. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals and polices to address geology and geotechnical hazards including earthquakes, flooding and fire. Policies typically focus on emergency preparedness. The City also minimizes hazards through the strict enforcement of the seismic restrictions of the Uniform Building Code. Individual development projects are subject to project review which includes review for consistency with the Uniform Building Code by the Building Department. Significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur with the application of the California Avenue PTOD combining district boundaries. The area is urban in nature and largely covered by impervious surfaces. The Final Comprehensive Plan EIR indicates that soil erosion or loss of topsoil are adequately mitigated with Comprehensive Plan policies and goals such that expansive soils, liquefaction, subsidence, lateral spreading, or collapse will be avoided. Hazards & Hazardous Materials The California Avenue PTOD study area is primarily an urban area with a mix of multifamily, commercial, public, and industrial land uses. For hazards, the application of the combining district does not impact any of the existing evacuation routes, reselwoirs or fire stations in the area, nor increase flooding potential in the city. As the area is redeveloped, wastewater lines and connections through upgrade, can actually improve local storm drainage conditions. As discussed in the Housing Element Addendum, industrial sites that convert to housing or other uses may be exposed to any hazardous materials on adjacent industrial sites. The redevelopment sites may also contain historical or underlying hazardous materials. In general changing the development in an area from industrial to residential reduces the potential risk for hazardous material exposure in an area because new residential development would be required to meet 14 January 5, 2006 Attachment K current County and State hazardous materials regulations. The Comprehensive Plan contains many policies and programs to mitigate potential hazardous material users to prevent spillage/contamination. The City has permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage for hazardous materials, including verification that all applicable codes are met. Defining the combining district area does not zone, designate or entitle any development within the boundary areas to redevelop, therefore it does not directly impact any potential Hazardous Materials in the study area. Any redevelopment in the area would be subject to its own review that includes a full disclosure of past uses and inventory of hazardous materials that were potentially used on the site (Phase I environmental assessment), depending on the age of the building a lead and/or asbestos material survey and where appropriate Phase II assessments and Hazardous Materials Management Plan. The 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan Flood Hazards Map indicates the southern edge of the California Avenue PTOD study area at the time of the Comprehensive Plan contained an area subject to flooding during a 100 year event near Matadero Creek. The flood zone partially covers the Fry’s site and the last GM parcel within the boundary area along Park. Since the Comprehensive Plan, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has conducted significant improvements of Matadero Creek to address flooding concerns. With the improvements, that have been completed, this area is no longer considered in danger of flooding during a 100-year flood event and the designation of the area by FEMA as a flood hazard area will soon be removed. Hydrology & Water Quality The California Avenue PTOD study area is an urbanized, built out area, covered in large part with impervious area. Defining the potential application of the PTOD combining district does not zone or entitle any development to occur in this area. Therefore no direct impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality will occur. Individual properties that rezone and apply for the PTOD combining district will be subject to project level review and required to meet current City/regional storm water regulations which require greater storm water retention on a development site than in the past. Projects subject to design review and located near creeks must address as part of the compatibility and sustainability design criteria the protection, where applicable of the creek. Further, all new development will be required to comply with the goals, policies, and programs of the City’s Natural Environment Element which seek to protect the City’s water quality and protect its riparian habitats. Noise According to the Comprehensive Plan Analysis and projections, exterior noise levels in the California Avenue PTOD study area range from 65 dB to 70 dB Ldn. These noise levels, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan for this area, do not significantly change when projecting future noise contours. Major noise sources throughout city, as described in the Comprehensive Plan include traffic noise, railroad noise, electrical substations, and the Palo Alto Airport. In general, this area is in exceedance of the residential goal for exterior noise Ldn of 60 dB. However, the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that this goal cannot be met throughout the city. Therefore, the outdoor noise environment on multifamily developments shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and where a 60dB Ldn level is not feasible, the goal may be lessened for 15 January 5, 2006 Attachment K related outdoor areas. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan and the Addendum for the Housing Element Amendment recognize that existing and new development adjacent to major noise sources, such as the railway, could be exposed to unacceptable noise levels. As previously discussed, defining the potential application area of the California Avenue PTOD area does not rezone any parcel to apply the combining district, nor entitle any development to occur. Individual projects and rezonings within the combining district would still be subject to further analysis, including potential noise impacts, and require review and approva! by the City Council. Therefore, defining the California Avenue PTOD area does not directly increase noise levels in the area. Redeve!opment of sites in the area, depending on whether the overall traffic to and from the site is reduced or increased, may increase noise levels along local streets as a result of traffic. However, since potential sites in the area are already developed, particularly with commercial and industrial uses, a change to residential may decrease the ambient noise environment. Increases in ambient noise levels, if any, would likely be insignificant in comparison to the overall ambient noise environment. The State of California determines the insulation standards required for indoor noise levels which are required to be met by multifamily developments. Some community members have expressed concern regarding the noise environment in the area and potential impact of increased heights and design along the west side of the train station. This is not a significant increase from the Housing Element Amendment designations or height limitations under existing regulations for these parcels. Individual developments as discussed above must conduct analysis including noise and meet noise regulations for redevelopment. Using the PTOD contextual based design criteria, the city through its existing project and design review can address noise levels and design alterations that could aid in further deflecting noise, but the ambient noise levels in the area will remain as projected with the Comprehensive Plan. Population & Housing The PTOD overlay area includes a potential incremental increase of 67-72 additional housing units above what is already anticipated under the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element projected residential growth for this area. This residential growth is still within the land use growth alternatives evaluated by the Comprehensive Plan Fina! EIR. The ABAG population projections used for the Comprehensive Plan EIR are far higher than similar ABAG adjusted population projections that have since occurred. For example, the Comprehensive Plan EIR (using ABAG projections at the time) estimated Palo Alto’s population would increase to 81,100 by 2010. Adjusted current projections indicate 63,500, a significantly smaller increase. Therefore the slight increase of 154 -166 additional persons (using Census data of 2.3 average household size) would still be well under the population modeled for the Comprehensive Plan EIR. Using current projected population growth levels, that is an approximate 2% increase in the next 5 years in this area. The Comprehensive Plan contains policies and programs to reduce the jobs/housing imbalance in the city by providing more housing, particularly near the existing transit stations. The reported jobs/housing in-balance in the city for 2000 was 2.77 jobs in the city for every Palo Alto resident. More housing has been provided in the City since 2000, and a preliminary estimate of the 2005 ratio is 2.43. But this is still far above the jobs/housing balance many cities strive for. A 1.0 jobs/housing ratio would indicate a balance, but many cities strive 16 January 5, 2006 Attachment K toward jobs/housing balance slightly higher in jobs, such as 1.5. The proposed California Avenue PTOD overlay, where applied by individual properties, would in general reduce the amount of non-residential square footage and possibly related jobs and slightly increase the number of residential units in the area. New multifamily residential developments are required to provide units or contribute to the City’s Below Market Rate Program. For developments less than 5 acres in size there is a 15% BMR requirement. The City of Palo Alto is still deficient in below-market rate housing, particularly moderate income units in the city. Public Services The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan identified and adopted a statement of overriding considerations for one significant unavoidable impact related to Public Services (schools).. All other impacts to public services were less than significant or could be mitigated to less than sig-nificant levels. As discussed in the Population and Housing section, the projected population growth utilized for the Comprehensive Plan was far greater than updated projections indicate. The potential application of the PTOD Combining District within the California Avenue study area will have only incremental (less than significant) public service impacts as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element Amendment Addendum and be well within those analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. The significant unavoidable public service impact adopted with the Comprehensive Plan EIR related to projected growth in the City at the time and anticipated overcrowding in the Palo Alto School District. The Palo Alto School District (PAUSD) is in the process of updating its District-wide student enrollment forecasts and is receiving data on potential land use development from the City including "known developments within the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development Combining district area. The PAUSD enrollment projections consider overall population growth and patterns, migration into and out of the area, as well as planned housing developments. The last student enrollment projections (2003) indicated that new housing development throughout the city actually produced fewer than expected students. Considering the projected incremental growth within the California Avenue PTOD study area, new residential units in the area could be purchased or rented by households with or without school-age children.. Anecdotal reports from realtors of market-rate for sale units indicate that those units are sold more to single or two-person households (of varying ages) than families. According to citywide Census data approximately 27% of households have school age children (children under the age of 18) with an average family size of 2.95. Using that Census data, approximately 20 of the 72 projected units could have school age children. Alternately, using generation rates from prior housing developments, the number of students generated would range from 17 - 33 additional elementary, middle and high school students. The PAUSD charges a school impact fee for new residential and commercial development with residential development having higher impact fees ($2.24/square foot of residential versus $0.36/sf of commercial development). As indicated in the population and housing section, the population projected for the Comprehensive Plan EIR was far greater than current population projections. The approximately 17 January 5, 2006 Attachment K 2% growth of the adjusted ABAG projections that would result from the projected number of units would not represent significant additional demand on schools or other public services. For other public services, such as fire and police the growth would be within those projected and less than the demand anticipated and analyzed with the Comprehensive Plan. Recreation The City of Palo Alto has approximately 4,350 acres of park area. Within the California Avenue PTOD study area, there is one city park, Sarah Wallis Park. Other nearby parks include Bowden (accessible through the pedestrian/bicycle railroad underpass), Boulware Park, Peers Park and to a lesser extent (not within walking distance) College Terrace parks and Stanford University facilities. Soccer fields are also under development for the comer of Page Mill and E1 Camino Real. The City’s ratio of parks to population is currently 6.72 acres/I,000 residents (after subtracting out open space parks such as Foothills, Arastradero, & Baylands). This far exceeds the city-wide goal of 2 acres of park per 1,000 residential population. The City collects . community impact fees from all new developments in the city which includes a park impact fee to plan for addition park facilities. Additionally, individual developments would be subject to City design review which examines the amount and quality of open space provided with multifamily and mixed use developments. Transportation & Traffic Major streets within the study area include California Avenue, Park Boulevard, and Page Mill Expressway. California Avenue and Park Boulevard are classified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as collector streets that mostly serve local traffic and provide access to adjacent properties. Page Mi!l is classified as an expressway which mainly serves through traffic and has limited access to adjacent properties. There are traffic calming devices provided on Park Boulevard including an in-pavement lighted crosswalk at Page Mill Road, and bulbouts that help regulate the on-street parking.. There is also a half-closure provided on Park Boulevard to the south of Lambert Avenue. This closure prevents commercial related traffic, including traffic generated by Fry’s, from proceeding south along the residential street segments. The aforementioned traffic calming devices will remain and additional devices may be considered as developments are proposed on this collector street. Park Boulevard is designated as a Class II bike route (i.e., has bike lanes) connecting to other bike routes that serve Stanford and other major traffic generators. California Avenue is also designated as a bike route with bike lanes provided to the east of Alma Street and to the west of E1 Camino Real There is a dedicated bike route connecting the California Avenue Caltrain station to the University Avenue station. There is a pedestrian!bicycle railroad undercrossing presently provided at the California Avenue train station. There are future tong-term plans to reconstruct this undercrossing to become ADA compliant which would provide an improved connection with communities to the east of Alma Street. To implement this project, the City will seek potential funding opportunities through grants and cost sharing by VTA and Caltrain. Any improvements to the streets design, including additional traffic calming measures when feasible, would need to retain and if possible improve upon bicycle facilities in the area. 18 January 5, 2006 Attachment K At the California Avenue train station, Caltrain commuter trains presently average about 2 trains per hour during peak and non-peak hours. Caltrain conducts annual boarding surveys, and the last (2005) California Avenue station survey indicates on an average weekday 839 people board trains at this station. Based on this survey, the station was ranked by boardings as 11th, less than such stations as University Avenue ( ranked 2nd), Redwood City ( ranked 7th) and greater than such stations as San Carlos (ranked 12th) and Burlingame (ranked 15th). According to Caltrain, the California Avenue station has maintained a steady ridership. The California Avenue Caltrain station is served by both Stanford and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) buses. The Stanford University Marguerite Shuttle system includes one fixed bus route servicing the Stanford Campus every 20 minutes. The Marguerite system also has the Stanford Research Park shuttle with service every 20 minutes during peak travel times. The VTA bus route 88 runs throughout the day (every 20 minutes during peak periods) providing service between the California Avenue and University Avenue train stations. This bus also provides a connection to E1 Camino Real. Express bus 104 travels along the adjacent segments of Alma Street and serves through traffic on Page Mill Expressway and State Highway 101( via a connecting route that runs on Charleston Road, San Antonio Road and Old Middle field Way). There are a range of !ocal, regional and express buses on E1 Camino Real, approximately a 10-15 minute walk from the California Avenue train station. One such route, VTA bus route 22, provides 24-hour service every 10-15 minutes traveling between San Jose and Menlo Park. The City has Comprehensive Plan policies related to encouraging alternative transportation, one of which is increasing residential densities near the two commuter rail stations. Although the title "Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development" appears to focus on pedestrian and transit facilities’, it references a type of land use development that encourages a mix of uses and alternative transportation modes, including trains, buses, bicycling and walking. Additionally consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals, employers and multifamily developments, particularly in the PTOD combining district should be encouraged to develop transportation demand management (TDM) programs and consider purchasing Caltrain’s GoPass and/or VTA’s EcoPass for employees and residents. The Transportation Chapter of the Final EIR of the Comprehensive Plan identified and adopted a statement of overriding consideration for several significant unavoidable traffic-related environmental impacts as a result of the implementation of the Plan’s policies and programs. As previously discussed in the Land Use section, the Comprehensive Plan included policies and programs to increase residential density near the commuter rail stations, including California Avenue. For traffic, the adopted Comprehensive Plan EIR significant unavoidable impacts included: Loss of automobile travel lanes by accommodating bicycle travel could reduce opportunities to relieve traffic congestion, or increase traffic congestion in some areas. ¯Choosing not to create additional roadway capacity. ¯Forgoing intersection improvements in favor of pedestrian and bicycle safety. ¯Significant decreases in the Level of Service at the intersections listed below under the Plan’s 2010 horizon year: 19 January 5, 2006 Attachment K o E1 Camino Real/Page Mill Road (LOS D to LOS F). o Middlefield/San Antonio (LOS D to LOS F). o E1 Camino Real/Arastradero/Charleston (LOS D to LOS E). o E1 Camino Real/San Antonio (LOS D to LOS E). o Alma/Charleston (LOS D to LOS F). o Embarcadero/East Bayshore (LOS E) Traffic volumes on some local residential streets may increase significantly due to future congestion on adjacent collector and arterial streets. Several non-residential arterial streets and expressways are projected to have significant and unavoidable congestion impacts at several major intersections. Increased traffic would exceed one percent of existing capacity of Highway 101, which currently maintains LOS F peak hour conditions. Increased traffic would result in overall adverse impact on bus service and bicyclists. Not all of the traffic-related impacts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would apply to the California Avenue PTOD study area, and as indicated above some are policy, not project related decisions. It should also be noted that traffic volumes along the Palo Alto street network were generally decreasing between years 1999 and 2004. For example, the E1 Camino Real intersections referenced above are still operating at LOS D under existing traffic conditions. More updated land use data for year 2010 (based on regional land use growth provided by VTA and known projects within Palo Alto) was recently incorporated in the City’s traffic model. This resulted in 2010 volume forecasts and associated levels of service that differ from the Comprehensive Plan projections. For example, the intersection of Middlefield/San Antonio would operate at LOS "E" under the 2010 traffic conditions. In addition, the operational LOS along the Embarcadero and the Charleston-Arastradero corridors would improve through the deplo~vrnent of adaptive signal control systems. The estimated increase of new residential units and decrease in non-residential square footage within the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development overlay area would not constitute a significant increase when considering the applicable significant unavoidable traffic impacts adopted with the Comprehensive Plan EIR, in particular the level of sergice projections at the high capacity E1 Camino Real/Page Mill Road intersection. As noted earlier, there is a potential increase of 67-72 residential units. Using general apartments as an average approximation for the different residential densities, these units would generate an additional 450 - 484 daily trips (at an average rate of 6.72trips/day/unit), or 34 - 37 trips during the a.m. peak period (average rate on the adjacent street of 0.51 trips/unit) and 42 - 45 trips during the p.m. peak period (average rate on the adjacent street of 0.62 trips/unit). These trips would then be distributed and assigned to the streets in the California Avenue PTOD study area. An overall loss of non-residential square footage in the area could represent a toss of employees and related vehicle trips. Such reduction in traffic volumes is dependant on the type and size of land use replaced, and would be considered during project review of any proposed project. However, again it can be concluded that the assessed increase of residential developments in the area is not a significant additional impact over what was modeled for the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element Amendment. Additionally much of the projected growth and developments modeled under the Comprehensive Plan have not occurred to date. 20 January 5, 2006 Attachment K Defining the potential application area for the California Avenue PTOD overlay does not change the zoning, designation nor entitle any development to occur within the area. Individual development projects would undergo further analysis, including related traffic impacts of a development. The potential additional residential units within the overlay area would replace existing development in the area and the conversion of non-residential to residential typically results in a decrease of average peak hour trips and residential development has a "reverse commute" as compared to many non-residential uses. Existing policies within the Comprehensive Plan address operational levels of service, such that development needs to be consistent with the City’s traffic level of service policies (H-4). Program H-5 allows for increased densities near transit stations where project makes use of transit facilities and will not significantly worsen existing traffic levels of service on nearby intersections. The California Avenue Caltrain station has a park-and-ride facility. In addition, there are a number of public parking lots in the area as part of the California Avenue parking assessment district. This includes Lots C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 and C-9 along Cambridge Avenue (a total of over 500 parking spaces), as well as lots C-6, C-7 and C-8 along Sherman Avenue (a total of over 400 spaces). The PTOD combining district would not change the operation of the California Avenue parking assessment district. Any redevelopment of a public parking lot would require the replacement parking be provided nearby or on the same site. The Comprehensive Plan contains a program to encourage the development of housing over parking lots while maintaining required parking. The PTOD combining district is not changing the existing parking requirements established in the PAMC. However, developments with an average unit size of up- to 1250 square feet may apply to waive a portion of their guest parking requirement, and if applying for existing al!owable parking reductions, to waive the landscape reserve requirement where applicable. Utilities & Service Systems The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan identified and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for one significant unavoidable impact relating to Public Services and Utilities, specifically an impact to the stormwater system resulting from cumulative increase of impervious surfaces into local creek conditions at that time. Since the Comprehensive Plan, several improvements in policies and facilities have been completed to address this impact. As discussed in the Hazard section, Matadero Creek is located just south of the PTOD combining district area and for the Comprehensive Plan an area just south of Fry’s was indicated as being within the 100 year floodplain, with the stormwater system potentially contributing to flooding in the area. Since that time the Santa Clara Valley Water District has made improvements to Matadero Creek, indirectly aiding the stormwater system during flooding and this area will soon be removed as a flood hazard area by FEMA. Additionally, new development must meet current stormwater retention regulations which frequently require all stormwater to be treated and prevented from entering the storn~water system as much as possible. The Comprehensive Plan EIR examined increased water and wastewater demand for increasing residential densities throughout the City. It also looked at solid waste, electricity and natural gas demand. Demand for these services, using projected development and population growth, could be mitigated to a less than significant level. The application of the combining district does not 21 January 5, 2006 Attachment K rezone, designate or entitle any development to occur and individual developments would still be subject to project, site and environmental review. Therefore, adoption of the California Avenue PTOD district would not have directly impact utilities and other service systems provide. Additionally, the projected incremental growth would be within available, water, wastewater, and utilities capacity and within projections utilized for analysis in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. For a general discussion of the projected residential growth, most of the California Avenue PTOD study area is built out, indicating that the potential residential growth would be replacing existing non-residential demand. Multifamily demand for utilities such as electricity and natural gas may be higher or lower than previous non-residential use, depending on the type of non- residential use. Water and wastewater demand for multifamily use in comparison to industrial or commercial use is typically higher. However, the City has more than sufficient available water and wastewater capacity to service projected housing growth in the city. Additionally, the City has capacity fees to address the increase individual development demand for water and wastewater hookups and the fees are based on facility water use and wastewater demand. Through the project review process the City ensures sufficient facilities are provided and may require developers to upgrade water or wastewater lines where needed to meet flow/capacity requirements for a development. 22 January 5, 2006 Attachment L COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES PTOD ¯Community Meeting, 02/07/06 ¯Emerson Neighborhood Meeting, 03/07/06 ¯California Avenue Neighborhood Meeting, 03/30/06 ¯Cal-Ventura neighborhood Meeting, 04/05/06 City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto ZOU Community Meeting California Avenue PTOD Combining District Monday, February 27, 2006 Council Chambers 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. Approximately 40 community members attended this community meeting held in Council Chambers. The format for the meeting included an open house/drop-in session for one hour prior to staff’s presentation. Staff and the ZOU urban design consultant were available to answer many questions and respond to comments during this time. Questions and comments related to the following: the intent of the PTOD district, land uses, boundary clarifications, the rezoning process, edge treatments along the railroad and Alma, building heights, and BMR bonuses. Public comments and questions were received following the staff presentation. The following is a summary by topic of public comments received. General PTOD Comments -Ventura resident would have liked more notice on PTOD. -Do not see link in proposal between PTOD and mechanism for fewer cars or increased transit - focus is on land use. PTOD is great opportunity - Plan is good way to do rational growth and development in area - similar developments occurring in other cities - would like to see community come together to support - exciting opportunity for Cal Ave. businesses/residential link. This has been under review for some time and noticed the study session scheduled for the 15a~ on Village Residential - do not want to see PTOD recommendation delayed because of ongoing Village Residential discussion. Even though existing development is not built to maximums, think new development will build to maximums. -Should exclude Fry’s, most of it is outside 2000’ radius. -R-1 on Olive and Fry’s should be removed from PTOD boundary area. -Not always clear how design criteria will shape development. -If entire area is PTOD, how.many dwelling units and acres will be developed in next five or ten years? -Replacing existing vacant lots with development is a good thing. -Overall PTOD is good for area - share same concerns as others re: noise and traffic issues in city, but would like to see more support for retail in area, including housing. And more services (parks, etc.) are always good but someone must pay for them. Think community can work through the pluses and minuses here. Edge Treatment along Caltrain RR Tracks -Would at least like to see trees for edge treatment along railroad. -Four stories on Park Blvd is not appropriate (potential "canyon effect" and not friendly toward pedestrians) - would like to see building setbacks from railroad and from Park so height is toward center of property. Concern re: train noise for residences along railroad - do not think proposed edge treatments for properties across Alma are appropriate. Should think about residents of these PTOD units and instead allow developments to back up to railroad so can face units toward Park and create sound wall (with building). Leave design of back of properties to the ARB/project architects. Very difficult to meet interior noise standards, proposal makes it even harder. -Edge treatment of rear of Park Blvd. should occur - they are visible from Alma. -Are many ways to mitigate for noise - materials, articulation, type of windows selected - do not think reflective noise should increase with developments. Concerned about noise from train - would like to see limited height along RR (20’ height within 20’ of right-of-way) and what this might look like. Community PTOD Workshop: 2/27/06 Page 2 -For design along railroad - would like to see buildings angled and articulated to address noise. -City should consider blank wall vs. articulated wall designs and potential noise impacts to residents across Alma. Residential Adiacencies: Concern regarding including Fry’s and GM zoned area directly across from Fry’s as this is near R-1 neighborhood and may not be appropriate adjacent use - concern for traffic, height, mass, density next to R-1. -Concern re: underparking of developments - do not want to see in area near Lambert (R-1 area) -What will height and mass of proposed development look like from Ventura area? -Will residents to the north of boundary see 50’ buildings in their backyard? Concern re: privacy. -Concerned about putting housing next to some of the existing industrial uses on Park - may not be compatible. -Why isn’t the city considering downzoning here? -Concern regarding impact to existing residents on Park (PA Central) - is this area a "dumping ground" for MF - already have a lot of MF in area - concern re: increased impacts of housing (traffic, parking, etc.). Community Services: Do not see proposal for more open space in area beyond individual project requirements. Individual courtyard areas are not public spaces. Would like to see more public open space. Where will the children in new housing go to school? Concern re: forcing them to travel a ways to school, or have to cross ECR or Page Mill/Oregon Expwy. -Office space has less impacts to services, so perhaps more office space is desirable. -Concerned about impact from more housing to infrastructure and quality of life, also traffic impacts (cumulative), school impacts, emergency services, park impacts - would like to see more parks in area. Children need more parks to play in. Transportation: -Think with introduction of baby bullet there is decrease ofridership at Cal Ave. station -Baby bullet adjustments have improved service to Cal Ave. -No composite number of traffic generation of this area - cumulative impacts - perhaps use development cap to prevent congestion. -Existing traffic congestion in area - cut through traffic, etc. not addressed. -Not enough parking is provided/required. -Park Blvd is good bike route - like separated trail further north - is that possible here? Retail: Think adding housing is not solution for retail businesses - loss of office would also be bad for retail. -Does this area need more commercial development? - think there is enough, as well as plenty of vacant space. -Would like to see retail along ECR, including at Cal Ave. addressed. Seem to be many vacancies. -Developers will replace retail with housing - should keep GF retail, especially on Cal Ave. -Walking to retail is great benefit- not sure about crossing Page Mill - perhaps consider pedestrian overpass? Emerson Neighborhood California Ave. PTOD Meeting March 7, 2006 Meeting Notes Nineteen (19) residents in the Emerson Sta-eet area attended the meeting, along xvith staff and consultants. The folloxving questions and concerns were raised about the proposed PTOD district: General Comments ¯Can the PTOD boundary be changed in the future? ¯There are a lot of colors on the land use map. Would this perhaps reflect emsting uses? ¯Are changes not anticipated on California Avenue, and if so why not? ¯Why not just rezone the properties rather than do an overlay? ¯What about the traffic impacts? The loop at Page Mill is already horribly congested at 5 PM. ¯Why do the bnildmgs need to be so tall and dense? Why not something like the rowhouses at The Crossings, which are just three stories? ¯Is the height limit inclusive of mechanical on the roof?. ¯Where would the parlmag be provided for nexv bnildmgs in the PTOD area? ¯Why is it so dense? Why does there need to be so much housing? ¯Would like to see minimum change from what there is now. Neighborhood-Specific Comments ¯Olive Avenue got berms and landscaping to screen the view of Agilent. Would have liked the same consideration from this direction. ¯There is not a problem with housing per se, just the number of stories. Four stories is too much - how about three? If we could take off one stoW we "could all go home and call it a night." ¯What would be allowed for the R-1 areas? What is the likelihood of the PTOD boundaW being extended into the R-1 area across Alma in the future? ¯R-1 is required to have a daylight plane.., these taller buildings in the PTOD area will impact the R-1 dwlight planes. ¯Where was the elevation survey taken from? The properties on the east side of Emerson Street are loxver than those on the west; the middle of the road is higher than the properties to the east. ¯Even if the buildings are 40 feet, because they are closer than Agilent they will still look taller than Agilent. ¯Concerns about people in tdl buildings in the PTOD area being able to look into Emerson Street backyards.., children’s bedrooms. ¯Would the proposed railroad setback standards be written into the PTOD standards? ¯What is the vertical setback for each stow? Emerson Street: March 7, 2006 Page 2 ¯Is there a landscape setback proposed along the rai~oad, and if not, xvhy not? ¯Considering the view of the rooftrees, xvould prefer pitched roof lines like at The Crossings rather than flat/blocky buildings. ¯The designs shown look very crowded.., xvhat is the depth of the lots along the railway? Seems to narrow for so much development. ¯No matter what, won’t be able to see the hi~s anymore. ¯Existing buildings along the railroad are setback behind parking lots. Would l~e to see this pattern required for new buildings too. ¯There are buildings along Page Mill that are submerged below street level. How about doing this to minimize impact of new buildings? ¯Will there be controls for nighttime lighting? ¯What about the viexv from Colorado Avenue? E1 Dorado Avenue? ¯Would like to see just two stories along the railroad. Page 2 California Avenue PTOD Meeting March 30, 2006 Meeting Notes Residents and business owners from the California Avenue PTOD area attended. Residents identified themselves as being from Palo Alto Central, Birch Court, Silverwood, Grant Avenue Condominiums, 410 Sheridan, Pepper Condominiums, and Evergreen Park. The folloxving questions and concerns were raised about the proposed PTOD district: General Comments and Questions ¯The PTOD xvould represent a change for the area ¯Could affect the qualitT of life for existing residents, and house values ¯Given that the FU’s and Agilent sites were designated for housing but used for other uses, why do these other sites (on Park Boulevard) need to be used for housing? ¯There is nothing to prevent building large office-type buildings under the existing GM zoning. ¯The table says there is no formal setback requirement, so it is a "trust issue" that buildings will have adequate setbacks. "Trust us" is hard to accept! ¯The Danger building is a result of not having c~mprehensive planning. The PTOD overlay is much more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. ¯There was a study of a similar type of project in Menlo Park that showed that people living there xvould walk for their errands, and only use their cars on the weekends. ¯Hopefully there will be lessons learned from places that have not xvorked so well, such as Caffi Riache. ¯Would be good to have other department representatives come to the meeting as well, such as traffic and schools. ¯Why not just change the zoning to PTOD rather than have it as an overlay? ¯There should be incentives so that the PTOD zoning is chosen rather than the underlying industrial zoning. ¯There should be focus on the FU’s site, not just the sites designated in the Housing Element. ¯With higher densities, there wi~ be more people walking in the area, which xvi~ help local businesses. ¯Survei~ance cameras should be considered to deter loitering on California Avenue. They have been veU effective in London, England. Traffic and Parking ¯Could restrict ability., to park in the area ¯More cars will mean more traffic. There is already lots of traffic on California Avenue and Park Boulevard. The Palo Alto Central garage is very competitive for par-king because it is open to the public, and people use it for daytime and commute parking. Some people at Palo Alto Central have three cars. Grant Avenue has no parking limit, so people park there all day. California Avenue: March 30, 2006 Page 2 ¯There are three difficult intersections in the study area. There should be a 4-way stop at Page Mill & Park Blvd, because it is hard to turn left onto Park from Page Mill. Page Mill and Sheridan are both hard to cross. ¯There needs to be parking zones so people don’t hold spaces all day long. Evergreen Park has a problem right now with parking. Schools and Parks ¯There should not be more housing until the school situation is resolved. ¯Sarah Wa!lis park is the only green place in the area currently. There should be more green areas and places for kids to hang out. ¯Higher density housing xvithout open space does not make sense. There should be open space requirements. Page 2 Cal-Ventura PTOD Meeting April 5, 2006 Meeting Notes Approximately 20 residents from the Ventura neighborhood and surrounding areas attended. The following questions and concerns were raised about the proposed PTOD district: General Comments and Questions ¯Wi~ Below Market Rate (BMR) housing requirements for the cit7 still be required? ¯Park Boulevard could be like Fourth Street and Gilman Street in Berkeley, with a retail and industrial character rather than housing. FU’s is a magnet for activity - should work with it. ¯~:hy is Olive Avenue included in the PTOD area? Isn’t R-1 excluded? ¯How to ensure that the PTOD zoning is selected rather than the underlying zoning? ¯The experience on E1 Cammo Real is eventually the City will allow something - property owners have to be able to use their land for something. There is not a lot of control over xvhat gets proposed and built, not a lot of political xvill. ¯Under the GMB zone the area is currendy nicely underdeveloped. The GMB zone has worked for us now. Developers wanting to redevelop in the GMB had to limit office space, but now that the GMB is gone developers can build big office buildings. Somett~ng will happen. ¯If we "overshoot" we can’t correct it once it’s done. The example is E1 Cammo Real, xvhich has too much housing interspersed with the retail. It has created discontinuity. ¯E1 Cammo is much better noxv than in used to be. The amount of traffic has not changed significantly in decades. Frv’s Site ¯FU’s is the proverbial "elephant in the room" - it could revert to commercial and expand ¯WSJ already owns the Fry’s site. Why would they not have akeady developed it as housing if housing was such a valuable use? ¯Fu’s can use the existing building, but if the building had to be rebuilt Fry’s would leave. ¯FU’s is a huge anchor, with nothing to anchor. Traffic and Parking ¯ At the City Council meeting the traffic situation was not addressed. Has it been addressed now? ¯Worst use would be softxvare startups. Employees are packed into the space. Retail should be considered different from commercial for the purposes of traffic. ¯Maximart (predecessor to FU’s) created too much traffic, so traffic diverters had to be installed in the Cal-Ventura neighborhood. ¯How will we get through the neighborhood if we put up more barriers? We should think about it before we add more. Cal-Ventura: April 5, 2006 Page 2 ¯Since Fry’s expanded there has been more traffic in the area between Fry’s and East Meadoxv. ¯The City needs to address traffic so we can get in and out of the neighborhood but keep others out. ¯Free shuttles should be integrated with buses so California Avenue is a true transit hub. ¯The large amounts of traffic were from xvhen the Agilent building housed Hexvlett Packard. When HP was there, there was lots of traffic at 6 PM. Since HP left there has been less traffic. The traffic barriers should not be moved, they should be kept in place. ¯There are not crossxvalks at all corners of all intersections currently. Some intersections such as at Molly Stone’s do not have crossxvalks on all sides. ¯Could synchronize stop lights like 19~h Avenue in San Francisco, so that one could drive straight through at 28 miles per hour. Page 2 Zoning Ordinance Update Comprehensive Plan Policies/Discussion Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Residential Attachment M Programs/Policies Related to Transit Oriented Residential, Pedestrian-Friendly Design, and Protection of Neighborhood Character LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS (Page L-11): "Transit Oriented Residential: Allows higher density residential dwellings in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a walkable distance, approximately 2,000 feet, of the City’s two multi-modal transit stations. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation and especially the use of Caltrain. Design standards wi!l be prepared to ensure that development successfully contributes to the street and minimizes potential negative impacts. Individual project performance standards will be developed, including parking, to ensure that a significant portion of the residents will use alternative modes of transportation. Net density will range up to 50 units per acre, with minimum densities to be considered during development of new City zoning regulations." PROGRAM L-14: "Create and apply zoning standards for Transit-Oriented Residential housing prototypes, including consideration of minimum density standards. Develop design guidelines that ensure that such housing is compatible with the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue centers where it may be permitted." POLICY L-17: "Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians." PROGRAM H-1 : "Increase housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and particularly near transit stations by either increasing allowed densities or encouraging development at the higher end of the existing density range for sites within 2,000 feet of an existing or planned transit station or along two major transit corridors, E1 Camino Real and San Antonio Road, wherever appropriate." PROGRAM H-5: "Consider the following modifications during the Zoning Ordinance Update currently underway and incorporate those modifications in the revised Zoning Ordinance that are conducive to increasing the production of affordable housing by the year 2004." PROGRAM H-12: "As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, amend the Zoning Code to reduce parking requirements for higher density development in appropriate areas thus reducing development costs and producing housing that is more affordable. The potentia! consequences of reducing parking will be evaluated for particular types of projects during the Zoning Ordinance Update, but parking reductions should primarily be considered for Transit- Oriented development or developments that can demonstrate that its need for parking is less than the required parking standard called for by the Zoning Ordinance." PROGRAM T-l: "Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking. Page ! of 3 PROGRAM T-3: "Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multi- modal transit stations." POLICY T-5: "Support continued development and improvement of the University Avenue and California Avenue Multi-modal Transit Stations, and the San Antonio Road Station as important transportation nodes for the City." POLICY T-23: "Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details." ¯"Specify the range of housing densities appropriate for each commercial and industrial Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning district that permits housing. For proposed projects located within 2,000 feet of an existing or planned rail transit station not adjacent to a single family neighborhood with a substantial proportion of a proposed project’s units affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, development may be allowed at a higher density than that normally allowed under these land use designations and zoning districts. Development at the high end of the density range should only be permitted where it is demonstrated that the project will make significant use of existing transit facilities or other alternative modes of transportation, thereby avoiding significantly degrading existing traffic levels of service on nearby intersections." ¯"Consider allowing higher densities on sites that are not precisely within 2,000 feet of a rail transit station but that may be suitable for transit oriented development due to exceptional access to other transit opportunities or alternative modes of transportation. Development of these sites should be compatible with surrounding densities and intensities of development and should be designed to preserve neighborhood character. Development of these sites at the high end of the density range should only be permitted where it is demonstrated that the project will make significant use of existing transit facilities or other alternative modes of transportation and will not significantly degrade existing traffic levels of service on nearby intersections." "Create new zoning districts to implement the Transit-Oriented Residential and Village Residential land use designations and establish development standards that a!low the maximum amount of housing, particularly for affordable housing projects, permitted under the allowed density range while preserving the character of adjacent neighborhoods." Page 2 of 3 POLICY L-28: "Maintain the existing scale, character, and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas." PROGRAM L-27: "Create regulations for the California Avenue area that allow for the replacement or rehabilitation of smaller buildings while preventing buildings that are out of scale with existing buildings." PROGRAM L-28: "Work with merchants, property owners, and City representatives to create an urban design guide for the California Avenue business district." POLICY L-29: Encourage residential and mixed use residential development in the California Avenue area. PROGRAM L-29: Revise zoning of the California Avenue business district to reduce the nonresidential development potential to levels comparable to other commercial areas in the City wh~le retaining substantial residential development potential. POLICY L-30: Improve the transition between the California-Cambridge area and the single family residential neighborhood of Evergreen Park. Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between the two areas. POLICY L-31: "Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses, two- to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets providing links to California Avenue." PROGRAM L-31 : "Establish the following unranked priorities for redevelopment within the Cal-Ventura area: ¯Connect the Cal-Ventura area with the Multi-modal Transit Station and California Avenue. Provide new streets and pedestrian connections that complete the street grid and create a watkable neighborhood. ¯Fry’s Electronics site (300 Portage): Continued retail activity is anticipated for this site until 2019. A program should be developed for the future use of the site for mixed density multi- family housing and a park or other open space. ¯Hewlett-Packard: Uses that are compatible with the surrounding area and a site plan that facilitates pedestrian use of Park Boulevard. ¯North of Sheridan Avenue: Development of one or more of the City-owned parking lots with primarily residential uses, provided that public parking spaces are replaced. ¯Park Boulevard: Streetscape improvements." Page 3 of 3 Attachment N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatirn Minutes December 14, 2005 EXCERPT Item number two obviously is next and our Chair is supposed to arrive any moment. I think we will go ahead and get started with item number two which is the Zoning Ordinance Update for the PTOD, Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District. Would Staff like to make a presentation? Zonin~ Ordinance Update: Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation to City Council for the approval of an ordinance to adopt a new PANIC 18.66 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (P/TOD) Combining District. The boundaries for the P/TOD zoning district are generally Cambridge Avenue to the north, E1 Camino Real to the west, Caltrain rail line to the east, and Lambert Avenue to the south. Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Lusardi: Madam Chair, we need a couple of minutes to setup. Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you. If there are any members of the public who want to speak to this item now would be a good time to fill out a card and turn it into the Secretary. We have six cards and at least one more coming. Mr. Lusardi: Members of the Commission the item before you is the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development overlay chapter of the Zoning Ordinance Update for the California Avenue area. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit overlay district. Tonight we are presenting the revised Pedestrian Transit overlay district ordinance based on Planning Commission and ARB direction and comments. We want to also clarify some concerns that have been raised during this process regarding the land use itself and the zoning that we are proposing. We want to provide additional information that was requested at the prior meetings with the Planning Commission and ARB. Rick Williams from Van Meter Williams and Pollack will be participating in this presentation. Prior to tonight’s meeting the Planning Commission received a revised Transportation section for the addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. You also received the redline version of the Design Criteria that has revisions from the Planning Commission and ARB Study Session, you received a copy of the draft ordinance and correspondence that was submitted relative to this item. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Regarding the background for this particular Zoning Ordinance Update its intent is to implement the Comprehensive Plan new land use type in the ZOU. In October of 2005 the GM District through the adoption by the City Council of the Manufacturing, Offices and R&D Districts prohibited residential uses and there is a large GM District within this area that we are trying to address. Essentially, that put us out of compliance with respect to our Housing Element and the Housing Inventory Sites. November 9, the Planning and Transportation Commission provided a preliminary review of this land use. On December 1 Staff presented to the Architectural Review Board the development standards, the design criteria and the process that we are proposing within this ordinance. December 7 the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission held a Study Session to look at the standards and criteria, the process and the uses. There are three Housing Inventory Sites in here, two of them are in the GM zone, which prohibits housing, which is the reason we are moving forward with this. There are two multi- family projects that are pending in this area on those Housing Sites and we want to bring, again as I indicated, the sites into compliance with the Housing Element and the Comp Plan. I want to speak briefly to the intent of the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented zone because I think there may be some misconception about its intent and what it is to generate as far as land uses go. Its primary intent is to create and enhance a pedestrian environment. The goal is to improve the pedestrian and bicycle safety in that area as well as generate housing that would support a pedestrian and transit oriented district. It is to facilitate public transportation use for trains and buses in that area with housing and residential uses and mixed uses. It is to provide for a mixture of uses and housing types. When we say mixture of uses we are talking about uses that would support a transit oriented area and support a residential community there and a neighborhood. It is also to accommodate the Housing Element housing opportunities, which were adopted by the City Council without substantially increasing residential units in the area. That is an important point. The goal of the Pedestrian Transit Oriented District is not to substantially increase housing that was already contemplated through the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element. It is basically to effectuate a pedestrian and transit oriented environment and land use there. Another important goal and intent of this listening to the Planning Commission and hearing some concerns is it is also important that we protect the single family neighborhoods around the proposed Pedestrian Transit Oriented District. The process and the boundaries that we have laid out within the ordinance. First we want to distinguish this Pedestrian Transit Oriented District on California Avenue from the Downtown one and we will be bringing that back later next year. The Pedestrian Transit Oriented District is a combining district. It is essentially an overlay that requires a rezoning for each site. The adoption of this particular chapter would not rezone any particular site. It would just put the Pedestrian Transit Oriented District overlay in play for that to be applied to the site. Application of a particular Pedestrian Transit Oriented District overlay on a site would require Planning Commission and City Council review and approval and it would address such things as uses and intensity, development statement and a development program. It would also eventually require an Architectural Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Review Board review and recommendation based on the context-based design criteria that this Commission and the ARB has addressed and looked at in the last couple of weeks. The boundaries of the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit Oriented District. The goal is to create boundaries that provide and promote ~valkability to train stations and pedestrian environment, to include the housing opportunity sites and as I said earlier to exclude low-density residential. I just want to talk a little bit about that because I think there were some concerns raised about how this would affect surrounding low-density residential neighborhoods. With the chapter in Section 18.66.070 under the Boundary Amendment Process it is expressly written in there that prohibit the boundaries being enlarged that would include a low-density or single family residential neighborhood. That was at the direction of this Commission and we agree with that prohibition of expanding this into a low-density or single-family neighborhood. In Section 18.66.050 there is also design criteria that Rick Williams will be presenting that we think affords protection against any adjacency or transition into the low-density residential neighborhoods. When you look at the boundaries here there is one area where there is a direct transition to a low-density residential neighborhood, in the Pepper Avenue neighborhood. That is about a two block long boundary that would create that kind of transition. We think we have development and design criteria that would successfully address that kind of transition and those kinds of sensitive issues. The boundary falls on only that one block length adjacent to single family for the entire Pedestrian Transit Oriented District. There is also provision in this chapter or village residential land uses which is a lower density residential land use than the multi-family and we think provides a transition. Also included in the Environmental Impact Report Addendum I want to point out that it the Transportation section we pointed out with respect to some of the neighborhoods around that area particularly the neighborhood that is south of the proposed area on Lambert there are traffic calming devices provided on Park Boulevard, there is a half-closure provided on Park Boulevard to the south of Lambert Avenue. This closure prevents commercial related traffic including traffic generated by Fry’s from proceeding south along the residential street sections. The aforementioned traffic calming devices will remain and additional devices may be considered as development is proposed on this collector street. I want to reiterate that there is no intent to remove any of the traffic calming devices in that neighborhood with respect to this district. Curtis is now going to address some of the land uses and some of the development standards with respect to the Pedestrian Transit Oriented proposa!. Mr. C. Williams, Contract Planner: Thanks John. Commissioner. I am going to go through some of the sections of the ordinance here fairly quickly. It is pretty similar to the presentation I made last week but just to be on the record I want to refresh your memory. The allowable land uses that have been designated for the proposed zone, PTOD zone, include two types of residential multi-family being predominant and then also the use of village residential particularly in those transition areas getting closer to lower density Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 neighborhoods. Secondly, mixed use is provided for. This mixed use is one, which is predominantly residential but could support some nonresidential. We have specified a list of potential nonresidential uses mostly retail/personal services, restaurants/cafes but there is also allowance where it is not prohibited by existing R overlays or other reasons for some office, R&D or community uses. We have made provision for live/work units and have spelled out a half dozen or so specific criteria for those to qualify. Also made provisions that a hotel or more than one hotel potentially could be located in the area and laid out some specific criteria for those as well. Again, the process John alluded to would allow the Planning Commission and Council as the zoning request is made to review these uses and intensities and feel comfortable with them before allowing a rezoning. The basic development standards that are included in Table 2 of the draft ordinance include residential density and these are what we call basic development standards. The next slide I am going to talk about bonuses and increased intensity. The basic density limit would be 40 dwelling units per acre. The FAR limitation would be 1.0 to 1 for residential and 1.25 for mixed use and the maximum nonresidential portion of the mixed use would be limited to .35 FAR so that it would be predominantly a residential use. The height maximum 40 feet. We have added to the table from last week the open space criteria that was in the context-based design section last week so that you have the 100 square feet or 200 square feet per unit depending on the size of the project as well as having increased the minimum dimensions to six and 12 feet instead of five and ten as they were last week. Parking criteria, the existing code allows discretion for the Planning Director to reduce parking in proximity to transit stations and other transit facilities as well as for mixed use and for affordable housing and for other purposes. So we would continue that but we would also make some provision that ~vhere average unit size is relatively smaller, less than 1,250 square feet, or for particularly affordable projects, more than 25 percent affordable, that there would be some additional provisions including not requiring guest parking and/or not requiring a landscape reserve. There are some-sections that require that for the parking reduction. Again, we have provided in the Development Standards from some live/work unit criteria and hotel criteria. The limitations on density, floor area and height could be allowed to go higher depending on the density being proposed and the percentage of below market rate units that would be proposed by the applicant. In this case when we talk about below market rate we mean in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s criteria for BMR units including that they be substantially consistent in quality and size as the market rate units in the project. So from a density standpoint the basic density is 40 units per acre, there is a provision and this tracks almost precisely the Comprehensive Plan wording for BMR density bonuses of one BMR unit for every three - one for every additional BMR unit that is created three market rate units could be created. That is up to a maximum of 50 Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 dwelling units per acre. FAR and height are not related necessarily to whether the allowable density is being exceeded but we do think it is important that we be looking at proj ects that have a relatively high density and that we aren’t just granting bonuses for increased height or for floor area for lesser density projects so we just get a lot of larger units. So we have suggested a threshold of 30 dwelling units per acre before someone could request a bonus and then a scale basically of either FAR increase or height increase for each additional five percent of BMR that is provided above and beyond the basic requirement. So for example if we have a 15 percent basic requirement which is the case in most instances, 15 percent of the units being BMR units then if they go to 25 percent instead of 15 percent that would allow in this case 1.2 FAR instead of the 1.0 FAR for a residential project. The same thing in terms of height in terms of getting that kind of incremental increase. I just want to correct a mistake on the PowerPoint slide, it is a maximum of 50 feet for the height not a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR maximum is 1.5 to 1. These are bonuses that would be out there and we hope would encourage some additional BMR units but we certainly don’t expect that this is going to be the norm for someone to be requesting additional floor area or height primarily because most of the market product out there is not reaching 30 units per acre. It is much less than that. Rich is going to talk more about the context-based design criteria. We spent a lot of time with you and the ARB last week on that and did make a number of changes based on your comments. I think those were shown in the redline handout that we gave to you for that section. We did conduct an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan EIR for this zoning district. We did that based on some very similar methodology that was used for both the Comp Plan EIR and the Housing Element Addendum to the Eli{. The Comp Plan ElY, for this area, the Cal-Ventura area of the Comp Plan, projected an additional 309 units would be built under the Comp Plan through the year 2010. The Housing Element Addendum projected an additional 135 units beyond that which is 444 total. So we have operated with that as kind of the baseline and determined that making what we consider to be some realistic assumptions about the parcels that are most likely to potentially develop then have projected that there may be 70 or so additional units that could be above and beyond that number. That is not above and beyond where we are right now but it is above and beyond what that number would be. We believe that a few of the reasons that that’s justified is that the projected development under the Comp Plan and Housing Element has not occurred nearly as intensely as had originally been projected. So all that we have at this point in that area is 81 units at Sunrise, the one residential project that has come through. The growth projections that were used in the Comprehensive Plan from ABAG have been reduced fairly significantly and so we have concluded that the impacts associated with these additional units are not significant relative to the impacts that were already attributed to the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element Addendum. Susan Mickelson is here to answer questions about the details of that particular review. Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Can I just add for the record that Commissioner Burt joined us during the Staff presentation? Mr. C. Williams: The Commission and ARB have asked some questions previously that we want to try to respond to here as well. The first one I just briefly highlighted in terms of what the incremental housing units and potential impacts might be of this zoning district being provided in this area. Again, we can get into more of the discussion details of that but it is primarily embodied in the Addendum to the EIR. A second question was kind of what are the land uses and square footage of non- residential out in the area right now or maybe a breakdown of that. Unfortunately we really don’t have the means to ascertain in any form that we are comfortable presenting to you what those are. We don’t have a business license process and such that would allow us to know those numbers. All we can basically give you at this point is that we have visually gone through the area, I think most of you are probably very familiar with it, there do seem to be at least today quite a number of and primarily along California Avenue and a couple blocks either way the types of retail and personal service type uses that would serve residential. I think we talked last time about it might be appropriate in the future to extend the R retail shopping overlay down Park Boulevard away to also mandate some of that retail support use. But not in other areas, we don’t want to steer away from and drive retail off of California Avenue either. So we would be glad to answer questions about that but we really don’t have specific detail about the square footages. Examples of project FARs and heights in the vicinity as well as prototypes of sample projects that might be able to be accommodated under these standards Rick Williams is going to discuss both of those and show some additional slides relative to that. So I am going to turn it back to John to wrap up a little bit about Caltrain. Mr. Lusardi: One of the questions that came up during the review process is what is the status or the future of the Caltrain service at the California Avenue station. It averages about 839 daily rides according to the last annual survey in February 2005 from Caltrain. This number is the count of people that get on and off the train at the California Avenue station. The ZOU Staff did coordinate with Caltrain Service Staff over the last couple of weeks to discuss our proposal and how that relates to the California Avenue station. As noted in the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report Caltrain conducts an annual boarding survey. The 2000 boarding survey showed this station ranked by boarding as eleventh which is less than the station at University Avenue which was second and Redwood City which was seventh. It was greater than such stations as San Carlos which ranked twelfth and Burlingame which ranked fifteenth. According to Caltrain the California Avenue station has maintained a steady ridership. The California Caltrain station is served by both Stanford and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and including the Stanford University Marguerite Shuttle system. As I indicated there are no current plans or indication that the Caltrain is planning to close the California Avenue station but long-term operations they would not address. There isn’t a defined threshold for increasing service to particular stations. Decisions related to particular stations are Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 made a system-wide basis and are based primarily on end-to-end service times, efficient use of resources and total ticket sales. I do want to point out that in our discussions with Caltrain they did point out with respect to the transit oriented land use that they have identified encouraging transit oriented development as one of the objectives for its short- range transportation plan. Transit oriented development policies promote land uses near transit stations, along transit lines and at the same time they encourage additional use of transit services. Ideally a transit oriented district policy would result in increased Caltrain ridership, reduced deve!opment parking requirements by agencies and developers and new housing and commercial development at stations. So what we are proposing here is also consistent with Caltrain and their policy on transit oriented development. One of the Commissioners earlier asked that we also address a comment that was in the correspondence presented to us earlier regarding the walk to work program at Stanford West. It was in one of their earlier correspondence asking what exactly is the walk to work program? It is part of Stanford’s TDM program. We did some contacts earlier this afternoon. What we believe this refers to is a cash incentive program provided by Stanford. It is not specific to Stanford West but to the housing on the Stanford campus. What it basically says is on an annual basis a resident can submit a parking permit and if he can submit that a parking permit is not needed for his use or for his residence because other means of transportation are available and it is not just walking it could be bicycle or transit and based upon that they would then receive $25.00 per quarter as an incentive not to use a car and not to require a parking space. That is essentially what that program is at the Stanford campus. I just wanted to clarify that at a Commissioners request. With that I am going to turn this over to Rick and Rick is going to go tt~rough some of the additional information we provided and some of the updates and revisions that were made to the design criteria based on Commission and ARB discussion. Mr. Rick Williams, Van Meter William Pollack: Thank you very much. Commissioners, we will go over just very briefly so that we note it again because it was an important piece that the overlay district boundaries as we have defined them have very explicitly not incorporated the single family, low-density areas and are both fitting around the Comprehensive Plan desire for a straight 2,000 foot radius and really are defining it and modeling it in a much more precise manner where we think we will be able to see pedestrian transit oriented development in the future building on what we already have within the California Avenue area. Also, as we discussed at great length previously as well is that the process that we are really looking for is one that its goal is to create that sense of place and that sense of character and uniqueness and not try to set up a series of regulations that are so prescriptive that we won’t be able to obtain that overarching goal. Really the focus will be on the pedestrian quality and the bicycle quality of the environment. The applicant would apply for the rezoning of the property to the Pedestrian Transit overlay district and that while the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council are considering this from a land use and intensity and particular uses at the same time the Architectural Review Board will be able to review a preliminary design of that Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 application so that you don’t see absolutely along with it but the words and the numbers but that there is a preliminary concept design that goes along with that particularly for the ARB to review at its very preliminary nature. We don’t want them to be too committed to a fundamental design before they have considered that overall land use. Then they then address those fundamental questions of the design process through future review board review. Once the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends and the City Council acts the ARB will then go through a final design review process and they will be able to use both their current ARB guidelines as welt as the new context-based design criteria as well as the step five illustrations and diagrams that are built off of that context design criteria to really define and give substance to the Pedestrian and Transit overlay district and really outline those critical issues which you have discussed at the previous meetings. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Again, the context-based design criteria, the considerations that we are looking at, and I 15 am going to run through just the highlights of them now, we have modified those in 16 response to the last few meetings that we have had include promoting walkability and 17 connectivity as part of the pedestrian environment and the quality of that as well. The 18 street and building fa£ade and how it relates to the street promoting a strong relationship 19 with sidewalks and the street. The massing and articulation, minimizing the massing’s 20 impact on the pedestrian environment and on the adjacent neighbors as well as providing 21 articulation which we are still working on some of the diagrams on but what we heard at 22 that meeting was to really focus on breaking dmvn the scale so that there it can appear 23 like a series of buildings. It is really about the scale and character of the area that we are 24 trying to promote and create. So it is not just articulating it to get a rhythm and a pattern 25 within one overal! building. The low-density residential transitions are one that we had 26 spent an extensive period of time on during the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines and 27 we will build on those with the additional ability to use the village residential as the 28 predominant land use for that transition adjacent to single family residential. The project 29 open space, provide usable open space both in amount as well as size and character. Our 30 preliminary studies have actually shown that we would anticipate the open space to be 31 much more extensive than any of the minimums that we anticipate or have outlined. 32 Parking, although we are maintaining the fairly standard parking regulations it is really 33 about the parking design, location and how the parking should or should not impact the 34 building design and the character of the building. That is an important piece of it because 35 it is how you treat where the parking is going and how you treat it within the building 36 impacts the pedestrian orientation. The large sites, and there are a few larger ones, within 37 this area are really about the building pattern and consistency with the surrounding 38 neighborhood. It is breaking down the scale of that through connectivity and the building 39 massing, etc. will be addressed within the context-based design criteria. As with all the 40 other zoning regulations the sustainability criteria and green building practices will be 41 incorporated in and there are other specific comments that people had regarding creek 42 protection and restoration of sorts that we have also incorporated in and will be 43 incorporated in. The historic preservation has been built in of course to all of the 44 ordinance. 45 Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 !8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Specific questions and recommendations from the previous meeting on the context-based design that we have incorporated into the design criteria. The railroad adjacency, and we have dealt with this in a couple of different ways that you will see illustrated, we have specifically added wording regarding the design, the articulation, the setbacks and how to both minimize the sound reflection to adjacent properties as well as looking at the design quality from both the train and from across the tracks so those are being incorporated into the step five criteria as well. The street presence of open space we have incorporated in the concept of the open space being something that can be seen from the street and that it should be located to activate the street fagade and increase the eyes on the street whenever possible. Then we have also increased the bike language, the design of the project should promote pedestrian walkability and bicycle friendly environment, wider sidewalks have been incorporated in as well as verbiage of along Park Boulevard to reinforce the street as a pedestrian and bike linkage to the multi-modal station facilities. We have also added, as. I noted, the creek language incorporating open space connections and pedestrian and bikeways to natural amenities. I have to admit that the creek in the area wouldn’t be considered in my book right now to be a natural amenity but it could be in the future. It has way too much concrete for that right now. Also to provide the protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate storm water management measures into it so that in the future we could see a much healthier creek environment there. Again, we have emphasized the transitions to existing lower density development or single-family neighborhood in the one location that we have had but we also expect it in other areas although that will really be using the village residential as one of the transition locations for that. We started to develop a couple of the residential FAR studies and this came about in a couple of different ways. It was both about building types and usage as well as what the maximum floor area ratio might be and how the massing might be taken into account. In the top diagram we are illustrating a residential floor area ratio of 1.0 and that is a maximum. It is on a 1.3-acre site. As a note we had said that for projects over one acre that there could be two building types on it or unit types and what we have looked at here and illustrated as a maximum would be both a tuck-under kind of townhouse type of product as well as a podium development which has a courtyard. This is an open space piece here with a little bit of parking along it but predominantly open space in the piece as well visible from the street. It breaks down the scale of the overall development into multiple types of buildings. That would be one type of an illustration with a 1.3-acre site. Again, it also has a treatment adjacent to the railroad tracks where it is broken up into a series of masses as well. The second would be if you take that same residential and maximize the bonus FAR with a 1.5 on that same site in essence you get a three story building on the street that steps back to four and then a lower building on the back, or it could be a reversed. You have a fairly substantial interior courtyard, you have openings from both sides particularly one we wanted to illustrate to have a break in the massing from the railroad tracks, and there could also be one from the street. So we have illustrated that as well as a setback from the street for a residential product, from the back of sidewalk from residential product. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 We then illustrated on the same site just so that people can see it in its relationship a mixed use FAR of 1.25. Here you can see both retail shown or a commercial frontage on the ground floor, nonresidential frontage. It is fairly contiguous. There is a few stories of residential above that and then there is also a two story of residential behind and these would be more townhouses, these would be more flats and corridor building. So it again has two different building types in essence on a podium. Because of the commercial you do need to park this site as a podium in order to meet the parking requirements. The other piece of it is that you will note that there is a substantial amount of open space within that overall development. The other piece here is a mixed use with taking the maximum density bonus. This basically to show the difference in the diagram incorporates a maximum height limit of 50 feet, it steps it back after that third floor and then it incorporates just a slight amount of more development over here on the townhouse side and the rest of it remaining essentially the same. So basically what you are getting with that bonus is this floor and this floor piece here. Again, I think that floor area ratio is one that you have seen frequently in the Palo Alto area. The context-based design step five examples that we have begun to illustrate, and these will be brought to the Council at greater length as well and I am sure you will be seeing these, are the railroad adjacency. There is a lot of discussion about making sure that the articulation of the back of the buildings, in essence the railroad face, are also of a strong quality, that there is a landscape treatment and that it isn’t just a wa!! against the railroad tracks. There can be open space, there can be landscaping and the podium relationship can be low so that it isn’t just a wall along the back of the tracks. You would then use the building in essence to absorb any noise coming from the tracks. The railroad adjacency then can change where you have a public right-of-way or a street or a path along it. That has been illustrated that it should be treated basically as a front of a building. If it is a residential or a commercial site you would havethe retail or residential frontage, this one being illustrated as residential, with stoops that project into what would in essence be a residential setback so that the building does have an orientation to the street and then that treatment along the other edge, which is the railroad track edge, for safety generally Caltrain will require some sort of fencing but that can also be a transparent fence. It doesn’t have to be solid and you can use the building again to absorb the acoustical issues. That orientation is one that you will see for example across the street from the Caltrain station in Mountain View they have some brand new row houses and townhouses that look out onto the Caltrain station from there. Also the context-based design step five examples this is a modification from the mixed use diagrams that went through with the E1 Camino Real Guidelines and the mixed use regulations. This is a transition to R-1. There are going to be a couple of different variations to this but we wanted to illustrate this first in noting that there will be a daylight plane that will define the building envelope to the rear, the setbacks and also the massing to ensure both the privacy and the scale relationship to the adjacent buildings in the R-1 and R-2 zone. Also, the context-base design is illustrating the orientation to the street. What I was noting before and now you can see in a sectional form here is the concept of having a Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 setback for the building massing not explicitly defined but illustrated with stoops and entryways oriented to the street, that there is a living space relationship to the street that is slightly raised, that there is landscaping and a streetscape treatment that is somewhat defined. That definition is then redefined when you have a retail/commercial frontage so that you take that setback and make it into a wider sidewalk, you have defined it here to include a wider sidewalk, streetscape elements and then the store fronts oriented to the street. So these are examples of the step five regulations that will fit in similar to the other zoning categories. We also have gathered as quickly as we could some of the statistical information on a variety of the projects that you find in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. We wanted to highlight a couple of these. Here at 101-161 California Avenue, Palo Alto Central, it is mixed use, its height is 50 feet and it can be defined as transit oriented. At E1 Camino Real a very recent project the floor area ratio is .78 it is 60 percent residential and 40 percent nonresidential. It is a very difficult site to work with and the height there is 35 feet. On High Street this one is much larger than any of the developments that we would anticipate here with almost a 2.5 floor area ratio. The height is I believe 50 feet with about six feet in some locations for some projections beyond that. This has again 60 residential units including ten BMR units, underground parking, etc. Chair Burt: Question, Rick. Do you know the FAR of Pato Alto Central? Mr. R. Williams: We did not get that. Some of the information we weren’t able to access. We may be able to get it at a later date. Other developments, University Park, this is probably much more consistent. This is actually the top end of what a floor area ratio would be able to be within the Pedestrian Transit Oriented zone for an all 100 percent residential development with all of the BMR units included at a 1.5 FAR. This is a 45-foot height limit and University Park at 325 Channing is at that location. So that would really be the largest top end of the all residential envelope. The Park Place in Mountain View which has retail on the ground floor and three and some four-story elements but predominantly three stories above that hits at just over 50 feet at its highest points it is 55 feet. That floor area ratio that isn’t on here is a little misleading I actually picked it up just before it is at about 2.0 FAR. So it is a little higher than what we would anticipate seeing as well. The other Downtown projects are more in what we would anticipate seeing within a residential development of a maximum of 1.5. So the 1.5 FAR for an all residential is actually within and around the surrounding communities is actually a little bit lower on the envelope than what you would find in some other communities but more consistent with ~vhat you find within Palo Alto which has always had a slightly lower FAR than some of the surrounding con~rnunities have. I believe that might be it. That concludes the examples that we have. I will gladly answer any questions you might has as well as with Staff. Chair Butt: Thank you for the presentation. I would also like to note for the record that Commissioner Sandas has joined us. Commissioners, do you have questions for Staff or the consultants before hearing from the public? Lee. Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: I have raised this question before and I am going to ask it again. In our multi-family residential development regulations we have a minimum lot size. Why don’t we have a minimum lot in these development regulations? Mr. Lusardi: From our perspective I think it would be limiting in our objective to try and get a mixture of housing types. I don’t think it is all that constraining. If the Commission felt that way I don’t know that we would have a minimum tot size number that we would come up with at this point. Maybe Rick can address how that would affect a potential development site as far as generating different types of housing types. Commissioner Lippert: Before Rick jumps in and answers the question, if we had a minimum lot size what would it in fact encourage smaller property owners to combine lots and move forward with a much more desirable result? Mr. R. Williams: IfI can just give you a little history on it and then I will let Staff answer as well. That has been the thought for many years on the parcel aggregation and the ability if we limit it to a larger size then people will aggregate the parcels. I think that what you find is that particularly on the smaller parcels that you would hope to possibly aggregate you find that the property owner’s individual needs, desires, etc. generally don’t match particularly well with the absolute adjacent parcel. Although they have had those goals say in Mountain View for extensive period of time the only way they were able to actually get any parcel aggregation was to basically have the city do it themselves either through some sort of an eminent domain process or by a friendly taking or friendly purchase from the city. So they actually have had policies in place to attempt to do that and they have had zoning, which gives you greater densities for greater parcel sizes for an extensive period of time. They haven’t actually found that it has really encouraged parcel aggregation to nearly the extent that anyone would have hoped it to do. So what we generally find is that it might help in one instance or another a small amount but you are better off allowing each parcel owner to evaluate it on their own criteria and then take advantage of it to the extent that they can on even the smaller parcel that they have. Mr. C. Williams: IfI could just add a couple more thoughts to that. This is an overlay so essentially the property owner has the choice of requesting application to the property or developing under the underlying zoning. So there are options there. I th~nk our fear is that to put a minimum lot size on a lot of people won’t take advantage of combining the lots and then we will have a lot of little gaps where we haven’t had an opportunity to apply some of the pedestrian friendly type approaches along those frontages and also it may discourage, most of the pedestrian oriented diagrams that Rick and company have come up ~vith have fairly narrow distances from door to door along the street and that kind of thing, which you can require through a larger project but it sort of is naturally there when the smaller lots develop too. So I think we see that there is some advantage to having a minimum lot size but there also could be some disadvantages and we are not comfortable suggesting that there should be one at this point. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: Wel!, in the RM-15, 30 and 40 districts we do have a minimum lot size which is I think 8,500 square feet. Would this overlay zoning not open up the door to somebody who has a lot that is smaller than 8,500 square feet to sort of go around the process and go in through this overlay zone to develop it to a higher density than what would be allowed for RM-15, 30 or 40? Mr. C. Williams: I think that is one of the issues we were trying to address with the revisions to the multi-family zones was trying to provide mechanisms for some of those lots to have more opportunity for development. So this could do it instead of that, probably so. If we are looking at 8,500 as being the minimum lot size I don’t know that that’s much of a problem. I guess I was more envisioning like a half acre or something like that that would really start to require a lot of smaller lots to be combined. I don’t know if we know how many of those smaller lots exist. Mr. Lusardi: No I don’t but I do ~vant to point out that you are right that the RM-15 and 30 have a minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet. When we did the research we found out that almost 50 percent if not over 50 percent of those parcels are substandard in lot size. So that also creates a development dilemma in those multi-family districts. I think we are trying to avoid that kind of a situation here where we have such a mixture of lot sizes. We have an underlying zone that they might develop under rather than under the transit oriented zone. So I think we are trying to avoid that kind of a situation of creating a lot of de facto nonconforming lots by coming up with a minimum lot size. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: Lee, I am just curious, are you going on this thought because you are concerned about trying to achieve the amount of density that has been suggested that we would like to get? If you could maybe talk a little bit more about that. Commissioner Lippert: That really comes under when we are beginning to debate or discuss the merits of the plan here. In short what I am trying to find out is where the loopholes are right now and how you sort of use this to get around or what it means in terms of abusing the system so to speak. Commissioner Garber: Okay, thanks. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I have a housekeeping question. We had a number of things at our places this evening and Attachment B is a redline version so that is very, very helpful to have that. The other two items which are the ordinance and the design criteria are not redline versions so what I am wanting to know is there anything different between what was left at our places and what we have reviewed prior to the meeting. There is a cover page including the ordinance number on the ordinance item that was left at our places. I am trying to find out is there something that we are overlooking or is there a reason that Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 these were at our places when we already had them. So if somebody could clarify that would be really appreciated. Mr. Lusardi: The two documents that we sent to the Commission subsequent to your Study Session with the ARB was revisions to the Transportation Element of the Addendum and we have given you a redline version of what those changes were. We also sent to you a redline version of the criteria that we changed subsequent to the ARB Study Session. So you have those two documents in their full text and you also have them with the redline version so you could see the changes that happened. The ordinance that is in front of you contains all of those changes. So you should have all of the redline versions of the changes that we made subsequent to the ARB/Planning Commission meeting. Vice-Chair Holman: So these two documents include nothing that we have not already seen, these two things that were at our places tonight? Chair Burt: John, I don’t think we actually received the redline versions. Mr. R. Williams: I think the redline one that I have is the one that I printed from the email. Mr. Lusardi: We emailed them to you yesterday. The redline version with the design criteria and the redline version with the transportation section. I think we provided hardcopies. We may have not provided the hardcopy for the design criteria tonight. That may be ~vhat we missed but we emailed you those changes. We can get you a copy now if you want. Vice-Chair Holman: I am trying to clarify this. What we had in our packet that was delivered to us did not include redline versions. So subsequently Staff provided to us on email redline versions and that is very, very helpful. What I am trying to be absolutely clear about is that these that were left for us tonight for the ordinance and the design are not redline versions. So I want to be able to trust that there is nothing in these documents that we have not already seen. Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Chair Burt: I have one or two questions related to Caltrain. The Baby Bullet schedule has reduced the frequency of stops at the California Avenue station. Is that correct and if so, by how much? Ms. Michelle Stahlhut: The Cattrain reduced the number of stops in August. It reduced it by 50 percent. They reduced the number of trains by 50 percent and then coordinated the service to make it all more efficient. The next ridership count comes out in February 2006 and so we don’t have those numbers. Page 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 Chair Burt: Okay, that was what I was trying to understand. We had some ridership 3 counts cited earlier those were prior to the reduction in the schedule frequency. So then 4 my follow up question is that in your discussions with Caltrain given that this station was 5 just below the break-off point for where they decided to have stops for the Baby Bullets based on ridership if we have additional transit oriented development and prospective ridership have they given any indication on their future intentions of having increased stops or are we going to be stuck forever with the lower frequency of stops that now exists under the Baby Bullet scenario? Mr. Lusardi: When we talked to them they would not make any kind of a long-term commitment and that is not just the Caltrain station it is all the stations. They wouldn’t make that kind of a commitment. They do annual surveys as far as ridership goes. I think as Michelle pointed out they don’t have necessarily a threshold for that. So we don’t have any information from Caltrain as to what the long-term commitment might be with respect to that station. Chair Burt: It strikes me that we may want to either on our own or encourage them to in the future quantify ridership per train as opposed to total ridership. They could prove themselves correct by cutting the trains down to one a day and prove that there is very little ridership at a given station but actually we may want to make sure that the metric is reflective of the actual demand rather than reflective of a reduced supply of trains. Mr. Lusardi: We could certainly address that and pursue that. I think also to emphasize ~vhat Caltrain has told us a pedestrian or transit oriented land use is a very important land use to them. So us moving fopa, ard with that is a very proactive measure telling Caltrain that we want that station, we want that station to be an important station by promoting this transit oriented use. So I think that also goes hand-in-hand with how they address ridership and those kinds of things is the kind of land uses that are being developed around these stations. Chair Burt: Thank you very much. One quick final question from Commissioner Holman. Vice-Chair Holman: A follow up to that. I previously inquired about Mountain View. There have been mixed reports, depending on what you read, about the success of that transit oriented development because of the less frequent train service. Can Staff respond to that particular? We did have examples of other locations like San Carlos and such. Can you respond to the Mountain View? Mr. Lusardi" We don’t have any information on that. Maybe either Rick or Kevin might have some sense of what that land use is and how successful it is. Mr. R. Williams: What I had done to try to gather some additional information was speak with some of the planners at the City of Mountain View both from kind of a land use designation and they have a transit oriented district. It has gotten a lot of accolades Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 and won a lot of awards itself. What they found at that station, at for example the San Antonio station, is that they get pretty strong ridership from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The numbers that we have are still from some of the previous counts they haven’t done any updated ones. They get above 15 percent ridership at the Caltrain station there from the people that are commuting. That is some information that they have done kind of independently so it isn’t quite done in an official manner. However, they have also .been pretty successful with their transit oriented district in some instances although one of the things that has occurred is that they have gotten much more success in the residential component than they have in their commercial component because their commercial-nonresidential was oriented more towards office. So the development that has occurred has been predominantly residential in nature. So they are getting the ridership and they Caltrain, VTA, BART are all finding that the residential developments are supporting transit use to a much greater extent than office deve!opments are. Vice-Chair Holman: One last quick follow up to that. What was anticipated? I know they have won a lot of design awards and some of those that I know of at least were three, four or five years ago. What was anticipated for the success of this development and how might we relate that to what we are proposing? Do you have any ideas on that? Mr. R. Williams: I think that what they have found is that the development has not occurred at their maximum densities that they were allowing. That the market in essence pushed the density down slightly from what they would have like to achieve from an overall standpoint. So they zone things a little bit higher than they got. So that was an important piece of kind of the overall information. So that even though they were providing a maximum zoning intensity they weren’t seeing the maximum zoning because of the unique quality of the developments that they were getting. Vice-Chair Holman: I was still on the transportation aspect of it in terms ofridership. Mr. R. Williams: They have actually gotten I think similar ridership to what they had anticipated getting. Again, the ridership levels have actually been going up over the last few years. The last recent survey that BART, VTA and Caltrain did with Bob [Cervero] have illustrated about a 15, 16 or 17 percent ridership from those surveyed within the areas within a transit oriented district. So that is actually fairly close to some of the national standards that you find unless you have a very exemplary development. I think ~vhat they found is that if you had just calculated on numbers they have a fe~v less riders than they anticipated because the intensity of the development was a little bit less than they had anticipated. Chair Burt: Thank you. At this time we would like to hear from members of the public. We have 11 speaker cards and even though that is a pretty hefty group because of the importance of this issue we would like to go ahead and allow the public to have the full three minutes. So each speaker has up to three minutes but is not obliged to take all three minutes. Thank you. The first speaker is Irene Sampson to be followed by Bruce Knoblock. Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Irene Sampson, Palo Alto: I am speaking tonight for the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. The League supports with enthusiasm the proposed Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development California Avenue overlay district, which is before you tonight in connection with the Zoning Ordinance Update. The League commends the thorough, deliberate and rational preparation for this ordinance that has occurred including excellent Staff and consultant work and productive study sessions with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board. The overlay zoning authorized in the ordinance will encourage housing as well as business development in an area within easy reach of the California Avenue train station, the E1 Camino Real bus lines and the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle. New multi-family housing development will have a mutually supportive relation ~vith California Avenue businesses, with shopping opportunities within easy reach of residents and an improved customer base for the businesses. The League’s housing position supports many of the criteria that are to be applied to development within the overlay district. We particularly support the allowable density of 40 dwelling units per acre or up to 50 when bonuses are provided for numbers of affordable housing units greater than the required inclusionary zoning percentages. We believe the allowable height, 40 feet, or up to 50 feet with bonuses for increased number of below market rate units are in keeping with existing building heights in the area. We believe that the Planning Staff and the ARB review of proposed developments following the specific design criteria in the ordinance will provide the necessary control. The League supports the criteria designed to provide attractive buildings, to encourage pedestrian activity and to be compatible with existing development. We also support the encouragement of a variety of types of residential units and of green building design. We support the attention to transition to areas of existing single-family homes. Increased density and transit oriented districts is increasingly important to reduce sprawl to outlying rural areas and the longer time consuming commutes for cit workers. Further development of this overlay district will take place over a period of years perhaps decades but the groundwork is being laid tonight and the League supports this program. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Bruce Knoblock to be followed by Raminder Bajwa. Mr. Bruce Knoblock. Palo Alto: Good evening. I am here representing Essex Property Trust. We are an owner of one of the properties that falls within this district so we have a vested interest obviously in what happens here. I just wanted to say we have eagerly been watching this thing sort of being shepherded through the process and are supporters of the proposed overlay district. So I am just here to advocate support for it and hope that at some point this gets done. We would really like to build a nice project within the district. We own a parcel that is just over an acre and it is right close in. Just as a matter of record I worked at Summerhill Development at the time that Palo Alto Central was built. I was trying to remember because the Mountain View project came up and whether it was successful or not. Palo Alto Central was built in two phases and I think it was in the late 1980s maybe mid-1980s phase one and phase two in the late 1980s. As I recall it was a very successful project as a development project. I think a huge amount of the success was based on the fact that it was very close or at actually the train station. Thank you. Page17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Thank you. Raminder Bajwa to be followed by Annette Ashton. Mr. Raminder Baiwa, Palo Alto: I think a lot of what is being proposed I think is supported and is very good. I live on Olive and I am a little concerned about the inclusion of Olive Avenue in the overlay zone given that it a lot of the other R-1 zoned areas are not. This area also is peripherally in the 2,000-foot radius. This area for people, some young families have moved in here in the last few years, for people who are interested in R-1 zoned areas and want to be close to the California Avenue area and benefit from that this is one of the few places that they can take advantage of. It already is a popular bike path and people walk and bike along that street and changing its character, which is likely to increase traffic, will probably adversely affect that. In addition I would also like to add that in keeping with your goals of transitional to low density housing Agilent when it built its headquarters there they worked with the neighborhood to have berms and low profile lights in the parking lot so as to not disturb the neighborhood. Some of those criteria also would be considered in your proposal. Again, overall I would say I support a lot of what is being done with the exception of the inclusion of the Olive Avenue section especially also if you consider that it tends to segment and leave - it affects all of the viability of the remaining area on Olive that is left over as a result of this. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Annette Ashton to be followed by Sheri Furman. Ms. Annette Ashton, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am speaking for Midtown Residents especially the eastern part. These areas proposed tonight are attractive sites for housing and the vacant.parcel and a very attractive site for a small hotel. I am here tonight to express some concerns raised by our eastern residents for your discussion. First, why are we rushing to convert industrial GM sites to housing when just last week the Council Planning Study Session focused on how to bring more sales tax generators into the City? We are losing these businesses while encouraging development housing units that cost the City. Putting in the zoning will encourage California Avenue to be redeveloped into more expensive high-end and force out local businesses on California. There will be some ground floor retail. I ask the question, will they be successful? Some additional concerns. We feel the zoning is much too generous. Although these densities were defined in the Comp Plan we need to carefully balance between these Comp Plan objectives on TOD and the Comp Plan objectives on compatibilities to adjacent areas. Ask yourself, is this the right area to apply these high-density principles? Our eastern neighborhood thinks not. Height at the maximum of 50 feet with bonuses is right across from Alma, from R-1 and parts of the zone are next to low-density residential. The eastern part of Alma is 20 feet lower than Park Boulevard. Already expressed the last time that 30 feet development caused the neighborhood concern. They feel the development will loom across their houses and definitely destroy views of the foothills. They have expressed concerns about light and noise even the 30 feet. Density, RM-50 we have seen a couple of examples. Do we want this in South Palo Alto? Traffic Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 impacts will be significant. This is a dangerous street. We are talking about giving easements on sidewalks. Well, why don’t we talk about encouraging or demanding wider building setbacks? Where are bikes to ride on this narrow street, on the sidewalk? The processing is rushed. How can you approve the concept without a developed form code or development standards such as daylight planes and setbacks? I think you need more work. Open space, substantial increase in units, and other incentives for the development of excess units. How is Staff going to make these calls when a developer brings their plans in? It looks to the public like we are giving these folks a blank slate. Finally, I talk about timing. Many of our residents wanted to come tonight but they couldn’t because of the timing in the middle of the holiday sessions. The study session was one day before elections. In the future it would be preferable to have these kinds of things reviewed by the neighborhood so their comments could be addressed before bringing this to you. My last comment is why are we rushing rezoning on the parcels tonight before the Council approves this element? Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Sheri Furman to be followed by Doug Moran. Ms. Sheri Furman, Palo Alto: Good evening. Believe it or not I read every word of this stuff and although I appreciate the work the Staff has done and I am in agreement with this zoning and that this is the appropriate place for it on the other hand having read this at great detail I do have some concerns. I want to go over those tonight and apologies in advance because they are going to be a little disjointed because they are essentially notes. Part of me is asking why the push for these potentially 50 foot buildings and 50 units per acre? You look at these plans in relationship to the street and it just seems overly dense to me. Imagine Park Avenue with 50 foot buildings on each side with minimal or no street setback. It would be like traveling through a canyon. I am sure you are all familiar with Park. It is not a very wide street. If we widen the sidewalks and have bike lanes and then that entrance onto Page Mill there are going to be big traffic concerns. There is a potential of nearly 1,000 new residents on just the portions of Park covered in the next two agenda items with at least that many vehicles with the density bonuses. Although the report states there is no impact to views or vistas Annette pointed out a 50-foot building on top of a 20-foot higher elevation is a pretty big impact. Also, how can you pass this without form codes or standards? There are no daylight plane or setbacks included in anything I have seen. Even allowing for design flexibility shouldn’t there be some explicit standards. How can project plans be submitted without knowing what the standards are for the zoning? Is it ’anything goes’ just to fulfill BMR requirements? Talk about compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving pedestrian transit oriented neighborhood. Again, I am not sure how well pedestrians and bicycles fall in here. I actually have a lot of other comments however, since my light came on, what are we really trying to achieve? Is it more BMR units, more affordable housing, a reduction in car usage? How can we allow exemptions from development impact fees when the City is facing revenue challenges? This zoning encourages the conversion of nonresidential to Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 residential thus encouraging the loss of sales tax generating businesses. No one can force developers to include retail and most likely any mixed use will be R&D. The other thing it is supposed to encourage is people to live where they work but there is no way to ensure that those who actually move in there will live close to their work or take the train or public transportation. So I am concerned about giving the parking - all sorts of things. My point is I know you want to finish the Zoning Ordinance Update but I believe we are long overdue for a Citywide comprehensive look at the balance of housing and all of this. So please consider this PTOD very carefully before you allow such density and incentives in exchange for questionable returns. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Doug Moran to be followed by Peter Lockhart. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mr. Douglas Moran, Palo Alto: I too would like to express my concerns about the 15 proposal and especially the process. It seems to have very much the feel of a 16 preconceived result that went and then they worked backwards to get justifications and t7 ignored a lot of very troubling details about what was going on. The California Avenue 18 train station ridership that they didn’t note that that was before the cutback. There are a 19 lot of concerns about the California Avenue train. The cutback in the schedule is because 20 of the structure of the tracks there. As you have more Bullet trains you can’t have local 21 trains in between. So as the number of Bullet trains goes up you are going to get fewer 22 local trains and they don’t have freedom to schedule local trains. So that is a real 23 constriction on there. It is not ridership that sets how many trains they can have here or 24 there. Similarly they are all out of other basic assumptions here that seem to be generic 25 assumptions and don’t pay attention to the specifics of California Avenue. They are of 26 very questionable relevance for example the assumption of heavier transit use. Palo Alto 27 has about three percent usage but the experience says that this not because of choice but 28 rather the transit very poorly serves people who live here. People coming from Europe 29 and the east who expect to use transit just find it to be impossible. There is a different 30 understanding of the Caltrain, again, no remedy in sight. Bad assumption about high 31 density and below market units being higher users of transit. The slide said ’ideally’ it 32 very much said ’ideally’ however, at a talk a year ago by San Mateo transit people who 33 run Caltrain they said their profile of the Caltrain user was high income it was not a 34 transit dependent person. It was somebody commuting up to a very high paying job in 35 the city or elsewhere. Palo Alto has not looked at what the profile of people are so the 36 people ~ve are going to get coming into these apartments may very well have to be car 37 users. The assumption for a lot of transit oriented development is that you are at in high 38 density a good road network. This is not a good network and the holdback proposals I 39 have submitted analysis showing we have real problems with transit in that area and that 40 the level of service estimate for Park and Page Mill is level of service E. You look at 41 bicycle, I ride through that intersection it is dicey right now it will be very bad if you put 42 a lot more of transit in there. As Annette Ashton mentioned I worry that although the 43 intent may not to bring in more housing units I worry that you are going to push people 44 out of California Avenue because you will make it very useful to put in more housing on 45 those buildings, they will take down existing buildings, put up new ones. The Starbuck’s 46 new building replacing Kirk’s has very high rents and that is a big concern and the Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 California Avenue people are not here in large part because they are very busy with Christmas. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Peter Lockhart to be followed by Claire Elliott. Mr. Peter Lockhart, Palo Alto: I want to enthusiastically support this proposal. I think it is time to be proactive. I moved to Palo Alto in 1958 brought along by my parents at that time. I have seen a lot of changes and a lot of flatness in procedure. I moved to Olive Avenue in 1973. I have come and gone a few times but mostly there and have had three children born in that house. I met my wife and that was our honeymoon house and I still have that house. We see this pedestrian transit overlay as a prime opportunity to reduce the fragmentation that exists in the area. This is an exceptional opportunity. It can bring much needed focus to an architecturally confused area and provide much needed housing where residents cannot only easily walk or bike but they can more easily bike and walk. We frequently walk down to California Avenue to meet friends, to shop at Molly Stone’s or just for the evening’s entertainment because it is a fun neighborhood to walk around. It is sometimes it is actually quicker to walk than it is to hop in the car and ride there. It works. We see pedestrians carrying their little bags with their business attire and their casual shoes marching up and down the street often in conversation. So we know that the transit concept works reducing the fragmentation and giving more flexibility and design I think is imperative. Flexibility and design can allow some very, very creative solutions. Maybe we can take Ash Street all the way through and ignore some of these other problem areas. There are many amenities that I believe can be brought to the area that aren’t there now. I have actually said a lot of things I already wanted to say. On occasion I can bike through Palo Alto High School for an early morning exercise and that is easy to do. Crossing Ash Street, crossing Page Mill that is pretty dicey and I think that could be improved very well. I am encouraged by the new light shining in City Hall. I want to thank the Planning Commission and the Staff and their associates for this breath of fresh air and the hard work they have done. I hope we can become progressive again. Thank you very much for your hard work and I want to enthusiastically support this amendment. Chair Burt: Thank you. Claire Elliott to be followed by Sanford Forte. Ms. Claire Elliott, Palo Alto: Hi I live on Chestnut in what we call the South of Fry’s neighborhood. I support transit oriented development. I think it is a geat idea. I am a little concerned about how it will work in reality. I would like to see more incentives for taking transportation. I read the idea of providing transportation passes but disincentives also for taking cars. One idea would be to charge for the parking that would be provided with the units. I am also concerned about providing affordable housing. I think some of the houses that are already there for instance on Olive Avenue are probably lower cost than even below market rate units would be in condominiums. I have heard that what we really need, and I am not sure this is true, is more low-income housing. So I don’t know whether any of these units are going to be apartments or if they are all designed to be condominiums but Page 2"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 I would support the Commission looking at that and evaluating what is really needed there. Then the last thing is I am concerned about safety. My children often bicycle down Park Boulevard. My son went to summer school at Paly and my daughter likes to go down for bagels and when we are coming back especially it is very hazardous along where you have to merge in the center between where cars are turning right on Page Mill and cars going straight on Park. I don’t know if anybody has looked at this but I would love to see if there is any way of getting some right-of-way for an easement for two-way bike lane along the train tracks between the businesses or the residential units and the train tracks. I am a little concerned about the bonuses for less parking for below market rate units. It seems like it would be better to provide incentives for reducing the amount of cars being used and not for who is buying the units. I think that if there is less parking available and there are no incentives for reducing the number of cars they are going to park along Park Boulevard which makes it even less safe to bicycle along there. Thank you very much. Chair Burr: Thank you. Sanford Forte to be followed by Bob Moss. Mr. Sanford Forte, Palo Alto: Hi I live in Evergreen Park just beyond the border of the proposed segment and am a co-owner of a business on California Avenue. I support, in fact heartily support, the program. I would endorse what the first speaker said from the League of Women Voters. I would also caution the Commission to consider some of the reservations that following speakers have had relative to things like daylight plane and setback. We need a little bit more detail in the plan before I think it goes forward in this way. In terms of development on California Avenue it is true that more residential development probably would force a change in the commercial nature of the street. I think that can be controlled and it is a policy thing that I think the Commission can send a strong advisory to the Council about. I think we can ask the Council to do things like as suggested by the last speaker provide incentives for people who don’t own cars. I think we can find ways to compel developers to put retail into some of these spaces. I think we can ask the Council to force limited use permits so that we don’t end up with 20 or 30 of one kind of business in a commercial district so we end up with good retail diversity to support a comprehensive intra-segrnent development as has been proposed. The 50 foot height limit I don’t have a problem with I think in fact we should be looking at adopting policies or recommending to the Council that we look at more nurturing developers who are willing for instance to go with more BMR housing or demand that we go with smaller units. Frankly, I would like to see a higher density in the proposed development so that we end up with smaller units, more affordable units, we have 40 percent of it or 50, tots of seniors are going to be looking for other places to live as they sell their $2.0 million homes that they moved into 20 years ago and so on. So overal! I am in support. I think we need to flush out some details and we have to think about Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 comprehensive recommendations to the Council relative to policy to make this thing work once it starts to flesh out over the next five, ten, 15 and 20 years. Thanks a lot. Chair Burt: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Harold Hohbach. Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Burt and Commissioners. I also appreciate all the work and activity that the Staff and consultants have gone through to try to achieve a successful overlay zone but I am afraid you are not there yet. There are a number of problems. You have heard about some of them. Commissioner Lippert is correct when he talks about the need to have a minimum lot size. I think it is only appropriate that we have minimum lot sizes, daylight planes and setbacks specified explicitly for all zones be they overlay or generic. Another thing I am concerned about is the context specifically with the lower density residential. I go back a long xvay when it comes to land use and zoning issues. Let me take you back to 1975 through 1980 when the initial Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were developed, the first modern ones. One of the basic principles that was adopted at that time was to have transitions between residential, especially R-l, and higher density uses. By transition it was explicitly indicated that that would mean lower density development. In the ordinance they talk about low-density residential transitions where it looks more like residential, it is less massive, that is not a transition. It doesn’t talk about reducing the height. It doesn’t talk about reducing the density. It doesn’t talk about making it more compatible, truly compatible, with R-1. The way you do that is to reduce the outline that you have of the overlay district. If you look for example on the east side you are adjacent, you are abutting, on College Avenue R-1 homes. That is totally unacceptable. That should be moved back to Cambridge or back to California Avenue. The same is true on the south and the east. Those boundaries should be pulled back to Ash and Olive basically around Agilent so you do not have direct overlay zones with densities as high as 50 units an acre right next to single family homes. Furthermore, the height in the periphery should be reduced. The maximum height along Park, which overlooks and is directly adjacent to low density residential along Alma should be no more than 35 feet. That should be true of the periphery all around this overlay zone. Finally, I would like to see a reduction in the maximum height to no more than 40 feet for the next setback and not allow it to go to the 50 foot density until you are in the center of that overlay zone. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Harold Hohbach to be followed by Sally Probst. Mr. Harold Hohbach. Atherton: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I represent the Courthouse Plaza Company, which is one of the sites that is being considered. I have been through a lot of this and I fully support what the City is doing here in the Pedestrian Transit Oriented overlay. We are near the California Avenue business district. I think any development we have is going to get more people to live and work in the California Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Avenue area. They need more business in that area and I think building more housing where people ~valk to shop at Molly Stone’s, barber shops, everything is right there and they can walk and not have to drive. The only comment I am going to have with respect to what Staff said is they had one overlay that suggested for residential along railroad tracks and they had an opening along the railroad tracks and I think that is the worst thing you could do because it will funnel the train noise into the courtyard, which I think would be very undesirable for the residents. Otherwise I support everything you are trying to do. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Sally Probst to be followed by Joy Ogawa. Ms. Sally Probst~ Palo Alto: Greetings. I am glad that you have come to this position. I think you have done a great job of carefully delineating the criteria. I think it isn’t clear to some of the public that this is not all of the criteria that apply, that the Architectural Review Board still has its regular standards, setbacks, design criteria, etc. Those have not gone out the window. I hope that there will be enough density in this area so that there will eventually be a stop sign at the comer where you turn to go down around the parking garage to get onto Page Mill, the comer at Park, the comer where those two developments will be developed. I think that would be a great help to the safety of the area, a regular stop light at that comer. This is a little off track but I wish that this same overlay could be applied to the San Antonio area near that transit station where the Mayfield Mall development is. I hear from the grapevine that Mountain View is a little unhappy with the density of what Palo Alto is proposing on its less than five acres. I am wondering whether it is possible to still consider using this same overlay design for that transit oriented station. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Joy Ogawa to be followed by Lena Tsakmaki. Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Hi I live in College Terrace. Regarding the Baby Bullet stops it seems to me that what Staff is saying is essentially make the zone change, let it get built and then hope and pray that Caltrain will provide the Baby Bullet stops at California Avenue. To me that is just not an acceptable strategy. I am very disturbed by the fast tracking of this zoning overlay which has been all Staff driven. This is not done at the direction of City Council. The Commission is not reviewing this at the direction of Council. The timeline was not approved or directed by Council. As I said last week, I am very concerned that Staff is proposing only vague guidelines and we have to trust Staff to interpret and implement those guidelines. According to Staff’s proposal when a property owner submits an application to have the overlay district applied to a specific site a preliminary plan is to be submitted. However, a property owner might submit a plan for village residential preliminarily in order to obtain the overlay zoning. Once they obtain that overlay zoning from the City Council what is there within the ordinance to make sure that they do not deviate from the preliminary plan? After the overlay is granted they could insist on a 1.5 FAR or 2.0 FAR Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 hotel and sue the City to get that. All the decisions after the overlay is granted fall on Staff and ARB. After the overlay is granted there is no more Planning Commission or City Council control over what gets built. So please don’t create property rights that you don’t want to see developed. At the very least, at the very least, make sure that the ordinance includes a provision that requires that the preliminary plan submitted prior to the overlay approval must be adhered to and that any substantial deviation from that plan must be approved by Planning Commission and Council. A substantial deviation would include changing the land use for example for village residential to multi-family or hotel or increasing the FAR beyond say one percent. We need more safeguards here. Why would you include Fry’s in this overlay district? Not only is it outside the 2,000 foot radius from the train station it seems to me that including Fry’s is totally contrary to the reconmaendations presented two days ago by the Mayor’s Retail Committee. The Retail Committee wants to keep Fry’s in Palo Alto but by including Fry’s in the overlay district you would create instead incentives for that property owner to redevelop before 2019. It seems crazy and self-defeating to me. There is no big need to include the Fry’s site it is outside the 2,000-foot radius. Don’t include it at least not at this time. After Fry’s moves, after there is something definite planned there the property owner can then ask to be included in the overlay distinct. I don’t know why you would xvant to create this kind of situation unnecessarily. I will try to say the rest at another time. Thank you. Chair Burr: Thank you. Lena Tsakmaki and then we will be taking a break before commencing with our discussion. Ms. Lena Tsakmaki, Palo Alto: Hi I live on Emerson Street. I would like to exemplify in more concrete terms how the rezoning and the allowance of building of high density, 50- foot high buildings, will affect the adjacent area predominantly the Midtown area where I reside. Before I came to this meeting my specific point xvas actually the noise level that will be reflected in the Midtown area. So before I came to this meeting I went with a sound pressure level meter in my backyard right outside my windows and measured the noise at Alma and the train reflects to my area. So my backyard is in between Alma and Emerson Street. The average noise level around 6:00 PM, which is much less traffic than at 5:00 PM, which is big traffic is around 60 to 62 decibels. When the train passes the peak point when it passes in front of my house is 77 decibels. So if that is increased and that will be increased no matter what design because the buildings that are now in that area are at one story high. With the examples that I saw they could be a minimum of three and maximum of five buildings fronting Alma Street. So all this noise will be reflected and increased. So even with a minor like five decibel increase that will increase the level of the train to more than 80 or 82 to 85 decibels. That is an unacceptable level. The train and the Alma noise will spread way down in the Midtown area where now it is not being heard. Also one of the noise levels that we get in the area that we live is from the sound from the cars passing underneath the bridge on the intersection of Oregon Expressway and Alma because of the tunnel effect. So with 800 or how many residents is estimated that will live in those buildings they will go down the bridge so that will Page 25 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 increase that noise level. Also there was one slide that said that the design will be designed with articulation and appropriate materials to minimize impact of noise. The only material that will minimize the noise level is absorbent material and that is for the interior of houses not the exterior of houses. Also I looked at the various examples and the only one that would help a little bit is the one that is interrupted but then that will only interrupt the noise that is reflected. So that is my point. Chair Burt: Thank you. We will now take about an eight or ten minute break and reconvene. Page 26 Attachment 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes January 11, 2006 EXCERPT UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Public Hearings. Zoning Ordinance Update: Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation to City Council for the approval of an ordinance to adopt a new PAMC 18.66 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (P/TOD) Combining District. The boundaries for the P/TOD zoning district are generally Cambridge Avenue to the north, E1 Camino Real to the west, Caltrain rail line to the east, and Lambert Avenue to the south. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager: Thank you very much Mr. Chair. I am going to give a brief presentation and then Rick Williams fi-om Van Meter Williams and Pollack will follow me with some of the urban design criteria that is in the ordinance. We are following up on the recommendations and the direction from the Planning and Transportation Commission from the December 14 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. As you are aware there have been previous meetings on the Pedestrian Transit Oriented zone for the California Avenue area on November 9, December 1 ARB review and then a joint study session in December. There were also two multi-family projects that are pending in this area and we would be recommending that the PTOD be considered for those and they are the housing opportunity sites from the Housing Element. We are doing this as we pointed out in the Staff Report to bring some of those sites into consistency with the Housing Element and the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to tonight’s meeting we put at the Planning Commissioners places and the public table some minor text revisions to Attachment A. I make reference to Attachment, A which is the ordinance, and not Attachment B. So ask the Commission to refer to Attachment A. There are some formatting changes because Attachment A is the ordinance, it is a legal document and it has legal requirements and Attachment B was just a chapter. There were some formatting changes that we wanted to clarify and make sure that Attachment A had the correct clarifications. Just to point out that in the chapter and in the ordinance there is a notation for Village Residential as a land use that could be used in the Pedestrian Transit Oriented District. We added a notation there that that land use is not yet adopted by the Council and therefore cannot be implemented until Council makes that adoption. We had made revisions to the ordinance from the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting from December 14. We have removed the process to amend the PTOD boundary. We have established setback and daylight plane standards Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 for properties adjacent to R-1 and R-2. We have defined the hotel uses as generating transit occupancy tax. We strengthened the design criteria to address bicycle and pedestrian amenities for the area. We have clarified the review process to define the Planning Commission and City Council’s responsibility to set land use and intensity within that zoning. We also prepared a flowchart to show the process and how the process would work under the PTOD zoning overlay. We are asking the Commission if you think that flowchart is useful we would put that in the form code as we develop the form code. I also want to point out in the Planning and Transportation Commission box we added the term ’density’ to clarify that the Planning and Transportation Commission gets to recommend on the density, the FAR, and the uses within a proposed PTOD application for the City Council. To clarify it footnotes the actual ordinance language at the bottom and that actual ordinance language is that it calls out that the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council approval shall establish limits on allowable or required uses in intensity and that includes density, floor area ratio, height and site coverage. That is a discretionary action and that application process is intended to have the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council establish those parameters for a proposed development when an application is made. The ARB application is then a design review application that is the implementation of the design criteria. It is the Planning Commission and the City Council that establishes the uses and the densities for a proposed PTOD overlay zoning. Some of the other information that we provided in the Staff Report at the request of the Planning and Transportation Commission is just some comparison of how the PTOD would compare with commercial district site area and dimensional standards and some potential development scenarios for Fry’s. I want to point out here that what we provided to the Commission in the Staff Report is really just some kind of basic information on how Fry’s could develop under the Pedestrian Transit Oriented zone. It is by no means the final number. There are many scenarios that Fry’s could develop under like different housing types and different densities given the housing types and the mixed use in there. So we just wanted to give the Commission some parameters but there are other scenarios. Rick Williams, if you like, can certainly address how those scenarios could change. I also want to point out that the site we used is the Fry’s site itself. The property owners for the Fry’s site own other parcels in that area, adjacent parcels, and it is conceivable that they could include those parcels in an overall development. So those development criteria and those development numbers could change. We just wanted to give you some idea, a ballpark number, of what Fry’s could generate under thePTOD but it is by no means finite in that respect. We also provided some information on the Cal Trans ridership and some additional information on bicycle access and connectivity. For tonight’s meeting the Staff has prepared a map that shows the existing connectivity for transit bicycle routes in that area. If you have any questions on that we are prepared to answer any questions. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 The Village Residential land use as I pointed out is a land use that we have a placeholder in the PTOD ordinance but is not yet adopted or approved. I want to point out that we will be having a study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission on February 22 with respect to that Village Residential land use. We will be going over with the Planning Commission our proposals and recommendations for a Village Residential not just in that area but the overall Village Residential land use for the City. The next steps really are that we are asking that the Planning and Transportation Commission tonight recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance establishing the PTOD Combining District. The Council is scheduled to hear this item on February 6. We are in the process right now of finalizing some form code elements and we anticipate going to the ARB on February 2 to discuss that with them and then come back to the Planning and Transportation Commission. As I said the Village Residential study session is on February 22. As we pointed out in the Staff Report we did try to setup a meeting with the CAADA Board and it was scheduled for this morning to meet with them but they cancelled their regular meeting this morning and setup a special meeting on the 18th which is when we will be meeting with them. We did send all of the Board Members copies of all of the past Staff Reports plus this Staff Report and we did receive an email confirmation from the President today saying that she has reviewed all of the information and really doesn’t have any comments on the proposal and she would just like at the 18th meeting feedback on what the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation is for the PTOD zoning. With that I will turn it over to Rick and have him elaborate a little bit more on the design criteria in the ordinance. Mr. Rick Williams, Van Meter Williams Pollack: We have taken this time really to prepare substantively for the ARB meeting and coming back to you at a later date for the rest of what we call the Step 5 in the overall PTOD zoning. I want to also just remind you that we have really focused the boundary and have created what we feel are some fairly tight limitations to the boundary for this particular overlay district. We don’t anticipate those being expanded substantively over time. John, if we could go to the next slide. Again, we are really focusing and using the ARB strength which is the design review process to allow design flexibility while maintaining the considerations for context based design for the pedestrian environment really focusing on the qualitative nature, which is something that is very difficult to regulate and it is really the strength of the ARB, how the buildings relate to the street, the street fa9ades, their detail design work and how they relate to the sidewalk, the massing and articulation. Also the low density residential transitions we feel, as we have heard over and over, are very important and these will be articulated to a great extent in the Step 5, which are really guidelines that are fairly consistent with the detailed guidelines that were developed earlier for the E1 Camino Real, very similar interface. Project open space has been defined and will be illustrated as well as how to handle parking and how it should not be a negative impact to the pedestrian environment and the bike environment and with that some streetscape development that we have begun. The how to treat larger sites is very important here. There have been discussions about wanting to break up the scale and maintain a small scale. So the concept of larger sites having multiple building Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 prototypes on them we are illustrating as well as the principles of sustainability, which are in all of the different zoning regulations as well as historic preservation. Next. Connectivity, you have the diagram previously’ noted by John but what we are looking at having in the Step 5 examples in the larger format is very clear articulation of the connectivity. Although it is not necessarily a grid but there is a matrix, a network of connectivity that is both at the public street level, it could be at the private street level, as well as in a subset level of detail which could include as had been discussed previously a potential for access along the rail line. This could be illustrated as Park, California and other intermediate structure of pedestrian connections within. Next. We are also looking very closely at the building fagade. I am sure when we get to speaking with the ARB that these will be refined but we are working on detailed Step 5 guidelines which relate both commercial and residential uses as well as live/work and how those would be interfaced with the public realm, the street and the surrounding buildings. Next. Massing and articulation. We are going to address those in a number of different ways. The massing and articulation works at a large building scale to articulate buildings and break down the scale both horizontally and vertically. The level of detail as it is adjacent to the pedestrians is a great strength in its articulation and detail. We also are starting to work on how a single building could be broken up into an appearance for multiple buildings again breaking down the scale of the development. This is going to a greater extent than some of the other form based code sections because of the importance of the Pedestrian Transit Oriented district and it is fairly consistent with the E1 Camino Real Guidelines which is sort of a precedent that we are looking at. So although at this point we are anticipating moving forward to the ARB for detailed review of each of these guidelines and standards this is an important aspect in which we are beginning to work through these different issues. Next. Again, we mentioned that the transitions occur in a variety of different ways. The daylight plane is being incorporated in as it is adjacent to single family residential as well as other elements such as landscaping and screening for visual privacy which is an expanded set of guidelines that are being moved into Step 5 to specifically relate to those issues. Next slide. We think that this is an important slide to grasp in a number of different elements. One is that as the development site gets larger there are multiple different building types. That works in two ways both to break down the scale as well as being able to work as a transition. For example if the area here was existing single family it can move from a Village Residential transition up to a medium density to a higher density transition so that we can use the large scale site development regulation as a way of transitioning from lower intensity existing development to other developments. I think that this both in size and in transitions is a fairly clear way of using this as a tool so that the ARB can inform the development community on its goals for this particular area. I think that that site in particular shows that in response to that. It is not a detailed clip of one backyard Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 transition to another it is a greater view of what the neighborhood is to somewhat become. Next. Then we are also going to start to work with the Public Works Department and relate to a possible street section. An example would be along Park Boulevard with the lanes of traffic, the ability to incorporate bike as well as parking as well as taking the sidewalk and the potential for widening that through an easement or a combination of an easement and a setback. Similar to the strategy that we have had along the E1 Camino Real to again widen that opportunity for pedestrian circulation and bike circulation both in a commercial land use interface or a residential land use interface. So these are kind of snapshots of what we have attempted to do and illustrate the greater points that have been brought up at the meetings. We have begun to illustrate those and we our anticipation would be that if this is to move forward that we would work diligently on all ten of the different fundamental principles that were outlined and incorporate those into the Step 5 regulations of the form based code. If you have any questions on those or any other issues we would gladly answer those. Chair Burt: Commissioners, no questions at this time? Okay. Thank you, Rick. At this time we are going to go to the public for comments. I have ten speaker cards or 11, 12. Speakers have up to five minutes to speak although you are not obliged to use all five minutes. Our first speaker tonight is Sally Probst to be followed by Suzanne Bayley. Ms. Sally Probst, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am glad to be able to say again that the League of Women Voters enthusiastically supports this Pedestrian Transit Oriented District for the California Avenue area. It was interesting to me to hear Steve Levy just an hour ago talk about the increasing sales tax revenue for the county. The sales tax is something that we depend on heavily in Palo Alto. One of the reasons for it is that as we are building more housing and more of our people who work here are able to live here they are also able to spend their money here and we benefit from the sales tax. In other words, as the number of commuters from outside the county is decreasing as it is because more housing is being provided here our revenues are increasing. I just think that is one of the benefits that we need to consider. The other benefit that we need to consider is that it is important to have a variety of kinds of housing for a variety of levels economic, professional, etc. This transit oriented district will help in that area. Of course the two projects that are before you later that will come as this is approved are both on the Housing Element list of possible sites to help us reach what we have agreed to provide with the State of California. I just mention that as another aspect. So I heartily support this district. I think that the form code that we began hearing about from our consultants was it two or three years ago is now taking place and we are benefiting. Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Thank you. Suzanne Bayley to be followed by Brian Bayley. Ms. Suzanne Ba¥1e¥, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am here tonight along with many of my neighbors to ask that you do not recommend approval of the proposed Pedestrian Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Transit Oriented Development until the concerns of our neighborhood can be fully addressed and the impacts mitigated. I actually put all my comments together for the project. It is very confusing having in one night the project and the zoning update. Let me just tell you our block is just south of Oregon, just one street over from Alma and at an elevation 20 feet below Park Boulevard. We were all aghast when the Agilent project up eight years ago and blocked our views of the sunsets and foothills from our homes and yards. We now endure green light from the third story of Agilent seeping into our homes and neighborhoods all night since the lights are never turned off. Direct views of the modern, boxy, commercial building from inside our homes and our yards negatively impact the single family residential feel of our neighborhood. We did not know how development along Park Boulevard would affect us until this building, which had previously been one story, was built. Apparently no one else did either. It is a natural assumption that the sight lines stop at the Caltrain tracks. However, this is false. The Caltrain tracks are not the end of the world. When Agilent was redeveloped the residential neighbors along Olive Street participated in a design that created a parking lot and landscape berm facing their homes so as to minimally be impacted by the redevelopment. Unfortunately, for us our neighborhood took the brunt of the building massing as it occurred on the Park Boulevard-Page Mill corner. We now know and understand the impact on our neighborhood of development on Park Boulevard. Our view of the proposed housing manufacturing development on Park Boulevard will be of an almost block-long five story blank wall with no room for landscaping. We will have four-plus stories of housing looming over us and peering into our kitchens, backyards, living rooms, etc. Neighbors who can see the foothills and sunsets now will not be able to any longer. Noise from the train and traffic noise along Alma will be amplified and bounce back. If you look at all of the design the Caltrain tracks are treated as the very back. There is nothing. They say everything is massed towards the back. That is what we see. There are no pedestrian lovely sounding adjectives for the part of the building we will see and how this will impact our neighborhood. Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan first and foremost calls for the protection of our existing single family neighborhoods. The language of the proposed zoning update is too vague for us to rely on these protections. The densities and heights allowed on the borders of the PTOD will have dire consequences for our quality of live and our existing residential neighborhood. The maximum height and density allowances in this zone need to be stepped back from our residential neighborhood and transition from more compatible heights. I notice tonight that it doesn’t even show that we are single family residential right next to Alma. So we are not being considered in this plan even though we have come to you before. I will save the rest of my remarks for the actual building that is going up. Thank you. Commissioner Lippert: Excuse me. I missed the first 15 seconds of your talk because people were clapping and I was distracted. I did not hear that part. Ms. Ba¥1e¥: Well I asked that you do not recommend approval of the PTOD until the concerns of our neighborhood can be fully addressed and mitigated. Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. That is the part that I missed. Thank you. Chair Burt: I would like to ask the audience as a practice we discourage the audience from applause or cheering and things. It is selective to the speakers and some are intimidated by different reactions from the audience so as a general rule we ask that but you are all welcome to speak. Our next speaker is Brian Bayley to be followed by Jonathan Cranch. Mr. Brian Ba¥1e¥, Palo Alto: Good evening. I would like to take a minute to talk about the 50-foot height limit. At the last meeting the comment was made by one of you that it would be difficult for a developer to satisfy all of the criteria needed to build a 50 foot building in the proposed area. So there probably wouldn’t be many 50-foot buildings and maybe there wouldn’t be any. It was clear that the speaker was thinking that this would be a good thing not to have 50-foot buildings. So the obvious question is if it is a good thing not to have 50-foot buildings why not just set the height limit lower so that we won’t have them? After all a 50 foot building is a 50-foot building no matter what is inside of it. A 50 foot building filled with below market rate units has the exact same effect on the cityscape as a 50 foot building filled with luxury condos or manufacturing or any of the other uses that have been proposed. No difference. The basics of what can be built in this area are determined by the zoning conditions that you all are setting up not by what the Architectural Review Board for example will eventually say about a specific project. Their inputs are minor compared to the rules that you set. So in setting those rules I would ask that you consider the proposal before you as if it were a proposal for your own neighborhood, as if the proposed new buildings would be looming over your backyard, as if the lights from the new development would be shining into your living rooms, as if the noise from the passing trains would be echoing into your bedrooms and kitchens and as if the children tiding their bicycles on Park street fighting the cars rushing to get onto Oregon Expressway were your children or maybe in some cased their children. There is an opportunity here to do something really wonderful with this area. Something that is a win for the City and win for the neighborhood it is not however building 50 foot high buildings that aren’t scaled for the area and don’t fit the local environment. We don’t live in suburban Palo Alto because we want to make it into urban San Francisco or San Jose or Oakland. We live in Palo Alto because we like the scale of the cityscape and we like the friendliness of the environment. You all have the power to set the rules for this area in a way that can lead tO something really nice, something that becomes a model that other neighborhoods will want to emulate not something that is used as an example of what can happen to your neighborhood if you don’t watch out. So I encourage you to make something wonderful. Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Thank you. Jonathan Cranch to be followed by Peter Lockhart. Mr. Jonathan Cranch, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am not really feeling very well this evening so I will just be very brief. I think Suzanne and Brian have been very articulate and they have conveyed most of my concerns. I am concerned about the height. I am concerned about the mass of the buildings that we will see. I am hearing now that people Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 on the platform at the Caltrain station can look into our bedroom at this point. If we add four more stories of height above that our privacy will be totally nonexistent. It would be very nice if we would put the high-rise building along E1 Camino and the soccer fields along Park Boulevard. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Peter Lockhart to be followed by Edie Keating. Mr. Peter Lockhart, Palo Alto: I found some of the language in the PTOD to be confusing and perhaps contradictory so I have written a letter to address those concerns. I will just read the letter into the record. City of Palo Alto, Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director. Regarding the California Avenue area Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development District. I am on record as enthusiastically supporting the PTOD. I made this statement based on meetings with Staff where my counsel and I were clearly told that Olive Avenue would be designated RM-40 zoning or could be. In reading the Zoning Ordinance Update I find some of the language confusing and contradictory. The zoning designation of RM-40 and Village Residential or Cottage Cluster are both mentioned in reference to Olive Avenue. The " present R-1 zoning is acceptable the RM-40 works and is preferred. We would strenuously object to anything less. Regarding the PTOD zoning proposal in reference to the Olive Avenue I am requesting a response and an opinion from the City Attorney to the following points: is the zoning in the PTOD on Olive intended to be Village Residential, RM-20 or RM-40? Reference Attachment F, page 9, paragraph three; Attachment B, page 4, Table 2; Attachment E. The second item: does the City have the ability or right to initiate a rezone if the owner does not consent? Reference Attachment B, page 12, paragraph six/18.66.060 Part A. Wording similar to the following would serve to clarify and facilitate the goals as stated in the ordinance update, which is, "Due to the sensitive nature of Olive Avenue the PTOD should be elective in this area and in keeping with the intent of the California Avenue area Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development District. The City shall encourage support and facilitate property owners to elect the RM-40 zoning hereby afforded. Sincerely, Peter Lockhart with carbon copies to Mr. John Lusardi and Mr. Frank Benest. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Edie Keating to be followed by Robert Carney. Ms. Edie Keating, Palo Alto: Hi. I have a copy of the Caltrain schedule which I wanted to show you because I think it could help clarify from reading some of the comments and questions last time. This is very much a part of my world because I take Caltrain to San Francisco every day. When the Bullet schedule first came on I rented a bike locker at Downtown Palo Alto because I said there is not enough service at Cal Ave, which is much closer to my home. So I either drove or biked to Downtown. This summer Caltrain revised the Baby Bullet schedule and they did a really wonderful job and they increased service to the middle stops not to the Palo Altos but to the California Avenues and the San Mateos and so on. This row here that I have underlined so the numbers just Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 above it is California Avenue. You can see that during the morning commute there are two trains that are stopping each hour at California Avenue so that is pretty good. The other thing that is really wonderful is that one of those trains each hour has three local stops and then it is a Bullet. So I can go to California Avenue and I can get to San Francisco really fast. I really appreciate that so I am back to using California Avenue more often than Downtown. In the other direction, I just looked at it, it is not quite as good but it is just half an hour on the local to get to San Jose so again that is quite good. Also, when you buy a Caltrain pass that is three zones or more, which I get when I go to San Francisco, I get free rides on VTA. So I happen to know that ifI get off at Palo Alto I can just take the 22 and I am at California Avenue where I may have left my bike or my car. It is very simple you just get on right where the train station is. Also, the 522 buses have you noticed those? The VTA rapid buses that are going on E1 Camino make three stops in Palo Alto. They stop at the Downtown Caltrain station, they stop at California Avenue and they stop at San Antonio. So at all those places you have double the service on E1 Camino, you have the 22 and also the 522. Also if you ride your bike from California Avenue to the Downtown train station, and I am not very fast, it is under 15 minutes. So it is a very rich place and very nice bicycle tiding. Park avenue right where E1 Camino crosses it that might need a traffic light it is a little dicey. But for example I would never tide my bike on somewhere like Alma Street but Park avenue even in those busier places I am very comfortable riding my bike. So then moving to what do I think about this whole thing in general, I live right now at East Meadow and Alma and I miss Albertson’s a lot because that is where I would walk to buy my milk, and that is where I would walk to buy a bottle of wine which at least has sales tax on it. Likewise when I think of all the people who will move in and live in these areas they are going to enjoy walking to Molly Stone or Country Sun to be able to buy their milk or their bottle of wine. I like having retail opportunities but I really like having viable retail opportunities that I can count on because they are thriving businesses and are going to stay that way. If you add more people that close to the California Avenue shopping area I really think it has to help. Thanks. Chair Burt: Thank you. Robert Carney to be followed by Terry Holzemer. Mr. Robert Carney, Palo Alto: Good evening. I would like to concur with the comments of the second speaker particularly. This development is being characterized as a Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development, which implies that transit is a central feature of this program, a precondition perhaps for it. So that transit resources in this area are judged to be critical to the development. In this area we have bus service but nothing that could be called a bus hub and probably no prospect of building such a thing because of the street congestion in the area, which is only going to get worse with this development. The one resource that we have is Caltrain but Caltrain service to California Avenue does not include the Baby Bullet Express. Of the 34 nominal stations on Caltrain 12 are Baby Bullet. California Avenue is number 11 in terms ofridership in 2004 and 2005 yet we do not have Baby Bullet Express service. I think that a necessary precondition for a transit oriented development is to have those transit resources lined up in advance. I believe that we must have a binding agreement with Caltrain Peninsula Joint Powers Board to Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 upgrade Caltrain service at California Avenue before this can proceed. Otherwise it is a little disingenuous to call this really a transit oriented development because the transit resource, a good transit resource, an appropriate transit resource is really not in place. That is my main comment. I haven’t had a chance to look through all of this but I am not aware in the record that there has been an evaluation of the noise effects of this development. The Alma Street Caltrain corridor is very noisy. Development particularly building fagades on the Park avenue side will be acoustically reflective and I don’t know to the best of my knowledge an acoustics consultant has not entered anything into the record about the effects of reflective surfaces on noise levels on the Alma Street side of this development. I think this could be a significant impact. It is noisy already and this has the potential to make this residential area in which I live significantly noisier. I would appreciate if someone could look into that. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Terry Holzemer to be followed by Debbie Kullman. Mr. Terry Holzemer, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am the President of the Palo Alto Central East Residential Association, which is directly in the proposed California Avenue PTOD. I wanted to first of all say I apologize for not attending last month’s meeting. I understand that at that meeting you did discuss the PTOD as well and unfortunately I could not attend. I wanted to first of all begin my remarks by telling you a little bit about our homeowner’s association. Our complex is made up of over 141 homeowners, condominium owners and it includes people of all ages, a mixed group. We have young professionals. We have older residents, retired residents and what I consider the middle age group, which includes myself. We have enjoyed for many years living in the California Avenue district. Part of the reason why we moved to this area originally was because we were attracted to what is already currently there and that includes the commercial street along California Avenue, the businesses, the post office, and all these areas that we are already familiar with. What we are concerned about are a number of things. First of all like all residents we care about our neighborhood a great deal. Sometimes our area gets kind of overlooked because people think that we are mainly a commercial zone, which is quite not true. There are a number of homeowners that live in that area and support the California Avenue business district and the area. We are very proud to do that and we continue to do that because we care about this area quite a bit. For the large part we feel that this zoning change has kind of snuck up on us. We care a lot about having a lot of community support and understanding. For those of us that live in the area and care about it we want to know as much as we can especially those issues that affect our local area, the surrounding streets. We had hoped, and I know this hasn’t approached our Board at all, we had hoped that the City Staff or even members of this Commission in proposing this zoning change had sought comments from the people that live in that area particularly our Board or the Boards of other homeowners associations that actually live Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 in that zone. As far as I know that has not occurred. I also feel like we need to reach out to the business people along California Avenue and find out their feelings and their viewpoints as well on this issue. As a suggestion to the Commission and to the City Staff I would hope that the residents of this area and in the affected zone would be properly surveyed, their thoughts considered and more community outreach done by the City before any of this matter or this zoning change occurs. I would hope that you would please take all of these matters into consideration especially because our residents do care about our complex and about the surrounding area. We care about the same issues that other neighborhoods care about traffic, noise, we care about all these issues and these issues should not be forgotten by the people who live in this zone. Thank you very much. Commissioner Lippert: Excuse me, before you leave could you point out on the map the area of your neighborhood? Mr. Holzemer: We live fight in that area. We are right before the red zone. It is a yellow here and it is kind of an E shape but without the middle E part. So it stretches from Oregon Expressway down to California Avenue right along the railroad tracks. Commissioner Lippert: It is basically the yellow building that is all along there. Mr. Holzemer: That’s right. Colmnissioner Lippert: Thank you. Chair Burt: Debbie Kullman to be followed by Robert Wheatley. Ms. Debbie Kullman, Palo Alto: Hi folks. I am yet another Emerson Street resident. I have to echo what my neighbors have said. I spent a couple of nights walking up and down the street with Suzanne Bayley to let our neighbors know what was going on because these little postcards that we get from the City of Palo Alto are usually used for fire starters, at least they were in my house. I very rarely looked at them. It never occurred to me that this was something that could so affect my life. Suzalme and I took a ride over to the train station yesterday and looked from the train station parking lot and I was appalled that I could see my neighbor’s bedroom window, and that is at street level. My neighbor’s window is on the second floor and the street level, the elevation on Park Boulevard is 20 feet higher. So if you talk about putting up a 50 foot building even one 50 foot building that is 70 feet that we are looking at. We are probably looking at 50 feet of that building. To me that is not what Palo Alto is all about. We don’t have buildings like that. We do but they are in Downtown Palo Alto or they are on E1 Camino Real they are not in the middle of our residential sections. I understand that something needs to be done with this area. It is ripe for redevelopment. It is something that I feel very strongly should be redeveloped but in my trek, in my drive up and down Park Boulevard and up and down some of the other streets that run parallel to Alma I found that there are wonderful condos, two story condos, two story townhouses, that kind of thing. There are no huge buildings. I am talking tall invasive buildings, buildings that are going to be looking in my backyard. I could see the roof of my house. I have a large backyard. I Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 live next door to the Cranch’s and they are right, Agilent’s lights are on all night. Basically when I go into my kitchen to drink a glass of water that is what I see - these lights on the third floor and they are green glaring right inmy kitchen window. I think what I am asking you to do is look at how this affects our neighborhood and consider that before you pass a blanket zoning change that would allow buildings that are so high that they are going to be looking in my backyard. I will have no privacy at all. The other issue is traffic. I don’t know how many of you have tried to take the loop from Park Boulevard onto Page Mill at five o’clock. You can wait at least five minutes in a line of cars. I realize five minutes is not a whole lot of time but if you add high density housing into the mix you are going to end up with a lot more people even though this is supposed to be a pedestrian transit oriented development a lot of these people are not going to take the train. They are still going to use their cars. They are going to get into this whole traffic loop. It is going to be a snarl and I am not sure that that has been researched in detail. I know that there was one report citing that there were no traffic problems and that I just don’t believe. Anyone that’s been there at five o’clock knows that adding a few hundred more people is going to be a problem. So I just want to ditto what my neighbors have said and I also want to say that the consideration that was given to Olive Street when the Agilent building was being built was the right thing to do. Basically, driving up Olive Street and looking to the right at Agilent from their front yards there is wonderful landscaping, there is berms, there is a level change. Looking out from their front yards I see this beautiful landscaping and then a parking lot and the building is way out there the butt of which we see from our kitchen windows and from our bedrooms. So I am asking that what you did for them you consider doing for us. Look at Emerson Street the world does not end at Alma. Thank yOU. Chair Burt: Thank you. Robert Wheatley to be followed by Bob Moss. Mr. Robert Wheatle¥, Palo Alto: Hi. I am the manager for the site that is referred to in the writing as the Fry’s site, E1 Camino Center. I appreciated John’s description of the property and the illustration that was given in the write-up is just basically for the one parcel but there are many parcels that make up that site. In fact there are closer to 16 acres that are inside the PTOD area instead of just the 12 acres. So we wouldn’t want that to be held up as the intent of the planning district if the site is redeveloped and more acres are included than that but it is useful as an illustration. We do support the PTOD proposal. I think it does give flexibility past what the current zoning is now for the redevelopment of the property whether it is different uses or styles or densities perhaps including some neighborhood services, whatever the arrangement is it allows more flexibility which will better I think suit the community when it gets done. We currently do have many of the tenants taking the train from different areas into our site. So there is ridership on both buses and on Caltrain that come into the Fry’s site now and I would anticipate that if we had residential development there that many of those people would choose to use the train because the proximity is very useful to the people who are there. I Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 think that given that it is the 11th highest ridership I think it was 800 or 900 a day getting on and off at that station it is a viable station that is used a lot. The reservation we probably have about the PTOD is the vagary of approaching that for development. It is not a set zoning. There is a discretionary process at the level of your committee here then again at the City Council level and given other experiences, developing the Rickey’s site or other things there are many people who have become discouraged in that process over time. It has been very difficult so that is one thing that still would remain a difficulty in this zone. Even though it gives you more options it puts into a very discretionary process with no certain outcome at the other end. If it could be made more certain for particular outcomes it would be helpful to us if not a defined zoning that was put on the property. Our property was rezoned from a commercial service or commercial area to residential many years ago, an involuntary process where we were told this is very important for the City to get housing and to be able to increase its housing stock. I think that pendulum goes back and forth a little bit. Now whenever a specific location is talked about there is nothing but a problem in actually putting housing of any kind of density at any given location. It seems like it is a nice concept but it is not to be done anywhere specifically around town. I think if it can’t be done where there is proximity to Caltrain and proximity to the transportation resources that the community has then I don’t think there is anywhere in town that the City really would have the will to put housing. So I think this is the place to do it if it is going to be done where we have the transportation resources. One suggestion for our site would be to include three smaller parcels that make up about one acre on Ash Street. One side of Ash Street is included in the PTOD and these parcels across the street, 3200, 3250 and 3260, are not included in the PTOD. If we had input on this or a suggestion would be to include those three small parcels, which would in any case be an integral part of any development of this whole site when it comes to be. Does that make sense? Okay. Vice-Chair Holman: Could you point to those on the map? Mr. Wheatley: Here is the site and I believe this is Ash Street right here running through. It would be parcels that are right here just across the street. This side is and the other side is not included. Thank you for your time. Chair Burt: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Chi Lee. Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Burt and Commissioners. Since Mr. Wheatley started off by talking about the Fry’s site I will begin with that and give you a little history. The Staff Report talks about how the site is going to be amortized in 2019 to housing. That amortization period has been extended twice already. I was at the meeting next door in 1991 when Randy Fry came in with his proposal to move into that building. I told them then that the site was being amortized and in about seven or eight years it was going to be housing. He said well in the retail business seven or eight years is forever and if we can really make a success of it for seven or eight years I would be Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 delighted and then we will talk about it. Well, they talked about it and it got extended and then it got extended again. I am willing to bet that ifFry’s is doing as well in 2017 as they are doing today it will be extended again or the zoning will be changed. So don’t let that influence your decisions. The second point is Olive and to a lesser extent Pepper. When the zoning ordinances were being changed and the zoning map was being changed in 1976 to 1978 that area was considered seriously blighted. Everyone was convinced that those homes on those streets were all going to be demolished and it was going to all be redeveloped for commercial and industrial. It didn’t happen. In fact, a number of brand new homes have been built there. It is a perfectly viable R-1 residential area. The last thing that you should be doing is putting in one of these wild card zones in R-1 housing areas. The extent of the PTOD overlay should stop at the Agilent boundary. You should not include Pepper. You should not include the Fry’s site. One of the reasons is exactly what Mr. Wheatley is concerned about this site is basically wild card zoning. It is a PC zone without the benefit that the public is supposed to get from PC zone. It is what I refer to as Blanch Dubois housing where the public is supposed to depend on the kindness of strangers on the ARB and the Planning Commission to give them something that is consistent and something that is going to be suitable for the neighborhood. That is not the way to do land use. That is not the way to do zoning. You should be putting in specific requirements. Thou shalt have setbacks. Thou shalt build no higher than 40 feet come hell or high water. Thou shalt not have somebody decide what is contextual today to me is not going to be contextual to Paula, or to Daniel, or to Karen tomorrow. One of the things I was kind of amused at is Staffwas saying we are not going to get 50 foot high buildings, we are not going to get this density because it is uneconomical to build it. Let me tell you a true story. When the CN zone was created on E1 Camino when I was one of the three people in the community that created it we wanted it low density and low intensity. [Naply Knox] was the Director of Planning at the time and he ended up putting in a little higher density than we wanted and we said we don’t think that is a good thing to do. He said, don’t worry, the only way a developer can build at the highest density possible would be to have underground parking and underground parking is so expensive it is never going to happen. Do you know how many years it was before we got underground parking there? Five. So when somebody tells you that it is uneconomical and it is not practical what is uneconomical and unpractical to you and to the Stafftoday is not going to be that way in the future to a developer. I would like to suggest two specific changes. On page 9, item 6, height increase for projects with a residential density greater than 30 units per acre, delete that entirely. Do not allow 50 feet. Forty feet max no more. Second, somebody else has already talked about this on page 17 the new section that was added, 18.66.060 B where it talks about the restrictions require rezoning through the same process except if the Director of Planning and Community Environment may determine a revision is minor and does materially alter. What is minor? What is not materially alter? What is minor to this Director or the next Director or the Director after that? I would like to see some specificity, some definitions. Don’t just leave it open. Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Thank you. We have Chi Lee to be followed by Joy Ogawa and then our final speaker Lena Tsakrnaki. I have a card for items two and three from Victoria Holl. Someone can change that if that is what she wants to do. Mr. Lee. Mr. Chi Lee, Palo Alto: Good evening. When I look at your proposal I actually like the way you describe it as Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development. The problem is that you are injecting higher or new residential building and business building. That is contradictory to your proposal. If you are not introducing new housing or business office then that’s fine. You enlarge the road and you literally improve the traffic. But there will be a negative impact if you have business. It is so unpredictable there will be cars and more noise pollution and air pollution. It will be more congested. I don’t know how deep you have studied in terms of the social, environmental and economical impact on this particular project. I can speak personally I am against it because I don’t want to see a tall building behind my backyard. It looks intimidating and it deprives me of privacy completely and also lower the potentially have a negative impact on the value of my house. Also, Palo Alto means tall tree literally but not tall building. It has a longer impact because people will be discouraged to move into Palo Alto if they see more concrete buildings and more high-rise buildings. You are just looking at the benefits at this point but you have to have a longer vision of the image of Palo Alto and the meaning of Palo Alto. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. I had neglected to ask speakers to state their address just for the record so Mr. Lee is on Emerson Street. Is that no longer required? Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: No, we don’t ask the speakers to state their address just the city of residence. Chair Burt: So just name and city of residence then, sorry. Joy Ogawa to be followed by Lena Tsakmaki. Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: I live in College Terrace in Palo Alto. I hope you were able to read my email comments because I am not going to repeat that here. Regarding auto dealership properties. If you want to keep that auto dealership on Park Boulevard then simply do not include those properties in the overlay district. After all they are outside the 2,000-foot radius from the train station. Staff says that this is not a good location for an auto dealership. I disagree. E1 Camino might be a better place for a Chevy dealership but Park Boulevard is a great place for a Mercedes and BMW dealership. Furthermore, close proximity to a train station works really well for an auto dealership with a service department. I, myself, take the train to get to and from my auto service shop in order to pick up my car or after I drop it off for service. I could get someone to drive me but it is easy for me to take the train instead so I take the train. Staff’s argument for including the auto dealership property is an extremely weak one. Staff argues that the property owner could eventually ask for a rezone to multi-family housing. So Staff is doing a preemptive strike by applying this overlay instead. I hope the fallacy of that argument is apparent to the Commissioners. It amazes me that Staff can make this argument in one breath and Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ¯ 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 then turn around and say that if you want to keep locally owned businesses in the overlay district you can always deny an overlay application for an individual site. It is obvious to me that it would be a lot easier to deny an application for a zone change from GM to RM- 40 than it would be to deny an application for an overlay for a property that is included in the overlay district. By including the property in the overlay district you would be inviting the property owner to submit plans to redevelop. If you don’t want to invite that kind of redevelopment just don’t include that property in the overlay district in the first place. Just because a property owner could theoretically eventually apply for a rezone from GM to RM-40 doesn’t mean that the rezone will automatically be granted. In fact, we should all be extremely alarmed that Staff seems to presume that if a property owner applies for such a rezone the rezone will be granted. Why else would Staff argue that we need to strike preemptively to prevent the rezone requests by including the property in the overlay district? Similarly, for the R-1 properties on Olive Avenue if you want to keep the single family neighborhood then don’t include those properties in the overlay district. Regarding Fry’s, Staff says that Fry’s could remain in a redevelopment under the overlay zoning. However, it seems to me the reality is that in order to redevelop the property Fry’s would have to move at least temporarily during construction. IfFry’s has to relocate doesn’t that greatly reduce the likelihood of Fry’s moving back? It costs a lot of money to relocate a store like Fry’s. Why move twice when you can move just once? So why unnecessarily create a further incentive to redevelop the Fry’s site before 2019 and why create problems when you don’t have to? Finally, with the lack of specific development standards Staff proposes to take on the responsibility of interpreting and enforcing the design criteria guidelines. It seems to me that this would be similar to the Individual Review process but consider how much Staff time and effort is expended on Individual Review. Staff is always complaining about how they are overworked and understaffed. Now they want to take on this additional burden. That doesn’t make sense to me. Since I have the time I will say something about the 50 foot tall fake brick building at the comer of E1 Camino and California Avenue, a building that the Staffhas held out as a good example of a 50 foot tall building in the area. Let me tell you that in my opinion that building is the least pedestrian friendly, the most pedestrian unfriendly building on California Avenue. The comer of that building juts out into the sidewalk at the comer of E1 Camino and California Avenue. It is almost impossible to see anyone walking towards the comer from the other side of the building until you actually reach the comer and it is a very narrow sidewalk at that intersection. I have personally collided with another pedestrian at this comer. Now, whenever I approach this comer I am kind of scared and I stop and I peer around the comer in order to avoid collisions. To me this is not the kind of building that should be built in a pedestrian oriented zone. Please take the time necessary to consider all the details and ramifications and impacts of this overlay zone. Let me just repeat what I said at the last meeting that this overlay zone is a Staff driven thing and it is on a timeline that Staff determined and none of this was at Council’s direction. So please take the time that is necessary to consider this carefully. Thanks. Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Thank you. Lena Tsakmaki and then our final speaker Victoria Holl. Ms. Lena Tsakmaki, Palo Alto: Hello. I would like to voice my opposition to the creation of the PTOD district and the California Avenue Caltrain Station. First of all the measure seems to benefit only one individual, the owner and developer of the parcel on Park avenue. The rest of the area is fully developed with high density units unless of course there are hopes that more stores in the California Avenue commercial district will be converted to high density housing, something that would be very unfortunate for the citizens of Palo Alto. Thus it would be more fair that any rezoning discussion that benefits a single parcel to be accompanied by specific plans for that parcel and voted as a single measure in order to avoid unpleasant surprises in the future. Second, a possible high-density housing construction on the parcels on Park avenue would have detrimental effects on our neighborhood on Emerson Street and the adjacent Midtown area. You might not think that there is a neighborhood after the trains but we are so close and everything that happens in the Park avenue area effects us. The combined parcels have the length of almost an entire block on Emerson Street. If a building 50 feet high of that length is built there that would act as a reflective sound wall that would amplify the already high Alma traffic and train noises would get in our houses. Let me tell you what noise I am talking about and these are not arbitrary numbers since I have a sound pressure level meter and I measured them repeatedly. The train noise in my backyard is 77 decibels. Inside my house, which is new construction with double pane windows, the train noise is 64 decibels well above the maximum permissible instantaneous noise level of 50 decibels for interiors. For comparison purposes the noise level of a low flying airplane inside my house is 52 decibels. Now a difference of ten decibels is not just a little higher but ten times higher since the decibel scale is algorithmic. So the train noise in my house is ten times louder than the airplane noise that we all know. I don’t think there is any margin to have an increased train level noise in our homes but that will definitely happen if a four or five story building is constructed on Park avenue. Solid surfaces act as transmission and reflection mediums for sound whereas sound is disbursed in open air. Third, I think that the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development is a euphemism or at least wishful thinking. There is no way to ensure that the people who buy those units will use the train. There are already many such developments adjacent to the train station but in the 60 or 64,000 people on California Avenue of the two train stations has only 840 daily passengers. That is something that was mentioned in the last meeting. That is because of the reduced train stops on California Avenue. So the way to promote train use is not to build more housing but ensure a frequent and convenient train schedule. Since I have more minutes I know people who live in those developments in that area who work two stops on the train down and they don’t use the train because there aren’t frequent stops on that train and it is not convenient. Thank you for your time. Chair Burt: Thank you. Victoria Holl. Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Victoria Holl, Palo Alto: It is interesting going last because you kind of go, that’s been said, that’s been said and that’s been said. I reiterate what my neighbors have said. You know a building of this size is going to act as a sound wall. That is why they build them along freeways. What I see here and I am looking at this, I will be honest, this is the first time I have seen the one with the developer’s name on the bottom. I see a developer and ! see a city trying to build a high density mass building complex or several of them under the guise of a Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development. I am not even going to say it out loud. You know it is not true. I walk to Safeway to buy water, my neighbors think I am a joke, and I am only four blocks away. People in Palo Alto don’t walk. People in Palo Alto don’t take the train. As was just said 850 passengers a day through one station. Divide that in half because those are people coming and going. Building housing there of that density isn’t going to change that. I do agree that the area needs to be redeveloped but I just wish you would consider all of the neighbors around that area not just what stops at the railroad tracks. Chair Burt: Okay, that concludes our speakers on the subject. Just a couple of thoughts. One we often encourage Staff to give any responses they may have to specific questions or comments that they may have factual responses to and then the other thing that has occurred to me tonight even though this is our third meeting in the last two months on this particular zoning area and one of the reasons that the Commission has taken three meetings and Staff has agreed to this many is to in fact draw out public participation and input. It is always regrettable that many times the public does not become attune to a proposal that is working its way through until often when it gets all the way to City Council. We wanted to do everything we could to try to encourage that input. So I hope that the members of the public who are here tonight realize they haven’t been deliberately excluded. The exact opposite has been the attempt, which is to include everyone. So having said that, yes? As I stated we have had our last public speaker and the hearing is closed to the public. So the hearing is closed at this time. As I was trying to say, one of the things now that we have a new group of people who are interested in this development the background that has been discussed for some time they may not be so familiar with and so at the risk that Staff is going to be asked to repeat some things that we have done at previous hearings, could Staff give a brief summary of the concept of the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development, the genesis of it and some of the state mandates that are now influencing it? Not a long presentation like we have had previously but just so that people understand that there is a context for this. It isn’t being done out of the blue and for no reason. Mr. Lusardi: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will give a brief background and I would like to clarify and respond to some of the concerns that were raised. We certainly appreciate that. The Pedestrian Transit Oriented land use is a land use that is contained within the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted and approved by the City. It is a land use and is Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 called out for that area. We have plotted the area, the 2,000-foot radius that the Comprehensive Plan shows for a potential Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development. We have explained to the Commission and to the public why we are not going with the 2,000 foot radius primarily because it contains an awful lot of single family residence and we want to avoid the single family neighborhoods with respect to the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development. So we augmented the boundaries and modified the boundaries to capture what we think would be the true development sites for the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development called out for in the Comprehensive Plan and called out in the Comprehensive Plan to be implemented through the Zoning Ordinance Update. So that has been there since the Comprehensive Plan adoption for us to implement the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development zone. As we have pointed out also recently Council action with respect to the GM zones that are along the railroad tracks there on Park Boulevard the restriction or the prohibition of -multi-family housing on those sites is part of what has triggered us to come forward with the Pedestrian Transit Oriented zone in this area primarily because there are two housing sites on the Housing Element Inventory that are showing for housing development. It puts the Staff and the City in a delicate position with respect to state legislation that is SB 1818 which we feel we calmot deny housing on those sites because they are designated as Housing Inventory sites and because SB 1818 requires us to entertain development and housing in that regard. So what we are trying to do is frame local regulations and legislations that would be more sensitive and more responsive to what the City feels should be happening there and not leave it up to what we think is kind of an open-ended and confusing state legislation. So we are trying to frame it in that regard as well. So that is part of why we are here tonight as implementing the Housing Element, the Comprehensive Plan and responding to Council’s action and the housing sites that are being proposed for those areas. I do want to point out too and clarify that what we are proposing here as a Pedestrian Transit Oriented overlay. That is, what we are asking the Commission to do with this action is just create the ordinance that creates the Pedestrian Transit Oriented overlay. We are not rezoning any sites with the recommendation that is before you right now. There are two housing sites that would follow if you made that recommendation. With respect to some of the comments I want to clarify that no sites automatically become transit oriented development under this action. You are simply recommending to adopt the ordinance to be included in the zoning ordinance. Also, the pedestrian transit overlay is an overlay zone. That is the underlying zoning whether it is RM-40, GM, RM- 30 stays ~vhen the overlay is applied. The overlay can only be applied, as I pointed out earlier, through a discretionary review process by the Planning Commission and the City Council. That is where you have the opportunity to address both environmental impacts whether they are noise or traffic or shadow and shade plus densities, land uses and those things. That is a discretionary process that is a public review process before development can happen or design can move forward in any final manner. Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Lastly, it being an overlay, I do want to point out and stress that the Pedestrian Transit Oriented zone proposes a 40-foot maximum building height. You can go to 50 feet with a density bonus with respect to affordable housing units. We have talked with the Commission in the past and explained how difficult that might be or how challenging it might be to reach that density but it would require a density bonus. The maximum building height in the zone itself is 40 feet. Along Park Boulevard in the GM zones and the RM-40 zones the building height currently is 50 feet and 40 feet and 35 feet. So 40 feet in some cases is less. So conceivably the sites that the neighborhood is raising some concerns about right now in the GM you can build to 50 feet and it can be a nonresidential building built to 50 feet and it would only require ARB review at this point because the zoning is already in place. It would not require a rezoning or a Planning Commission or a City Council review. So with respect to that I want to point out that the existing building height permitted there is 50 feet in a lot of respects and 40 feet in other respects. Courthouse Plaza Company, which owns one of those sites, proposed a development in September of 2004 1 believe and at that time some residents from Emerson Street did come and speak about the noise reflection issue. Courthouse Plaza asked their noise consultant, Charles Salter & Associates, to address that issue. They did look at it and they concluded that a 50-foot tall building in that case would not have a significant increase in noise reflection. We would be more than happy to sit down with the residents and go over that in a little more detail. It is not analysis we did it is analysis that was done by the property owner. Lastly I ~vant to point out what is contained in the Pedestrian Transit Oriented District is design criteria and some of that design criteria is very specific to the relationship of noise reflection, how building articulation takes place along there and how the design elements have to address some of those situations. They don’t exist now. They don’t exist in the GM zone. They don’t exist in the ARB Standards of Review. So these would all be new criteria that a development would have to respond to because it would be codified in the PTOD zone if that were what the development was recommending. So I hope that is a summary and responds to some of the concerns that the neighbors raised. Chair Burt: Paula, you had a question? Mr. Larkin: If I could make one short correction in case people go out and try to look up the Bill number. It is not SB 1818 that is the density bonus legislation. I believe it is SB565 but I am not certain of the number but it is the 2005 [Torlickson] Housing Bill that prohibits the City from eliminating housing on sites that are designated in our Comprehensive Plan as suitable for housing. On those sites unless we have enacted design criteria we would not be able to apply design criteria it would be whatever the developer wanted to come forward with but they would be subject to a 50 foot height limit if it is an affordable housing development and no design criteria. Chair Burt: Paula. Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. John, can you tell me how high the Agilent building is? How tall it is? Mr. Lusardi: I don’t know the exact height but again it is in the GM zone with a 50-foot maximum height. I don’t believe it is 50 feet. Commissioner Sandas: So it is somewhere between 40 and 50 feet? Thirty-five fee? Okay. Another question I have regarding the height issues, you were mentioning that when particular projects come before the Planning Commission and/or the ARB that would be when the height of the project would be discussed, did I get that right? Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. Commissioner Sandas: Okay. Is there in your opinion any reason to perhaps establish height limits within the PTOD at Park Boulevard at the train? What would be the benefit of doing that or the problem with doing that? Mr. Lusardi: Well we are proposing height limits along Park Boulevard at 40 feet. Commissioner Sandas: Yes, I am saying below 40 feet. Mr. Lusardi: Going lower than 40 feet? The only thing it would do is reduce the amount of housing unit yield that could come out of a proposed development in that respect. So I think there are other design criteria that Staff feels the design criteria in here adequately address that and our discussion with the ARB. We could look at some way of doing some kind of a building setback so the setback of the 50-foot is not right at the property line or something like that. If Rick maybe wants to address some of that but the proposed building height of the PTOD right now is lower than what is allowed under the GM. So we feel we have addressed that building height concern. Chair Burt: Follow up from Karen and then Lee. Vice-Chair Holman: Regarding that change that the building height that could be built I think with the exception of the affordable housing bonus the fact that that is lower than what currently could be built. I am trying to understand how that should give the community some peace of mind because none of that has been developed except for the Agilent to that height. So what they are seeing is a change of development not having to do with the zoning change. So again I am not quite sure how to put that in a question but do you understand what I am trying to get at here? Mr. Lusardi: I think so. I think what we are doing is we are reducing the building height that would be allowed there now under the existing zoning. Now 50 feet obviously is a concern of the community, 40 feet is obviously from what we are hearing a concern of the community as well. But I think if you saw it going below that height you are going to start reducing your housing yield number one and given our discussions and talking with our urban design consultants and everything we don’t think that is going to minimize the Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 .34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 noise impacts. We don’t think that is going to reduce the noise reflection. We think that can be better done by design and by design criteria and by the Architectural Review Board review of that and if you have that language in the ordinance it is going to be much easier to enforce to ensure that those kinds of noise reductions through building design are incorporated into the project. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: This is for the City Attorney again. So ifI understand [Torlickson’s] legislation it specifically says that if you eliminate housing from your general plan without having met your housing goals, correct? You have to meet your housing goals first and then you can downzone, correct? Mr. Larkin: That is correct if you meet your housing goals. It is eliminating housing on sites that are designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The issue addresses the sites that come up later on Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road, items two and three on your agenda for tonight. Those two sites are designated housing sites in our Comprehensive Plan and so unless we have met our affordable housing goals we can’t eliminate housing or prohibit housing on those two sites. Commissioner Lippert: Let me ask you this. Since the action that City Council took in eliminating housing from the GM and the GM(B) zone why doesn’t the previous standards still apply to those sites? Mr. Larkin: We don’t have any design criteria standards for those sites and because of the way the state legislation works we couldn’t create standards that would reduce the housing yield or reduce the amount of affordable housing that would be created. We can apply design review standards if we have them so that is one of the reasons we are going forward with design review standards. Commissioner Lippert: Did City Council understand this when they removed housing from the GM and GM(B) zones or was it one of those things it just sort of went over everybody’s head at that moment? Mr. Larkin: I can’t presume to know I wasn’t there. I don’t know but you will be receiving as well as City Council a report on the new legislation and that will answer more of your questions, I believe. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: Just a quick question and then a longer one. Did I understand that this image was created by a developer? Mr. Lusardi: I am sorry, we were talking and I didn’t hear the question. Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: One of the speakers had mentioned that this image was created by a developer. Is that tree? Mr. Lusardi: No. Chair Burt: No, it is by our consultants. Mr. Curtis Williams, Contract Planner: Right, the Van Meter Williams Pollack at the bottom is the design consultants the City has hired. They don’t work for any developers in town. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Can I try taking a shot at reiterating John what you just said and see if I am getting it correctly in terms of where the PTOD came from and how it is being addressed and its benefits just so I can get it set in my mind? The Comprehensive Plan that was created now almost ten years ago mandated that, correct? So we are obligated to address that, correct? Mr. Lusardi: You are obligated to review it and propose something. You are not obligated to address it exactly as we are proposing it. Commissioner Garber: Understood. It is on the table so to speak. The problems that the PTOD is meant to address as they have been discussed in previous meetings as I understand them are one, to increase the vivaciousness, the livability, the environment and community of the areas that are directly around that transportation hub, in this case in California Avenue, then secondly to increase the business viability of that area as well. Were there other general goals that I am missing there, just real simply here? Mr. Lusardi: Well, I think it is really to create a neighborhood pedestrian friendly environment both from a street and access and bicycle point of view and to create a diversity of housing types in there. That is how we are interpreting that. Commissioner Garber: Those things though have a direct impact on the livability of that community as well as the businesses that operate there, right? The key being the creation of more opportunities for people to live in those areas, which then brings the benefits to those areas. Now, bringing those people in also then creates a bunch of problems and the strategy to deal with those problems is typically through mitigation. There are issues of noise. How do we try to find a way to accomplish those goals but reduce the impact that noise has? You have more people so you have larger buildings how do I reduce the impact on neighboring and transitions between those different areas, etc.? Also the strategy of doing not a straight zoning solution to this which you have just described which would allow me as a property owner to do an awful lot without ever really having to really go to the City, come through this Board, come through the ARB, come through the Council. In so doing I get to avoid a lot of potential headaches. That is sort of a short route but I can do that right now given the existing zoning. Part of what the PTOD’s goal is to create a process in addition to the roles that are there that causes the community to Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 have greater impact on what the actual solutions will be, therefore, overall the process is in fact more involved and more demanding. But the benefit to the community is that the community can get closer to what it is they want in that community themselves. Am I missing something with the strategy of that process? Okay. So that being the case let’s talk about some of the mitigations. Clearly there have been conversations not actually just today with these people that have just spoken in the community about noise and impact relative to the boarder of this proposed zone adjacent to Alma and the Emerson community as well as the community that is on the other side of Oregon Expressway. You have mentioned that the Staff has already proposed that there be a limit of the 40 feet to the buildings as well as acknowledging that the way to get above that 40 feet is to have increased the number of BMR units that are available which allows you to increase that height, which I could do anywhere in that PTOD, correct? Not just along there. So I could, although it does reduce the amount of housing inventory that I would have we could recommend that we just simply limit it to the 40 on the sites that are adjacent to Cal Trans. I am also curious to see if any of the existing transitional strategies that have been in place, specifically adjacent to the R-1 zones that are on the other sides of the PTOD, might also be applicable. We may need to have our consultant address that question. Mr. Lusardi: I think we would tend to agree with you in that perspective that if the Commission felt it desirable to put a height limitation on properties that are along the railroad tracks. I don’t know that we would be opposed to a 40 foot height limit but I think what Staff would recommend is that you direct us to come up with a criteria that establishes a minimum building height, 40 feet at the property line with some step back, setbacks on the building where it could go up higher if it is demonstrated that the design would work and it wouldn’t have undue noise impacts or reflection. So I think we could come up with some language like that but we would recommend that it be done through a building setback. Commissioner Garber: I have no problem with asking for recommendations from the Staff for that part. I think the only other thing I would observe by way of supporting such a view is the recent construction that has been going on that is adjacent to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation which has some buildings which are reaching the limit of height there and they are imposing. The area that is immediately across Alma from the train station is a park. So you actually have an opportunity to have foreground to buildings that are on that side which would increase the impact that those buildings would have at least on those portions of that community which is not actually where these people are from but just the same has a big impact on the general area. So it would be something that I would be interested in pursuing. I have some other questions but we should do another round. Chair Burt: One question I have is I don’t recall whether we had a discussion on whether there could be landscape screening along the properties that are adjacent to Alma. Was there any prior discussion on that or does Staff have any comments on that prospect? Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Lusardi: I don’t know if there is a specific language in there under the design criteria but it is something I think we could come up with language and propose some kind of a landscape screening to be included along that edge. Chair. Burt: Several of the speakers spoke about a 20-foot elevation difference between the Caltrain platform and Emerson Street grade. Is Staff familiar with that? Does that seem approximately correct? Mr. Lusardi: I know there is an elevation difference I don’t know that it is 20 feet. I know it is fairly substantial you notice it. You can see it. Chair Burt: So when Staffhad previously looked at the impact of this development on the viewscapes had the elevation difference been included when we were talking about a 40 foot or as an except a 50 foot height limit? Were we conceiving of a practical impact of it being 60 feet elevated from across Alma? Mr. Lusardi: When we talk about building height we talk about building height at grade onsite. So if there is a differential then we are not talking about reducing the building height necessarily from a different site on the other side of Alma. Again, if you feel that the site differential and you want to reduce the building height because of that site differential I think we can do that. Chair Butt: I meant it in terms of the Comprehensive Plan references to viewscapes and impacts on viewscapes. Mr. Lusardi: There is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan. I think it is language we can come up with and add to the design criteria. Since it doesn’t exist if we put it in the PTOD then again it is a regulation that we can implement with development. Chair Burt: I believe there is reference in the Comprehensive Plan about viewscapes. One other just clarification for the audience, earlier John you had referred to meeting and notifying CAADA and a member of the audience had talked about engaging the California Avenue business district and I don’t think they are familiar with the acronym. Can you clarify what you were talking about at that time? Mr. Lusardi: I was talking about the California Avenue Business Association, the district there. We did contact them. We have had brief discussions with them. We sent them all of the Staff Reports for their review prior to tonight’s meeting and we do have a meeting scheduled with them for January 19thto go over this. Chair Burt: Thank you. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions for Rick Williams. Rick, in putting together some of the criteria here and the context based design standards was any research done with regard to Lead Urban Design Principles? Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. R. Williams: There is a number of Lead Urban Design Principles that this incorporates just fundamentally, locationally particularly. Lead is also coming up with some new neighborhood design principles that relate to transit oriented development and pedestrian and walkability. Those actually aren’t in place but staff members in my office are part of the entities that are working on those so I am aware of those. So we are kind of a little bit ahead of the curve on that portion of it. Commissioner Lippert: Can you talk a little bit about those? Mr. R. Williams: Well it has to do with both the incorporation of higher density development close to transportation and particularly transportation rich areas. It is also higher density. Also a variety of housing types having a neighborhood with a great variety of housing in it or all part of it as well as the design criteria is really built off of a number of the principles ofwalkability that are part of what are going to be the new Lead neighborhood level design criteria. So they are taking what has typically been a building oriented Lead certification and they are going to have locational criteria for Lead buildings that add to the certification process. Chair Burt: Okay. Anybody want to go next? Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I have probably a pretty simple question and then a more complicated question. The Hyatt Rickey’s site is 16 acres is it not? Mr. Steve Emslie, Plannin~ Director: Sixteen and a fraction. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay. Understanding that there wasn’t a PTOD overlay for instance on that site but how many different housing types are going to be developed there? Mr. Emslie: There is at least probably four different housing types single family to stacked units. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, that is helpful. Then the Fry’s site I got a little bit confused here. The Staff Report says it is approximately 12.6 acres but then the gentleman that was here speaking, Mr. Wheatley, was talking about 16 acres. Adding those three single family parcels wouldn’t make it 16 so I got a little bit confused about how big the site really is. Mr. Lusardi: The Fry’s site itself where Fry’s is located and those uses are approximately 12.3 acres. What Mr. Wheatley was referring to is there are adjacent parcels that are owned by the same property owners that could be combined with the Fry’s site to create a development site of about 16 acres. So there are adjacent parcels that are under the same property ownership. Vice-Chair Holman: So what we see on the map in the Staff Report that is indicated as the Fry’s site is the 12.3 or 12.6 acres. Is that correct? Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Lusardi: Essentially the RM-30 area is about 12.3 acres I believe. Vice-Chair Holman: Great, thankyou. Then the more complicated question. Trying to sort through how much nonresidential development could we see as a result particularly on the Fry’s site but overall in the overlay area how much commercial development could we see? There is quite a range in the Staff Report of theoretically 190,000 square feet just on the Fry’s site, 390 multi-family units and then more likely the presumption was something like 87,500 square feet. So this leads to a clarification of also on page 5 of the Staff Report was there a clarification about whether public and private streets get counted in calculation of floor area ratio or not? Mr. Lusardi: We did research that. Public streets are not included in the overall calculation and private streets are for purposes of FAR. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, so that would have some effect on the 87,500 square feet. Mr. Lusardi: Depending on whether they are public or private streets. Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, exactly. Is that always at the developer’s discretion, the City’s discretion, the City’s recommendation or how is that determined? Mr. Lusardi: The developer will propose a development with either private streets or public streets but I think it is the discretion of the City to ask that they public streets. It really is a carrying capacity and access and what specific development or areas are being accessed, whether that should be a public street or a private street. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay. Then following up on that still let’s use the numbers of 87,500 square feet of nonresidential and residential development of 380 units for purposes of discussion and again we are just talking about the Fry’s site here. How does ABAG consider that in determining jobs/housing imbalance? We are taking a site that is zoned for residential and we are making it available for mixed use. What I am trying to get at here, the obvious point is, are we exacerbating our jobs/housing imbalance? Mr. C. Williams: Well, ABAG first of all doesn’t regulate per se jobs/housing balance but they look at that in terms of determining the housing need once the regional housing numbers come out every five years or so. It is very hard to tell what effect that would have on it. Again, like you said there is such a range here of potential outcomes. It could be developed as almost entirely residential still and might even be a higher density than the RM-30 would have yielded which would mean it would very helpful in terms of the jobs/housing balance. It sounds to me like if it is something like 80,000 square feet or whatever which is considerably less than what the buildings out there at least cover right now that that would maybe be a wash or maybe be still an improvement. If it goes to the 190,000 square feet then that is a very different situation. So ABAG generally looks at what is sort of on the books or in the pipeline as far as specific proposals. They don’t look so much theoretically at this kind of overlay zoning. If we were to rezone the entire Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 property as one specific category then they might take that into effect in terms of our Comprehensive Plan. I think there are just too many ’ifs’ about it to know what direction it would provide in terms of increasing or decreasing that jobs/housing imbalance. Vice-Chair Holman: I was just trying to get to should that development occur .at those levels when ABAG then evaluated City ofPalo Alto’s jobs/housing imbalance? Would ¯ that have a positive or negative effect on our pressure to zone up for more housing? That was what I was trying to get to and you sort of got there. It is a little hard to say, isn’t it? Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I think it is too hard to tell. It also depends on the other area around it too. I think a lot of these changes have the potential for more housing and less nonresidential. So if that is the case then that is beneficial. If you just looking at that one site then there is such a wide range I don’t think you can draw a conclusion from that at this point. Chair Burt: Rick, did you want to add something? Then I have a question for you. Mr. R. Williams: ABAG looks at jobs/housing imbalance but they also look at units and they look at units of different income levels and sizes, etc. So one of the other differences from the existing zoning of RM-30 what you end up with is if you are a developer coming in you say I have RM-30 zoning so I am going to do my RM-30 product, so to speak. What this overlay takes into account is that you then don’t get just your RM-30 product you get multiple products, multiple housing types on the site and you get transitions at the edges of the site which aren’t set by the RM zoning criteria. What you find in the RM zoning criteria having looked at some of the other developments mentioned is you have the tendency of getting as much of a particular building type as can be obtained on that site and they really try to fit that in. So the other thing that the overlay zone does is it kind of dictates multiple building types and it also dictates transitions beyond just having a daylight plane which is basically what you get with the RM-30 zoning. Chair Burt: Rick, did you have any comments on the impact of some of the concepts that we were talking about about perhaps capping with an absolute height limit or a setback on the properties adjacent to the tracks there as well as the feasibility of using significant landscape screening to buffer noise and sight lines? Mr. R. Williams: At the last presentation we had actually shown some preliminary illustrations of treatments from the railroad side basically treating it as a front to the developments. So what we are basically doing is incorporating language and diagrams into the Step 5 which would be used by the ARB to basically say treat the rear of the development similarly to the front in the level of articulation, design quality, material quality and not treat it as a back of a building and have a great amount of articulation within that. The reality from a height standpoint and a floor area ratio standpoint is that you are not going to get the same building height all the way across the entire property. If you were to do that you would get something that might be a little bit lower but it would be constant and in fact it would probably end up to be more of a wall on the back Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 of the site by pushing the height of the building down. By having the height of the building at the 40-foot level you are probably going to get lower portions of the building along some areas and then higher portions of the building in other areas. So in fact by lowering the height you could push more of the building mass to the back of the property. One of the things we found, if you recall, in the E1 Camino Real Guidelines was when we removed the criteria for a deep setback the buildings having to be setback far from E1 Camino Real we in effect pushed the mass of the buildings farther away from the single family homes behind. So it actually acts as an advantage to push the building mass say along Park versus having it pushed down in height and when you push it down in height you will push that 40 foot height limit into more building mass on the back of the site. So it might have the ability to do kind of the opposite of what people would like it to do. Now that would mean that you would have more of a transition from the train to the lower buildings along the back of the property to the 40 foot height limit at the front but that would be a more effective sound reflector in a positive way to protect the homes than if you pushed the building down in height but more of the mass ended up along the railroad tracks. So I think that we can look at design criteria to really in effect create a variety ofmassings along the back which would help with reflectivity and we can also continue as we have anticipated of pushing the mass a little bit closer to Park which would in essence I think minimize the height issues. Everybody is talking about it as a 40-foot wall along the back property of the railroad tracks. In fact if you move the massing closer to Park it will in fact do the opposite it will take the building mass away from it. So my only concern with lowering the height overall is that you are going to push more of the mass to the back of the property. Chair Burt: I think a lot of people don’t follow and maybe even the Commission needs to have a clarification again on that your consulting firm is leading the guidance of us and the Staff in the form code aspect which is really not just a prescriptive height limit, box shaped, daylight plane but how buildings are built in context and the quality of the relationship to other buildings. So we are having both aspects of these things to our new code. Sequentially, tonight we don’t have all those form code aspects before us. You are indicating that some of the concerns that were raised tonight could very well be addressed in the form code. Could Staff review the process sequence of how the form code adoption would occur versus what we are adopting tonight? Mr. Emslie: I think we have gotten some very useful input this evening and that is frankly the purpose of hearings. So we are glad that we have engaged a conversation along these lines. AT the risk of oversimplifying let me just try to summarize what I think kind of what we are hearing and then perhaps offer some avenues that Staff could take to further develop the PTOD and bring back to you more comprehensive recommendations based on the input that we are hearing. I think one of the predominant sentiments that we are hearing is that the edge treatment is absolutely essential and how we treat that edge with as much degree of definition as possible at this stage is very important to many of the speakers. I think what you are also hearing from our experts as well is that you have to be careful because it is not a simple matter, you can’t start making changes now from the dais because you may have Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 unintended consequences that are counterproductive. So really this leads me to conclude that we need to have the opportunity to be able to digest what we have heard. We have heard many comments that I think have given us food for thought. Then prepare another layer of specificity to deal with the edge conditions along Alma and the other edges that we need to be concerned about and be able to explore with the residents the possibility of choices. I think that the site is very valuable because clearly I think there was almost unanimous concurrence that the area does need to be redeveloped. It is an area that has some outdated, outmoded uses. I would say some of our least treasured architectural models are in this area. So this is too great of an opportunity and given its proximity to transportation and the enhancements that have been made to this transit corridor in the past it is far too valuable to overlook our potential by not doing a very good and thorough job on dealing with the concerns that we have heard. I also wanted to mention too it is not just the look of the edge but also its acoustic effect. I think that also we would like to be able to explore the dynamics of acoustic engineering and perhaps inject some professional help that might help guide and further refine the responses. We are always in a state o tension over describing a higher degree of specificity because ultimately it always provides a constraint of parameter that you haven’t anticipated but in this case because the edge treatments are so very important to us and to the community we would like to explore just how far we can go in delivering a degree of certainty that helps to address concerns that we have heard and then allow the area to redevelop in an appropriate manner that supports our Comp Plan and our Housing Element policies. So we would recommend a continuance to allow Staff to explore those two primary issues the edge, the setback, and the height. As you know height is relative to its distance. As it moves further away it diminishes. We see things in three dimensions and sight lines can be cutoff and changed. So there is a real dynamic to that that I think that the work that the zoning code team and Rick Williams and his team can provide a great deal of illumination on and have a very worthwhile dialogue. Chair Burt: How would that work in the timeline? You had previously given us what you needed as a timeline. Mr. Emslie: I think we could stay fairly close to on schedule although I can’t speak for the zoning code team. I do want to say that if we do this because of what the attorneys have said we do continue to run a risk because of the change in state law that projects could move forward under the developer’s criteria rather than ours. So we do want to move fairly quickly and stay pretty much on track. This was scheduled to go the first of February at Council that might slip a bit but I would hope to stay no more than a three or four week delay. I’m saying that not knowing the Council’s schedule. I think it is very important to keep this moving so that we retain the maximum amount of discretion over this given a further incursion by the State of California into the cities’ ability to determine its own local land use especially in the area of housing. Commissioner Garber: I appreciate the importance of getting people that are smarter than my sledgeharnrner approach and would welcome any information and suggestions the Staff as well as our consultant would have on this topic. One thing that does occur to me that hasn’t been talked about actively here but maybe would be a consideration as Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 well in the discussion that you will have about these topics is one of the things that exists adjacent to Alma and the University Avenue area are mature trees which do not exist in the area that we are speaking about by California. So criteria relative to planting and landscape may be helpful as well. Chair Burt: Lee and then Paula. Commissioner Lippert: I think that Steve Emslie hit the nail on the head with regard to that and he only got that from our Q and A here. I think that it would be helpful for each of the Commissioners to state other concerns or criteria that should be considered. Chair Burt: We are not wrapping up yet. Paula. Commissioner Sandas: That was precisely what I was going to do state another concern. This is to add to the Staff list ifI may I actually live on a very slight slope there is not a 20-foot drop between my house and the neighbors. I live in a single story home and the homes behind me actually up the hill are two stories. So in the dark of night we can actually exchange lots of waves. There was some concern expressed by people on Emerson Street about privacy. I don’t know if in your work you will be able to address maintaining privacy but I would hope that you could. Mr. Emslie: I said I was going to miss something and I did. The grade change and the elevation would certainly be taken into account, yes. Chair Burt: I had previously asked about exploring the possibilities of landscape screening as well. Is that something that Commissioners are interested in? Okay. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions for Heba with regard to some comments here. I understand that Southern Pacific the right-of-way that goes through that the train runs on is Caltrain’s and has criteria that you can’t really have plantings abutting or near their train right-of-way because the trains hit the trees easily. So what are those standards and how far do they need to be from the right-of-way in order to be able to be effective and yet not be a detriment? Ms. Heba E1-Guendy, Traffic Engineer: Actuall~ I don’t have these dimensions with me today. However, we also talked about having setbacks. So the landscaping still would be provided within the private properties with sufficient setbacks not necessarily within. We are going to check whatever Caltrain’s guidelines would allow us to do. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. My area of concern is between Alma Street and the Southern Pacific right-of-way because that is where the most effective line of trees is going to be for screening the buildings and also acting as a sound barrier. We really don’t have a lot of room in that planting strip along there. You can see that Public Works goes by there regularly and strips it. Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Then the next question I had was with regard to there is a program for in the Research Park as well as in the Downtown area, wherever people take transit to work or the train, they are given a credit by their employer to pay for their transit so that they take public transit and not drive to work. Is there any program for residences, for people that live in housing near transit for them to be able to take the train to work or to go shopping or whatever that could be made part of the approval process so that a developer might pay into some sort of a fund to build this housing that would then go towards subsidizing transit for the residents? Ms. E1-Guend¥: We don’t have presently a program in place. We always encourage developments including residential developments to have TDM programs as part of their applications. It is harder to enforce on residential developments compared to office let’s say. Commissioner Lippert: Could we make part of the criteria for this zone that the developer pays into a TDM program for just transit within the zone? So in other words it would be just from California Avenue say to Menlo Park or from California Avenue to Mountain View. Ms. E1-Guendy: Yes, this is definitely an item that we can consider and at least provide you with all the details of what would be the pros and cons associated with it. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one last question for Rick Williams. I like your possible street section here. One thing that you might want to consider here is you have a sidewalk and you have an easement. That easement could be a ground floor easement or ground floor setback and create an arcade and thereby pushing the building out on the second level to the street and still preserve the pedestrian transit orientation of the development. That way if it is along Park Boulevard then it would be pulled away from the railroad tracks. Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, just to respond to Commissioner Lippert. Without creating a whole new mechanism or a whole new assessment district I think ~vhat we can explore is looking at taking the transportation impact fees that come from that development in the Pedestrian Transit Oriented area and putting it back into some kind of a TDM measure directly in that area. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Stop me when you want. It is both interesting and very complicated there are so many different pieces to it. Staff at our places this evening put a note regarding Village Residential that is on page 4 of the ordinance. The footnote then regarding Village Residential because as Staff stated we haven’t approved that yet the note says that Village Residential land use development type would only be allowed in projects following Council’s adoption of Village Residential. I am a little concerned about that. I think the intention is of course on target. I am a little concerned about the language because we don’t know what the timing of that is going to be in relation to Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 when somebody might possibly come forward with a proposal. So could I just suggest for the Staff’s consideration and for Commissioners to consider that in the place of Village Residential we put R-1 there because the purpose is to reflect and be a transition to what is across the way. So without this being there at all and with this language it sounds like the whole thing could be developed incompatibly. So if Staff would like to comment on that or anyone else. Mr. Lusardi: Only to say that we certainly concur with the Commission that the R-1 districts adjacent to or within the area of the PTOD should be protected. We agree with that. I don’t think we feel that R-l, a single family detached res : ntial development, is an appropriate PTOD residential usel What we would prefer to do is if the Comlnission is concerned about the Village Residential not having a development standard or identity or is that unknown we would prefer to just take it out and when we have the Village Residential that you are satisfied with we go back and amend the ordinance and put it back in if you are satisfied with that. Vice-Chair Holman: I guess not to argumentative, I guess my concern is that things can get protracted. Other things can intercede so I am concerned that there will be nothing there. So I was suggesting perhaps R-1 as a placeholder until Village Residential was approved. Maybe other Commissioners would like to comment on that. The whole purpose of Village Residential is to provide that transition and compatibility. Commissioner Garber might want to comment on it now. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: Actually I didn’t have a comment, as much as if you could tell me a little bit more about what it is you are focusing on. So for instance on Cambridge Street is that a boundary ~vhere your comment would be applicable? Vice-Chair Holman: Which street, sir? Commissioner Garber: Cambridge. Vice-Chair Holman: No. Commissioner Garber: It would help me to have an example to understand what it is you are getting at in terms of a location or something of that sort. Vice-Chair Holman: If you are talking about the backside of Cambridge, the development behind that, yes that could be one area. It could be the edges of the Fry’s site too if that is a possibility because without having Village Residential there and I concur with Staff it shouldn’t be here now because ~ve don’t know what Village Residential is really going be, but without having Village Residential we have nothing as a development standard that is going to provide that transition from across the street and be reflective of the zoning across the street that I am aware of. Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Okay. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Without delving into the details of Village Residential I think it at this point it is premature. Being on the D&E Committee we have looked at Village Residential and there are aspects of it that are appropriate and then there are other aspects of it that are not appropriate. So at this point I would just leave that out of the section. Mr. C. Williams: I think we don’t have a problem with leaving it out but on the other hand we have a whole set of compatibility criteria with residential that talks about building types that are compatible with the lower density adjacent development. I think that in combination with all the other six or seven criteria that go along with it allow for quite a variety of low density and what we probably would call Village Residential in some cases. But that will be seen through this process and certainly there is no implication here that if Village Residential doesn’t exist then you automatically put 40 units per acre next to the single family zone, it again goes through that review process, the design and determination that it is compatible under these criteria with the neighboring residential. Mr. Larkin: I was just going to point out, since it looks like we are not going to finish this to get to items two and three tonight, when we were talking about items two and three I was going to review the process for initiating a zone change but along those lines point out that applying the PTOD is a discretionary act on the part of the Commission and if the Commission and the Council don’t believe that there are sufficient design standards to allow for that transition they don’t have to rezone those parcels. Chair Burt: I should have pointed out when Director Emslie had a little while ago talked about continuing this item to respond to some of these issues, my understanding is that we therefore will not be reviewing items two and three tonight. Is that correct? Mr. Emslie: We would recommend we continue both item concurrently, yes. Chair Burt: I just want to be sure the public understood that and the rest of the Commission that that’s the impact of that. Karen, maybe we can take one more and then make another loop. Vice-Chair Holman: Last meeting I posed the question about if someone came along and wanted to apply the PTOD zone on top of a use that is really important to the success and the vitality of that area. How would we go about denying that application? I used the example of Molly Stone’s. There aren’t findings so how would we be able to - what process would we use? Mr. Emslie: What we have done with the proposal is that this is really a stepped zoning process. The first step is to actually define the area of potential zoning. The actions proposed actually rezones nothing that would enable a development to go. It is really Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 basically a preliminary step. Then the next step if you meet the criteria and you meet all the design guidelines and all the standards that are in the proposed ordinance then you could come in and you could ask to actually rezone your property to the overlay. That is a legislative act of the City that essentially falls within our very broad powers of local determination that says where land uses can go and where they can’t go. You have a great deal of discretion. You don’t have to meet certain legal standards and findings as you mentioned that if those findings are in place more or less compels you to do that. You do not do that with a legislative act. You get to make laws. It is a law that you get to apply and you get to decide where you want to apply that as a City. Now the state has curtailed that in the area of housing and that is what we want to get ahead of by putting this in place so that we have adequate protections in place so that we will be able to have discretion because every year the legislature in Sacramento will continue to propose further laws that restrict cities’ ability to determine where housing is appropriate and how much could go. It is a trend that has been going on for the last five to ten years and it will continue. So we think that getting a system in place ahead of time is a good prescriptive measure to preserve as much discretion as we can possibly do at this time. Mr. Lusardi: We are not proposing to eliminate the ground floor retail designation that is on California Avenue. In fact, through the PTOD it could be applied to other sites where it is appropriate. So the ground floor retail would remain as part of that. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, ! was looking for as part of that legislative act what could we do? Can you give an example, maybe not tonight but give an example of how we would say this isn’t appropriate. If they are complying with the Comp Plan and complying with the PTOD ordinance then how would we go about saying no? Mr. Emslie: It is a little bit confusing because what we have done is setup a legislative process that imitates our normal quasi-judicial process, which is the use permit, variance process. So because it imitates that but legally it is a completely different decision. You don’t have our exposure, this is really a lot driven by our risk of being sued and our chances of winning a lawsuit by denying a legislative act is much hire than denying a quasi-judicial act. So I am stopping there. I am getting into the legal area that Don should be addressing. Mr. Larkin: This is something that we talk about at our retreat as a reminder but since the question came up a legislative act is something that is within the discretion of the City and is part of its police regulatory powers. Whereas a quasi-judicial act is an act in which findings are required. You are not required to make findings when you are dealing with a regulatory act such as zoning. Chair Burt: Just before we continue I wanted to get a sense of the Commission. It is 9:30 we often would have taken a break by now. Is it the preference of the Commission to try and plow forward and complete or take a break? Keep going? Okay. Lee. Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to follow up with the direction Karen was going with her line of questioning. If in fact we review a parcel or a property in the GM zone or the GM(B) zone and we were to deny the ability of them to use the PTOD overlay wouldn’t we still be in violation of the general plan and we couldn’t deny them putting housing in there? Mr. Larkin: If we were to deny a project that is on our Housing Sites Inventory that would be correct. That applies to two parcels in the GM zone or the GM(B) zone but with regard to the rest of the GM(B) zone we would be within our right. Mr. Emslie: That was my point earlier is that that is the restriction. Because it is on the Housing Sites Inventory that is where the state has curtailed our ability to turn down. The other sites, Molly Stone’s isn’t on the Housing Sites Inventory so you still have discretion. Now we just continue incursions into the City’s ability to turn projects down. So we want to get in place a process that affirms the highest degree of discretion that we can preserve under the current law. Commissioner Lippert: But we could turn down a RM-40 because RM-40 still has the ability to put housing there. Mr. Emslie: That is correct, yes. The main pr.oblem with the Council’s action to eliminate housing from the GM zone is that it eliminated it completely and there is a variance with the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan could be changed that is also a legislative act. So you can go and make the consistency findings by changing the Comp Plan but we think that is grounded in pretty good public policy and urban planning practice to have housing and mixed uses around a transit corridor. So we are not recommending that you rectify it by changing the policy but correct it by having the appropriate pedestrian and transportation oriented zones with the tight edges and dealing with the concerns that we have heard this evening. Commissioner Lippert: Having gone through the SOFA I and II process as well as a couple of other processes here wouldn’t it just be easier for the Planning and Transportation Commission to recommend to the new Planning and Transportation Commission to the new City Council to look at reinstating housing in the GM zone? It is a political decision at that level and it could be reversed. Mr. Emslie: I think that we have made significant progress. I think the work of the zoning code team is incredibly valuable. I think that we are heating that we need to pay more attention to certain edges and conditions of acoustics and so forth. So I don’t think we are at that point where we need to just throw our hands up. I think that there is a real potential for, and I believe one of the speakers said this, to create this as a very special area. In order to do that I think you have to pay attention to how that relates to its neighbors. So I think we are very confident that given the work that has happened so far that it will be able to be enhanced to address many of the concerns that we have heard. Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Burt: Steve, is it correct that our need isn’t to go back and allow housing in GM zones it is to get a PTOD zone adopted fight away? Mr. Emslie: That is the appropriate way to deal with this. It takes into account all the best practices of urban and suburban planning and making transit more accessible and make it more available to residents so they are more apt to use it. That is the whole principle behind transit oriented, or smart growth is the other term, by providing suitable convenient alternatives people will choose the more appropriate option when appropriate. Chair Burt: Well, if we might just revisit, the reason that we changed the name from Transit Oriented Development to Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development is because studies demonstrate that there are far greater number of trip reductions resulting from the pedestrian use, when people live at a place where they walk to the store, they walk to the restaurant, they walk to all kinds of places Downtown if they live Downtown. It is an even greater impact than the adjacency to the transit station and the two things combined are the reasons why it is considered progressive policy that is adopted in our Comprehensive Plan. It is environmentally progressive. As Sally Probst said, it causes people to not only not drive from outside the Bay Area but those people within Palo Alto take fewer trips when they are there and that is well supported by numerous studies. So I just wanted to interject that to make sure that people understood that this isn’t some concept that was willy-nilly. It is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan just as protection of R-1 neighborhoods is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan. Dan, did you have some more things? Commissioner Garber: Yes, thank you. A couple of quick ones. The content of Exhibit A and B are the same the difference is format and the intent of their use? Mr. Lusardi: Yes. One is a legal formatting of the ordinance. Commissioner Garber: Okay. One of the speakers, who represented a number of occupants of the building that is at Park and California, mentioned that they did not get notified. Is that because the City notifies owners? So the owner would have gotten notified? Mr. Lusardi: We notify property owners within the PTOD district and property owners within a 600-foot radius. Commissioner Garber: So is there any requirement for those owners to tell their occupants? Mr. Lusardi: I think what he said is he didn’t make the last meeting. I didn’t think he said he didn’t get a notice. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: We believe that many of those are owner-occupied. That is an ownership development not a rental project. So many of them may be owned and rented out but we imagine that there is potential for some owners to be in there. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Two related questions one of which one of the speakers brought up but it was also a comment that I had wanted to come back. to and that is for the Director of Planning when they are reviewing things. How is the definition of minor versus not minor adjustments defined? How does the Staff or ~he City think of them? Mr. Emslie: It does come up and is an exercise ofjudgrnent and we tend to exercise our judgment very cautiously and conservatively. So if something can be perceived as potentially being major we would certainly err on the side of caution and roll it up to the more involved process rather than use the more abbreviated process whenever possible. Commissioner Garber: Can you give me an example of something that might trigger you as the Director to say that is bigger than a breadbasket? Mr. Emslie: Well, generally changes that are readily noticeable from the exterior. That doesn’t preclude exterior changes, changes of window treatment or minor shifts in rooflines and things like that. Anything that could potentially be perceived as a change we would tend to classify as major is anything that would have the potential of changing a view, a viewscape, a view corridor, or casting additional shadow. Commissioner Garber: What about use? Mr. Emslie: Privacy, use, yes. Commissioner Garber: How does that when you decide to leave this job and someone takes your place how do some of those values get transferred? Mr. Emslie: I think that there is fairly long careful tradition here so I think that those that will come.after us would essentially be quickly if not immediately aware of a high degree of sensitivity and concern about the built environment and its impact on its surroundings. So I think it is a fairly inculcated trait that future Directors would soon discover. Commissioner Garber: Have there been instances where you thought something was minor that you found out later were not appreciated as minor by other aspects of the process imposing themselves? Mr. Emslie: None comes to mind immediately which tells me that there has probably been fairly judicious exercise of that. Commissioner Garber: But even in the cases where you may make as the Director a minor exception would there be any recourse for any visibility to that decision by other Boards, City Council, etc.? Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: Yes, the Architectural Review Board. We do notice them and put on their agenda when we do make say a minor ARB so we do notice the various Boards on some decisions depending on the particular process. They are posted and notices are mailed too so there is still announcement of the decision in some cases not in all but in some. Commissioner Garber: A related topic. Should I be a landowner and decide to request for a change of zoning on my particular property and want to apply for the overlay. The overlay obviously has broad criteria in terms of FAR. Let’s just take that for an example that I would benefit from. The process then allows for the City, the community, the various Boards obviously to impact what that FAR might be as well as some of the form code aspects that they will then obligate themselves to. How should for instance the Planning and Transportation Commission what criteria or rules or precedents might that Board use to evaluate any particular project that comes through to determine whether it should have less FAR or if it should be allowed the FAR that it is allowed? I recognize that every project is going to be different but... Mr. Emslie: That is the principle behind establishing the extensive design criteria so that the Commission can use that as determining whether the site is appropriate or not to deliver the results that the criteria requires. So you are able to use that to determine whether the zone is appropriate and if so should there be limitations to that in terms of height and setback. Commissioner Garber: By way of example, if a project were to come up that was adjacent to the tracks, etc., and someone ~vas requesting for given the way that it is worded currently asking for a 50 foot height because they have included the additional BMR units, etc. it would be within the Board’s power to say for instance that is inappropriate for noise because of its location at the perimeter and we need to have transitions occurring at the perimeter or because of a certain use that is required we want to actually make that less, the Board could legislate that. Mr. Emslie: Because we are doing a legislative action you have the broad authority to do that. What we are trying to do is address some of the concerns and the uncertainty by having design criteria so you would be able to do that at the time there is a specific project. That has been kind of the thinking that has been our recommendation. So the answer is yes, you can do that but let me just go on to say that what we are doing is probably taking that a step further by establishing at a minimum at the edge conditions where we might want to have some additional criteria built in now so that you wouldn’t have to wait for the project to come along and do that on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Garber: Okay. We will do a loop. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Something that hasn’t come up previously but that I have been thinking about is we don’t have indicated here, unless I have overlooked it after reading Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 this so many times, we don’t have a maximum unit size or an average unit size in this area. Did Staff consider that? Mr. Lusardi: Yes we did consider that and we do have an average unit size in the parking section. If you have an average unit size of 1,250 square feet you can get a parking reduction. We did not do an overall average unit size. We thought that the FAR and the density requirements were a better measure of developing those kinds of units as well. We were also looking at market conditions that if we want to encourage housing here that an average unit size may be too restrictive to encourage housing development because developers want some flexibility in that respect. So we do it as an incentive, you do an average unit size of 1,250 square feet and you can ask for reduced parking. So it is more of an incentive in the ordinance. Vice-Chair Holman: Then to support Commissioner Garber’s comments would there be anything inappropriate about or complicating about having examples of minor in the process? Steve has perfect examples of what minor could be but I am also a believer that rules should not be person specific but rather rule specific. Mr. Emslie: Yes, I think any guidance that the code could provide helps interpretation and consistency so we would not object to that. Mr. Lusardi: Chapter 18.99, Section 020 does have a definition in the current ordinance of what a definition of a minor change is so we can look at that and incorporate that in. Commissioner Garber: I am sorry, is that in here now? Mr. Lusardi: It is in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Burt: Would Staff care to respond to some issues raised by Mr. Lockhart? He had two specific written questions. If not, we can take another question as you prepare. Mr. Larkin: I just want to note those questions were addressed to the City Attorney. Only one of them is a legal question and I will answer that one which is the City can initiate a rezone with or without the property owner’s consent. Mr. C. Williams: The other question was whether there was some intent that those existing R-1 properties on 0live are limited to Village Residential use only or if they could be other types of densities. And there is no limitation in here it just basically includes those lots within the PTOD. They would be Village Residential to the extent they might be Village Residential or limited to lower density to the extent they abut other R-1 properties but other than that no, they are not limited by Village Residential or any other density there. They can certainly propose at least something that fits the site. It may be that in combination with other development in the area that the transitions are elsewhere. For instance if they were combined somehow with the Fry’s area it may be Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 that it is more appropriate to have the transitions and the lower density at some other location. So the Village Residential and the lower densities are intended to be where you are abutting R-1 not to replace the existing R-1 zoning specifically. Chair Burt: Thank you. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I had one question for Steve Emslie. With regard to the Fry’s site and the amortization on that I believe it was Bob Moss had brought up the whole notion of the Fry’s site and we keep stalling or postponing the amortization on that, at least the property owner and Fry’s ask that that be done. By having the PTOD overlay zoning does that begin to incentivize enough the idea of redevelopment that Fry’s would not want to remain there because the overall potential of redeveloping the site is much greater than what could be realized there with just the Fry’s site there alone? Mr. Emslie: The answer to that depends on the vagaries of the land uses and their attendant real estate values. Right now the site is zoned multi-family residential and multi-family residential is, as we know has been incredibly aggressive even through the recession. The commercial uses have suffered. So there is lots of incentive now because the site has been zoned for many years for multi-family housing. So I don’t see this adding any more incentive. The City has expressed a strong desire to change that commercial to multi-family residential. That has been the policy of the City for a very long time. Commissioner Lippert: Well, what I am sort of getting at is the driving force here is we have the whole sales tax issue and I am sure that Fry’s pays a large share of sales tax that the City enjoys and in some way, I am stating it incorrectly, it is a conflict of interest in some ways for the City because we want the income but we also want the housing there. So what happens is that and I can see this happening is postponing the inevitable and sort of drawing this out. But by incentivizing this with the PTOD zoning it allows for, as I understand it, mixed use development there. So then what we see is the opportunity for retail and housing to sort of coexist. So it sort of makes it a little more palatable for retail and housing to be on the site and makes it more likely that that redevelopment will happen. Mr. Emslie: That is true because the RM-30, the multi-family zones, are exclusively residential. So to that extent the PTOD when applied would at least acknowledge the potential for retention of commercial as a part of the mixed use because it would allow that. So we would agree with that statement. Commissioner Lippert: With regard to that and the auto zone which also represents a sales tax conflict of interest there? Mr. Emslie: I don’t know of any examples where there has been mixed use with auto but there are an awful lot of mixed use projects that ten or 15 years ago would never be even considered possible like residential and food and drug is not common but it is done Page 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 especially in areas of high land values. So I wouldn’t rule it out as a possibility to have auto and residential coexist as mixed use in the near future. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: Just back to the Fry’s notion. I wanted to clarify. I think at the last meeting that we discussed this in December we saw the value of capturing the Fry’s site in the PTOD as a way of potentially retaining Fry’s there. Am I remembering that correctly? Mr. Emslie: Yes because the PTOD does allow and provide allowances for commercial, which the RM doesn’t. So you are actually acknowledging and moving closer. It does acknowledge that you can also coexist. Chair Burt: I just want to encourage Commissioners to see if we can pull our final comments together. Do we have a necessity for a motion tonight if we are going to continue this item? Mr. Emslie: We would recommend that you do it to a date uncertain so that we would renotice this and bring it back. So it would probably be cleaner to have a motion to a date uncertain with the understanding that Staff would meet with the neighborhoods affected and propose refinements to the details of the zone to enhance compatibility and promote acoustic and aesthetic improvements to those neighborhoods. Chair Burt: Before we go on to the motion Karen and Dan have some additional comments. I was just encouraging Commissioners to wrap up comments. In terms of the process going forward with this moving to a date uncertain will that give Staff also additional opportunity to meet with the CAADA, the California Avenue Business folks, as well as additional resident organizations? Great. Dan and then Karen. Commissioner Garber: Thanks. A couple of specific things. A suggestion on page 2 of the ordinance, item number four. There are streetscape design elements that attract pedestrian and bicyclists. Just a suggestion for some wordsmithing there, streetscape design elements that are attractive and useful for pedestrians and bicycles or ’to’ as opposed to objects which actually attract people and bicycles to them. On page 7, item number five gives a definition for how many parking spaces there should be per work area in a live/work unit. It doesn’t provide a maximum and ifI have done my math correctly you could have many more spaces than you actually allow people to work there. So you may want to check that. Page 12, street building fagades, item E. Larger buildings should have a more prominent centralized building entrance while maintaining a pedestrian scale. We had a bit of discussion about this in one of the previous meetings and whether that definition is really too strict and may keep people from providing more creative ways to meet the intent there. Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 That’s it. Chair Burt: Okay. Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I think E that you were just referring to on page 12 the first part of that was changed but not the second part as a result of previous discussion. On page 13, item four parts B, C, D and E I think as I recall it Staff had agreed that those seemed to be conflicting with the purpose previously. So if you could just take a look at that again. Rick you have been so very patient standing there, you have been a real stalwart so may have a chance to participate in this one. I have had interest and from previous comments and questions you can tell an interest and concern about retaining our local businesses. I recently had occasion to talk with a whole bunch of people and those whole bunch of people talked about how important the local character of Palo Alto is for them wanting to shop here. I raised the issues previously about redevelopment and how existing businesses can survive redevelopment. So what I am going to ask is something I have sort of mentioned to Staff before is if what makes businesses successful, and I do believe it is, is people shopping there and you need to have the number of people to shop at a business to make it successful then might it not be prudent to eliminate California Avenue, and there are a few reasons here so bear with me, to eliminate California Avenue from the PTOD overlay? One is to allow the residential development surrounding to increase thus providing more shoppers for those local businesses to strengthen their viability so that they are not so threatened by redevelopment on California Avenue. That is one. Another is the commercial zones will be coming to us in the future as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. There are some things as a part of that, some issues that we might take up as a part of that discussion in the CN, CS for instance zones that we might want to apply to this area that we might rue that we didn’t have a timely enough opportunity to apply to California Avenue. Examples might be Mr. Lusardi mentioned last time quotas might be one example of that. So that is one thing. So strengthening those businesses by result of surrounding development. Another thing that has sort of been talked about but in a little bit different way previously is the Fry’s site especially because it is a very large site and you did a great job of vetting a number of possibilities that could result from the redevelopment of that site. Currently what is allowed is a .35 commercial or nonresidential aspect on that. The potential is now it may not happen this way but again it is potential is as much as 190,000 square feet of nonresidential. The City as has been mentioned before by Commissioner Lippert and others is that we do have a sales tax generation issue in Palo Alto. So on page 5 of the Staff Report where it also talks about the continuing discussion about the Fry’s site it talks about a more typical mixed use development would include a nonresidential component in the five to ten percent range. So there are two different topics here. One is the California Avenue question that I posed and the other is about this. So for the larger sites, for instance Fry’s and maybe we could put an acreage site on some other sites too, Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 what about limiting the non-retail commercial to say five percent or maybe ten percent but allowing nonresidential retail or service, in other words the sales tax generating development, to be .35? So having a blended rate. I am a firm believer in zone for what you want and if it can happen it could happen. If you enable it market right today might not say okay we want to move Agilent, there is nothing wrong with Agilent it is not a value judgment there and they do generate some B-to-B business, but when we have a large retailer there like Fry’s and we want to encourage either them to stay or something akin to that there in terms of sales tax generation to be there why not put the zoning in place that would more accommodate that or encourage that or even preclude what we don’t want to have happen? Long winded questions but I appreciate your responses. Mr. R. Williams: Let’s talk about the Fry’s site first because we talked about that one a lot and it is really about Palo Alto having a very unique circumstance. I can say that in almost every other instance if a developer was looking at the Fry’s site in almost any other community they would be working really hard to get out of developing any commercial at all because residential in almost any other community besides Palo Alto is by far and away the highest and best use. So you would be fighting to get that five percent. By placing a limit on - where in Palo Alto I think there is more opportunity for variety. I think what this overlay district allows is the Planning and Transportation Commission the flexibility that with the tremendous opportunity with a tremendous project with just the right uses that you really want to see you don’t want to be hampered yourself by saying well, we would really love to have these uses here in this mixed use development with these units and this floor area ratio of nonresidential development but heck three years ago we were concerned about it so we said you could only have ten or 15 percent. So then you are going to have to go through an additional process and additional fight to get that project you want. Because you have a maximum doesn’t mean you have to allow it in the future. So it has to be appropriate to the site and appropriate uses and you are going to have those articulated as part of that initial proposal. So what I have a tendency of doing is anticipating that both the ARB and this Planning and Transportation Commission and the future one will have the same level of integrity and ability to make a really sound judgment of what is best for the City and best for the community. You limit yourself by saying that the answer to the land use mix is a very narrow slice that is right here. Later on the opportunity might be larger. So I would recommend too great a limitation for you. You don’t know that Fry’s isn’t going to want to come in and a couple of other retailers that you would really like to have come into your community or some business opportunity come in that really is a great land use mix for you. You can judge that at this time and you can judge it in the future. So I think that I wouldn’t want to limit my options. I would like to have the flexibility as a city to be able to do that. Vice-Chair Holman: Maybe I need to clarify something ifI could. I wasn’t trying to limit the retail like Fry’s below the .35. I was trying to limit the general office, the non- income generating uses. That was my question. Mr. R. Williams: You could look at doing that but once again there may be the opportunity for having a use, a non-retail use that you might in the future really want to Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 have. So I am just saying that right now you may not want it but in five years you may want it. You don’t have to legislate it out today you can decide on that in the future that you are fight that really is not an appropriate use and we don’t want to see that on the site. You don’t have to have that in place now. So that is one piece. Let’s move over in kind of the reverse. One of the things that I found is that having a little pressure on existing retailers to be themselves the highest and best use for their own business and really achieve a good business atmosphere they want to attract the businesses there. Many, many small-scale retailers are right now working in marginal spaces. California Avenue has a unique character about it. Some of the retailers are successful and some aren’t and you should reward the ones that are and can also reward the ones that are going to be able to take advantage of additional residential in the surrounding neighborhood. Those are the ones that will transition themselves and really improve the quality of the service that they provide or will take advantage of the fact they have more residential. Every single retailer isn’t necessarily a good retailer just because they are existing. I think other retailers will come in that are just as good. What we found in working on small scale Downtowns that everybody’s fear is that whenever we change the zoning at any one particular location that there is going to be wholesale massive changes up and down that main street. I have seen it in my old hometown of Novato. I have seen it in Mountain View. I’ve seen it in Santa Clara. The reality is that these very small parcels do not change very dramatically and to get one or two buildings every five to ten years is actually about as much change as we have ever seen in any one particular place unless there was some very aggressive parcel aggregation by a city or a particular entity. I actually haven’t seen that on an actual main street. So I am not anticipating any tremendous changes. Also, with the zoning in the area I wouldn’t see the great advantage to them shifting over. So I think we are not going to see a huge change on California Avenue other than if the residential development around California Avenue is realized to any great extent it is just going to enhance the retailers and they are going to have a brisker business and I think it is just going to become a more positive and more active place. Just making it a more positive and more active place and having more pedestrians walking there and more residents we will probably see some businesses transition. Those that can take advantage of those new people coming in will remain and as happens in all main streets throughout all communities there will be occasionally those that decide that they are going to either move on or retire or leave their business. You see that in every community. You are not going to ever see...if you do see stagnation on a street where you don’t see change in the businesses that is probably the worst thing that can happen to most main streets. So they are supposed to be vital, they are supposed to be active and they are supposed to constantly refine themselves. The ones that do are the ones that you find to be most successful. Chair Burt: John. Mr. Lusardi: I just want to point out too that with respect to the Fry’s site is the .35 nonresidential is a maximum but it is not a guarantee. The uses are determined through the Planning Commission and Council discretionary review process. So you have that opportunity at that time to say what is the breakout of the uses you want whether they are Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 office or commercial retail and to what extent. So we much prefer the discretionary review process by the Council and the Planning Commission to dictate rather than try to get very prescriptive in the ordinance in that respect. With respect to California Avenue that is also true. Any change of use or development on California Avenue under the PTOD has a discretionary review. So you have the opportunity to comment on that, limit it or amend it, number one. Number two is California Avenue is a pedestrian transit corridor. It is a ten minute walk from E1 Camino to the train station, the Marguerite Shuttle goes down there, the VTA goes down there, there is a bicycle route that goes down there. So it is a transit corridor. So this enhances that as far as a transit corridor goes. We are working with CAADA to do some improvements on California Avenue because they want to enhance the pedestrian aspects of that area. This helps them to do that. This encourages them to do that. This reinforces what they want to do. So I don’t think the Pedestrian Transit Oriented District there necessarily threatens the uses as Rick describes but I do think it enhances their ability to do some improvements that they want to do on California Avenue. Chair Butt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I appreciate your thoughts Karen. I am not in agreement with what you had said regarding California Avenue. I want to get on the record that I think that it should be included in the zone because we have the ability through the review process to say no when an applicant comes forward it just doesn’t meet the criteria and we don’t want to use the PTOD process there. The last thing I just want to mention is I think that somewhere in the ordinance it should say that the variance process should be discouraged for applicants that are taking advantage of the PTOD overlay zoning. The reason being that we cannot exclude variances but it should be discouraged because this is a special kind of zoning that has other advantages to it. Chair Burt: Okay. If it is all right I would like to entertain a motion that we continue this to a date uncertain. MOTION Commissioner Garber: So moved. SECOND Commissioner Lippert: Second. MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-1, Commissioner Cassel absent and Commissioner Bialson conflicted) Chair Burt: Okay, a motion by Commissioner Garber and seconded by Commissioner Lippert. Any discussion? All those in favor? (ayes) That is unanimous. Page 46 Attachment P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes March 15, 2006 EXCERPT UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Public Hearings. Zoning Ordinance Update: Status Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission on the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District. The boundaries for the PTOD zoning district are generally Cambridge Avenue to the north, E1 Camino Real to the west, Caltrain rail line to the east, and Lambert Avenue to the south. Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant Planner: Yes, this is an informational item for you. We have continued the actual meeting on the ordinance to your May ! 0 calendar. That will give us time to do some more community meetings and consider some of the options that we might present to you at that time. So I did want to just correct a couple of items in the Staff Report. One is that the community meeting with the Palo Alto Central Group it said was going to be on the 23rd and they couldn’t do that date so it is actually the 30th that we are going to meet with them. The Ventura neighborhood we have set now for April 5th. Also we have put at your places a summary of the comments that ~vere made at the Emerson Street meeting. There were 19 people that attended that and we have summarized those comments and passed them along to you as well. So there is no action required. We wilt just be back to you on the 10th of May with a revised ordinance and try to synthesize the comments that we hear from the community. Chair Burt: Curtis, could you repeat the date of the Ventura Group meeting? Mr. C. Williams: The 5tu of April. Chair Burt: So it will be the same night as a Planning Commission meeting. Mr. C. Williams: It will be. Wednesday nights are their nights. Chair Burt: Okay, thank you. Just for the record, the other date the Palo Alto Central meeting will be on the 30th. Mr. C. Williams: The 30th of March. Chair Burt: Great. Thank you. Lee. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: During that evening meeting and it was reported also I believe in the Palo Alto Daily that a number of citizens were not familiar with terms and abbreviations. I mentioned this to Andy Coe as well. Has anything been done to sort of bring the public up to speed a little bit better in terms of what those terms mean? Mr. C. Williams: Nothing so far. We haven’t been back out since, well, we were at the Emerson meeting and did bring some materials with us to better explain that if those questions came up. One thing we are planning on doing is putting together a frequently asked questions list and we have developed about 20 questions to fill out. We will try to get that done and on the website and out to everybody within the next two weeks before we go back to these other couple of neighborhood meetings. You are referring to the " meeting on the 27th, the community meeting that was held here. Commissioner Lippert: Correct. Mr. C. Williams: We wilt try to incorporate that into that document and also have materials if somebody out there doesn’t get the message. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Curtis, I notice you call them frequently asked questions rather than FAQs so we have already had a break through on acronyms. Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I thought it might be helpful especially if any members of the public might be watching from home to know what the attachments are that you have included with our packet. I believe this material is available on the website now and it is a lot of information. So if you might want to go through those. Then secondly, after that, if there is any trends in comments that you are hearing or if you want to comment on any of the input that you are getting to this point in time that are things you think need to be addressed or if you want to hold that until later that is fine too but I wanted to leave opportunity at least for you to comment. Mr. C. Williams: Okay. Yes, we did give you some attachments which generally are publications that have looked at transit oriented in some cases mixed use and other types of development and their relationships to parking, use of transit, pedestrian activity and that kind of thing. These were some that we had readily available but there are some others that we will add to the list and get to you and get on the website as well. One of them is from VTA on their Guidelines for Transportation Impact Analysis. A couple of them are done by Nelson Nygaard Consulting, which is kind of in the forefront of transportation modes and analysis. One of them is the Parking Technical Memorandum that they did for the City a couple of years ago now that looked at the different auto usage and different areas around the train station. Then they also did another study called Crediting Low Traffic Developments that is a little more recent that is broader. It is not Palo Alto specific but looks at the types of uses and developments and their relationship to the need for parking and traffic creation. Then Travel Characteristics of Transit Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Oriented Development in California which actually is a much bigger document than what is here but have excerpted portions of it that relate specifically to again how some findings that relate to specifically in this case transit oriented use on how it is used by office workers compared to the use by residents and those kind of interrelationships with pedestrian use and everything else. So I can’t go into any of these in detail. I am sure Heather could give you a lot more information on them. There are some others out that that we would like to get to you as well before the next meeting and have for the public also so that we can indicate that this is not something that is brand new. There have been studies done on it and it has been successful and show that to all of you. Vice-Chair Holman: Then as follow up to that too we had gotten a communication from a member of the public about Walk to Work in Stanford West I think it was. Will there be information available to us about that? Do you think that some of these if they are existing documents, because this i~ coming back to us in May, might it be possible to get any of those documents ahead of our regular packet date because especially the transportation things are pretty dense to consume? Mr. C. Williams: When you say the documents do you mean these types of documents or the Staff Report? Vice-Chair Holman: These kinds of documents. Mr. C. Williams: Yes, our intent is within the next couple of weeks to get you all the documents we can try to get you so you will have plenty of time to digest those and peruse them. Chair Burt: Curtis, it is really great we appreciate getting this supplemental material. I think it will be very beneficial. It is somewhat dense and I think the Commission will likely wade through it page-by-page but I don’t know that we can necessarily expect the general public or even the Council when it goes to them to read it comprehensively. Is it Staff’s intention to provide some executive summaries of these and some graphics that will boil it down to a few pages of the most pertinent materials? I see a member of the public enthusiastically nodding his head yes. Mr. C. Williams: I think we could do something like that. At a minimum I think we can encapsulate for you what sort of what the key points are in each one of these papers. Then if we can synthesize them in a way to try to present data in a graphic form or something we will look at doing that but I am not sure how well they lend themselves to that. Chair Burt: Great, just whatever aspects of it seem most relevant and impactful ~vould be valuable. Mr. C. Williams: Can I ask Commissioner Holman for a copy of that Walk to Work? We haven’t seen that. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, I think it came through Staff I believe but if not I have it and I believe I can forward it back to you. Mr. C. Williams: Thank you. I will check with Heba. Chair Burt: Do any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Okay. Do any other Commissioners have questions or comments? Great. Thank you Curtis. Page 4 ATTACHMENT E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 !2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Wednesday, May 10, 2006 REGULAR Meeting at 7:00 PM Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton A yen ue Palo Alto, California 94301 Chair Burr: Item number two is an aspect of our Zoning Ordinance Update the Commission will consider and recommend to the City Council an ordinance to adopt a new Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District. The boundaries of the district are generally Cambridge Avenue to the north, E1 Camino Real to the west, Caltrain line to the east, and Lambert Avenue to the south. Would Staff like to make a presentation? o Zonin~ Ordinance Update - Planning and Transportation Commission consideration and recommendation to City Council of an Ordinance to adopt a new PAMC 18.66 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District. The boundaries for the PTOD zoning district are generally Cambridge Avenue to the north, E1 Camino Real to the west, Caltrain rail line to the east, and Lambert Avenue to the south. Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Curtis Williams. Planning Consultant: Yes, thank you Chair Burt and Commissioners. We are here tonight to request that you recommend moving the ordinance for the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development Combining District on to the City Council. As we have discussed before the district was formed in response primarily to the transit oriented residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan that calls for higher density residential uses and support of alternative modes of transportation particularly in close proximity to the train station. Staff has in previous discussions with the Commission broadened somewhat the scope of that initial Comprehensive Plan direction to the intent of the Pedestrian Transit Oriented District is multiple. One is to support not only public transportation but other non-vehicular modes of transportation, to encourage mixed use and concomitant reductions in vehicle use, to provide a streetscape design that is attractive to pedestrians and bicyclist, to support the economic viability in this particular situation of California Avenue and the surrounding businesses, to implement the City’s Housing Element as we mentioned there are some housing opportunity sites in this PTOD zone, and to provide effective transitions from neighboring residential areas so that neighbors are not adversely impacted by this proposal. We have been to you previously and had several discussions of the potential provisions of the ordinance and we then subsequently followed up with some community meetings late last year and earlier this year and have put together a revised ordinance for your consideration tonight. Thos meetings included getting together with the Emerson Street neighbors, the Palo Alto Central Homeowners and some of the other residents of surrounding properties within the PTOD boundaries, the Ventura neighborhood and then also putting a lot of information regarding the PTOD on our website. City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 1 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 There are several key revisions that we have made in response to those groups that we met with. We thought they had some very pertinent suggestions to try to address particularly transitions. So we have made some changes both in the ordinance itself as well as the context-based design section of the ordinance and the diagrams go along with it. We have added a daylight plane and a landscape buffer adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. We have limited office use below the .35 FAR that was previously suggested. The cap would still be .35 the cap on nonresidential but only .25 of that could be office or R&D. We have limited the cumulative parking adjustments and that means the code allows certain parking adjustments like 20 percent or 30 percent or whatever and what we have said is if you combine those together it can’t be more than a reduction of 30 percent, although there are some provisions for senior housing/affordable housing that are a bit more than that. We have also required that if you are requesting a parking adjustment what you can do under the current code but if you do it in this district that you need to provide a TDM program as part of your PTOD approval and specific monitoring and reporting measures not so that we can try to enforce them so much that is difficult to do but so we can begin to collect realistic data so that we can see if in the future there are reductions in our code that are merited by that information. Then we have also tried to define what a minor change is. If you recall last time there was some concern about allowing the Director to make minor changes to a PTOD approval. We have used the same language that we have for the Architectural Review Board approvals to define what the scope of that is and to specifically exclude changes in land use as opposed to development standards. On the context-based design portion of the code we have again added the daylight plane and landscape buffer adjacent to the right-of-way for the railroad. Provisions to limit the length of walls, to provide some view corridors, to provide designs to articulate buildings and minimize noise as well as for visual purposes, provided some illustrations of the transitions of intensity that should occur from low density neighborhood through a more modest density up to the higher density that would be allowed in the PTOD similar to what might happen from the Ventura neighborhood up through the Fry’s site if it were redeveloped. Then we have provided also a streetscape section for Park Boulevard that indicates not only some of the sidewalk widths and relationships of buildings at the street level but also how those buildings after a couple of stories going up would be setback to provide some relief and avoid kind of a tunnel effect along Park Boulevard. Some of the key issues that came up in our discussions with the community included density and intensity, reflection of train noise, several different traffic and transportation issues, parks and school impacts, the Fry’s site itself and also the potential impact on revenue generating uses. As far as density and intensity goes we should have provided and there is a table attached to your packet that includes more specifics on this, a couple of tables actually, that the density and height and FAR that are proposed here are very similar in nature to the existing RM-40 zone which is fairly prevalent within this area and also to many of the existing multi-family structures that are there as well as a couple of mixed use projects that do exist. We have responded in terms of some concerns about office and R&D to again further than the potential for those developments. Then we want to emphasize, as we will several times during the evening that this is a rezoning. What we are doing is establishing a boundary that makes properties eligible to request rezoning and that each one of those properties would then subsequently come through this highly discretionary review process before the Planning Commission and the Council and the ARB to determine within those parameters what the appropriate densities and intensities and uses would be. Cir. of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 2 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 !5 !6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Train noise reflection, we had a noise study prepared by EIP Consultants. Geoff Homek who prepared that study is in the audience tonight. He is prepared to answer questions and/or give you a brief overview of the study. The conclusion of the study was that while yes trains make a lot of noise and there is a lot of vehicular noise along Alma Road in particular that there was no discernable noise reflection that would likely occur from buildings. That the noise at peak hours tends to be dominated by vehicular traffic so that there wasn’t so much of an increase when the trains went by but at quieter times then there was more of a disparity. He has also made some suggestions that it can help to assure that there isn’t a reflection problem by articulating the buildings and minimizing extensive lengths of walls using appropriate materials. Then we wanted to point out that as we have mentioned before each one of these projects will on their own be required to go through an environmental review process. If there is something that looks like it may have a noise impact we certainly have the prerogative to request that on a specific project. Third, traffic and transportation issues dealt with pedestrian and bicycle facilities and concerns about how those are accommodated. We have tried to show that to some extent on the diagram of Park Boulevard but the thrust of much of this zoning is to establish these context-based criteria that will provide for connections that will provide wider sidewalks and bike lanes and various other improvements. The park parking was somewhat of a concern. We believe the approach is very conservative here. We are essentially using the same parking rates, the same adjustments that are allowed in the existing code and in a minute I will talk about a couple slight modifications to that but overall that is the approach. Plus we are requiring a TDM pro~am which for most of the City you don’t have to do when you request these adjustments. So we think we have been very conservative on that and haven’t branched out and tried to reduce parking rates because it is near transit. Caltrain ridership has been of some concern. We feel very strongly that this is supportive of Caltrain whether the ridership is down or not. This is supportive of helping to enhance the potential for ridership that is supportive of Caltrain’s policies about developing around transit stations. There are some improvements to safety and access that will help accommodate two trains at the station at one time so there are improvements that are going in at the Caltrain station now that will help enhance the use of train as well. Trip generation in a very broad general sense we have done a calculation in your Staff Report that development of a site that has either a .50 FAR for an R&D type of use that the GM allows right as compared to residential at 40 units per acre that the total peak hour trip impact would be less with the residential use. That doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be impacts it depends on the direction of the traffic at a particular intersection. Those are things that we would look at in a traffic study as a project came through. Traffic safety, there are some improvements that are slated and some that I am sure will be required when projects go through such as we have talked about a left turn going from Park down to the Page Mill-Oregon Expressway area so that the traffic doesn’t chew back onto Park Boulevard the way it does now and signalization or at least stop signs near where some of these projects would intersect with Park Boulevard. Then there were also some questions about will Cir. of Palo Alto May lO, 2006 Page 3 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 we retain the traffic calming devices that exist on either end of the Park Boulevard right now and the answer is definitely yes. There is a proposal for the City to implement the Bike Boulevard along Park Boulevard that will probably entail some additional measures going in to assist with that. Park and school impacts in a very big picture sort of sense were questions that we heard at the previous meeting and in the community. On parks there are requirements for private and/or common open space on these projects. If we have some larger sites develop we anticipate there could be potential for some requirement of land to be dedicated as a park. There are areas not devoid of parks. There is one directly within the PTOD and then some within walking distance and then the Mayfield project is under construction now again within walking distance of the PTOD. You are considering later tonight the Quimby Act Parkland Dedication Ordinance leading up to that we also have park impact fees so there are mechanisms in place to try to address providing additional parks. School district, we did talk to and they don’t have any definitive studies available. Their preliminary indications to us were that district-wide there is capacity available to serve additional development but that there are concerns about whether someone can attend the school closest to the household. Those are issues that they are certainly working on the we will continue to keep in touch with them and help provide them with a lot of information to help them with some of these studies. Then we do also have school impact fees that are intended to be used for new facilities and accommodate additional growth. The Fry’s site obviously is of concern given its size and as I think we have told you before it is zoned for multi-family RM-30 but is scheduled for amortization of the existing retail use by 2019. Commissioner Garber had some questions that I will answer here in a minute. The first one was basically what amortization means and how that works. It essentially means in this case that the existing retail use goes out of business by a certain date or whatever the non-conforming use is that is out there. So in this case the amortization is through 2019 and by that time a conforming use needs to be on the property and the existing use would have to cease to be unless some other change in zoning occurred in the interim. We believe Fry’s is an integral part of the PTOD. It anchors the south end and would create this network from Fry’s all the way up Park Boulevard up to the train station and to California Avenue. There are a wide range of build-out scenarios that we provided in the Staff Report last time and this time as well ranging anywhere from 40,000 to 190,000 square feet of nonresidential and up to 350 to 400 units at the maximum potential build-out. With the PTOD’s advantage here it provides flexibility for Fry’s to retain the retail use whether it be Fry’s or another retail use on the site. Again, this is something that Commission and the Council will have very full discretion to look at as a project rezoning request is made as to what the appropriate mix of uses is and what the appropriate intensity is and how the transitions are made from the adjacent neighborhoods through the site. That is part of what the context-based design does as well and now it helps illustrate those transitions. Other concerns about revenue generating uses, the retail uses that exist on California Avenue in a block either direction basically have an R combining district, retail and shopping combining district, that requires the first floor to be retail so it cannot be replaced by housing on the first floor. There is one auto dealership, AD overlay site, within the PTOD boundaries. We have City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 4 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 heard that that’s a concern. We understand that but we don’t think that further restricting the use of that property or prohibiting it from having the same potential as other properties in the area is the appropriate way to address that. It would be more appropriate to work proactively to try to come up with other solutions to retain that use. Fry’s we talked about providing that additional flexibility for continued retail use and the district does also provide an oppommity again with the discretion for you to review this for a hotel to be located in the area. So just to very quickly kind of summarize where we are with the ordinance the district boundaries have not changed. The flow chart has not changed it still involves fu!l Commission and Council review, ARB input at a preliminary level along the way and then ARB review of the final design after rezoning is approved. The land uses generally have not changed. We are looking at primarily multi-family and mixed-use land uses with some potential for live/work or for hotel uses. The development standards have changed in that the .35 is limited to some extent as far as office and R&D being at .25 FAR. Also, the BMR bonuses are still in the ordinance as they were last time and as we discussed last time it would take in order to get to maximum higher densities and heights and such would take about 65 percent of the units being BMR units to qualify for those incentives. The parking I did want to again revisit just for a minute. There are no changes to the parking rates so you use the same table that we have in the Zoning Ordinance for that. The same thing with the adjustments that are currently al!owed, we have adjustments that allow requesting from the Director reductions for being close to transit, for mixed use, for senior housing and those kinds of things. We have put a limit, which the code doesn’t have right now of 30 percent but 40 if it is affordable housing and 50 for seniors, which is what the code has right now as maximums so that you can’t accumulate all these reductions. Then on top of that we require TDM measures. What we want to do is encourage anyone in these locations to provide measures, what they can, to further encourage transit use and pedestrian and bicycle usage. To monitor that we have suggested at two and five years after occupancy of the uses to receive monitoring reports and we will have to structure what those reports include and what the performance measures are and come back to us so we begin to build that database of how these various measures work. So for the next project down the line we have a better approach. The one area where there is some change from the parking that exists today is we have suggested that the landscape reserve requirement not apply under certain conditions or that it could be requested not to comply when the average unit size is less than 1,250 square feet and where only one assigned space per unit is provided from a parking standpoint so that the other spaces are available to be shared among which is a more efficient use of the parking. Then again with the TDM measures and monitoring. So that is really the only difference from our current standards and we are interested in pursuing that but if you are not comfortable with that we can modify that as well. What I am going to do is turn it over to Rick Williams in a minute to run through the context- based design section with you. Rick is here with Kevin Gardner and Chris Sensenig from Rick’s firm and as I mentioned Geoff Hornek, the noise consultant is here. You know Clare who has helped out greatly in putting all this information together for you. I want to go ahead and sort of conclude my presentation by saying that we think that the PTOD district is implementing what the Comprehensive Plan saw as a sustainable and smart growth approach to development in the areas around the transit stations. We have modified the ordinance to address what we have heard as some of the transition concerns to neighborhoods. We think the intensity of development that Ci& of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 5 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 is proposed is not inconsistent with many of the projects that exist in this area as they are now. It does help us implement our Housing Element policies and the housing opportunity sites we have there and again it retains a very high level of discretion for the Commission and Council to look at individual projects as they come through in the furore. This is just the first step. With that said, we also did provide you with a couple of alternatives if you are not comfortable with where this is headed. One we have called a lesser intensity alternative which is to reduce the overall density to 30 units per acre instead of 40, these are combination or permutations of them are certainly possible but to perhaps delete the BMR bonuses so that that opportunity for going higher doesn’t exist and/or to further restrict office and R&D use. The other alternative really relates to the scope of the boundaries and particularly whether to include Fry’s or not so it would allow excluding Fry’s and the adjacent Olive Avenue residential on the GM part of Park Boulevard down near there from the PTOD boundaries. So I am sorry I took so long but there was a lot to tell you. I would like to let Rick briefly go through the context-based. Chair Burt: Curtis, before we go forward with that Commissioner Lippert has one question and I had one request. Could you just for everyone’s general concept of the context of the PTOD review how the current zoning remains in place and how this PTOD interacts with that rather than replaces it? Mr. C. Williams: Sure. The PTOD is an overlay that establishes a boundary around this district and allows for a property owner to request rezoning pursuant to this code. The existing zoning whether it is CC on California Avenue or GM on Park Boulevard remains in place unless and until that rezoning occurs. So if a property owner chooses to just stay where they are use the existing zoning that is a perfectly fine option. We think that there are a number of cases where that is likely California Avenue being the predominant one. If there appears to be a benefit in terms of mixed use or multi-family to requesting the PTOD then they may request rezoning and go through the rezoning process of review and public hearing by the Planning Commission and the City Counci! with input from the Architectural Review Board and then final review of the specific design by ARB after the rezoning is completed. So that is essentially the process. Chair Burt: Thank you. Lee, you had a question at this time? Commissioner Lippert: Yes. Regarding the alternatives here those are meant to be considered separately A or B. It is looking at those in addition to what is being proposed here, correct? Mr. C. Williams: Yes. They would be in lieu of some specific things in the ordinance but all the rest of the ordinance would be in place. So in other words the 40 units per acre would come out 30 units per acre and that kind of thing. Commissioner Lippert: Correct. So we could very well adapt both options A and B if we wanted to or neither of those. Mr. C. Williams: Right, or others that are out there. City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 6 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. Then again regarding the reason why we are not looking at a coordinated area plan or a specific plan for this area is that it doesn’t supplant the underlying zoning is what you are saying. Mr. C. Williams: Right. Commissioner Lippert: It is purely at the owner’s discretion that this zoning be applied and they would have to go through a process of a hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council. Mr. C. Williams: Exactly. Chair Burt: Welcome Rick. Mr. Rick Williams, Van Meter Williams and Pollack: Thank you very much. I am going to just highlight the context-based design criteria that was developed and modified through the various community meetings and neighborhood meetings that we have had over the past few months. We have still focused on the basic fundamental concept of the PTOD and focusing on the pedestrian and bicycle environment creating a walkable community that has the connectivity to both transit and retail and to each other’s neighbors. We have also in doing that focused on the building design, building fa,cades, as they relate to the street. We acknowledge in the design criteria that there is an important relationship between the buildings and the street as part of the pedestrian, bicycle and transit oriented development. The other critical issues were massing and articulation, varying the massing, minimizing the massing appearance as well as looking at it as a way of transitioning to the louver intensity uses and respecting the scale and privacy of those adjacent properties. I think that when we explained the design criteria to the neighborhoods they overall became much more comfortable in understanding what the goals and objectives of the PTOD were and how this actually could work in their favor as well. They wil! be able to give you feedback on that also. The concept of usable open space has always been something that we felt needed to be augmented in the zoning regulations and we have incorporated that not only in the PTOD but other regulations as well. We feel that that’s an important part as residential comes into a mixed area that it have usable open space and the parking design and the orientation of parking so that it doesn’t impact the pedestrian environment. Then we have incorporated a couple of unique characteristics including dealing with large sites and the building patterns consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, breakdown the scale of larger developments. One of the things that we feel is that this makes the Fry’s site a great opportunity site within the PTOD to really define and create a character of the area that gives you an advantage that most smaller neighborhood sites wouldn’t provide. Sustainability is also an important criterion within this and the design criteria incorporate the same sustainability criteria, which we are also incorporating in some of the other zones as well. The tools that we are using include a wide variety within this including the connectivity which relates to both pedestrian connectivity as well as visual corridors so that you see down streets, City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 7 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 you see from public right-of-ways through to the hills and we have incorporated that both within the concept of pedestrian walks, streets as well as view corridors. We have also related, as we mentioned, to the building design both when they are mixed use commercial-retail spaces as well as residential and how those buildings would relate to the street. One of the long conversations we had with the community was the design characteristics and how the designs related to both the train right-of-way and how we would incorporate landscape elements, building articulation, stepping back and daylight planes all as part of a strategy to both minimize the overall massing as it relates to those neighborhoods, deal with any noise reflection as well as create just a greater visual buffer through landscaping, etc. The building massing and articulation and creating a great variety and different characteristics within residential portions versus mixed use was another piece of the characteristics that we used in the context-based design and the transitions. This is one of the new diagrams that we incorporated in which relates to how you use these design characteristics to transition from existing lower intensity development within a new development to have transitions which rise periodically in intensity and again this was looked at both from the Fry’s site as well as in more detail on smaller sites. Commissioner Lippert: Before you move on from that illustration there could you clarify for me those boxes, the colored boxes, those are just outlines. It is the little white things. Mr. R. Williams: It is the little ones that are the actua! buildings. You see the low intensity single-family homes and then we have a space and then the medium density transition area and then the taller intensity and you see that there is a transition area between as well. I will show this again when we go through a site section through the entire site in just a moment and show you how it relates in kind of more real space time. As I mentioned we looked at it in both the bigger scale of that last section as well as in a more intimate detail scale of the parcel right adjacent to the next parcel. We have used that along the E1 Camino Real, we have used it in the mixed-use development and we are incorporating the same type of transition characteristics and privacy features in the context-based design tools for the PTOD. This is actually one that I feel pretty excited about and this is the issue of having multiple building types when you have larger development parcels. This relates to a number of the development parcels within the site. It definitely relates in a large way to the Fry’s site where the larger sites are required to have multiple building types and those can be used as real transition strategies to the lower intensity surrounding parcels. So this works in both ways it creates variety, it creates different housing types, it creates different unit sizes and it also acts as a transition. It is the larger sites that people are most concerned about because those are the ones that create the most dramatic change. So those are the sites that we are placing the most emphasis on from a context-based design strategy as far as breaking down the scale by requiring real different building types not just different building blocks. City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 8 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Park Boulevard is going to really be the key corridor from pedestrian and bike standpoint. There has been concerns about the vehicular circulation on it so we paid special attention to creating from the property lines having a strategy of widening sidewalks, having landscape buffer, incorporating in rows of trees, double rows of trees against residential so that we create a very pedestrian walkable environment and this is an implementation piece that the City could move forward with as parcels develop or as a comprehensive streetscape strategy whichever is most appropriate down the line. It allows the Public Works and the City to really focus on Park Boulevard as a spine for the PTOD. Also I just noted that the building sections showed the step backs that the neighborhood was also concerned with. Within this section there was a lot of conversation with the neighborhood about the Fry’s site, how it relates and what the transitions are to the surrounding neighborhood. You can see that there is already, with the canal portion already there, there is already a kind of business transition zone between the neighborhood but you can also see how that diagram that we illustrated previously is reversed with the single family neighborhood, the business light industrial area to the greater intensity that would be potentially on a site such as the Fry’s site but that that also has a variety of breaking down in scale and it has a series of streets and pedestrian walks within it that again breakdown the scale of that site to a greater extent than it is now for sure. It relates that previous section to this specific location. We have also done similar sections relating to the Emerson neighborhood, the Caltrain station along the major streets and Park Boulevard and illustrated how the buildings step back, how there is building articulation and varied massing and other relationships are illustrated in other key diagrams within the context-based design. This is one of the new sections that also illustrates, and we will show it in the next one, how there is a landscape buffer between the railroad tracks and the building. If we can go to the next slide I think that shows it more clearly. What we have done is created a simulation, which we illustrated to the neighborhood as well that shows everybody’s favorite building along the railroad tracks. If it was replaced or an adjacent building along here it would be illustrated such as this that would be a comparable under this zoning framework. These were illustrated but came from computer models through a photomontage to illustrate how the guidelines would create the various massing strategies. Mr. C. Williams: I think this brings me back. The next steps in this process are that the Commission acts tonight that we would try to schedule a meeting with the Council likely in June or July and we would anticipate our next work session or study item on the Zoning Ordinance for you to come back with commercial, mixed use and performance standards at a study session around that same timeframe. Then I don’t want to lose sight of Commissioner Garber’s questions. I mentioned the one about amortization. A second one was about the Agilent site and what sort of impacts the Commission would consider as part of an evaluation we would identify certainly the relationship to Park Boulevard, the relationship to the residences across Olive Avenue, any visibility from across the tracks at Alma and Emerson, any traffic issues that come out of a traffic study. We think that the design criteria helps with the transitions like from Olive Avenue to the site, from those Cir. of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 9 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 residential areas the traffic would be addressed again through a traffic study. I don’t know if it would be more or less if it were all residential. It would probably be less but we don’t know what it would be and what kind of safety or signalization improvements would be associated with that. Again, we would go through the whole review process by the Commission and the Council before rezoning to PTOD. Thirdly, there was discussion on page 14 in the Staff Report about what we call this susceptibility of what areas of the PTOD would likely be able to use this more readily than others. The question is if all of those areas use them what percent of the area would that be? Basically that is mostly the GM zoned sites if you exclude Agilent from the GM zoning for a minute that is 11.9 percent of the PTOD area. The rest of the GM sites are about 10 acres. Agilent is about another 10 acres, that is another 11.9 percent, and then Fry’s is another one we have talked about is 12.6 acres, which is about 15 percent of the total PTOD area. So that is not to imply that all of these sites would use the PTOD or that there aren’t some other sites zoned CC or zoned something else that might take advantage of it but those are the ones we certainly see as being most likely to take advantage of the rezoning. There is an Attachment B, page 2, comment C that is part of the context-based design, pedestrian and bicycle text refers to Park Boulevard as being an area for certain improvements along the sidewalks and such and wouldn’t this be applicable to California Avenue too? I think the answer is yes, it probably should and we should probably mention that in there. I think the reason we didn’t was because California Avenue already generally has a lot of those improvements on it. It isn’t in need of it in the same way that Park Boulevard is but they are anticipating doing some additional improvements on California Avenue. Also, the entirety of that street includes the P, pedestrian shopping district requirements that do require some frontage improvements as well as the R, retail requirements. Then the fifth question was in Attachment J which is the noise study that the graphs, it is difficult to tell at which point on the graphs the trains are going by. That was described in some paragraphs earlier in the report but it wasn’t clear on the graph specifically where that is. I gave Dan a copy of what that is. I can go through it for you but I don’t know that it makes a lot of sense other than if you are looking at every one of them like in Figure 2, the train stops at 14:27 and 14:36. Generally if you see a peak that is pretty long it is usually probably a train stopping for about two minutes. If you see just a real quick spike it is likely to be a train passing that didn’t stop. So I have all the times listed here and can go through that if you like again. Also JeffHornack is here if there are additional questions on the noise analysis. That’s it. Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions of the Staff before we hear from the public? Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I just have one quick one Curtis. There is something that you mentioned that I didn’t know the meaning of. It was the landscape reserve relative to parking. Do you know what I am talking about? Mr. C. Williams: It was in the PowerPoint and it is under the parking section. Ci& of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 10 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: I don’t see it but can you explain what the landscape reserve is, please? Mr. C. Williams: Sure. There are some of the adjustments, not all of our adjustments that allow an applicant to request a reduction of up to 20 percent in parking for a mixed use development or up to 20 percent for being close to transit. Some of those, the transit one being one and mixed use not being one, require that an area be set aside as a reserve and landscaped in case the parking is needed subsequently. That is pretty much counter to the whole concept of what we are trying to do here in setting aside the land there for potential parking. So we would like to be able to bury that but by the same token we don’t want to leave that open ended. So our thought was as along as the units were generally of not a very large size, a moderate size or less, and that they provided again not having assigned parking where we don’t have two spaces for every unit and those are the only people who can park in it but it is much more efficient if you have one assigned parking space and then a group of spaces that can be shared by guests and other residents who do have two cars. That was a viable way to go so that is what that relates to. That again is the one area that differs from all the other provisions that are already in the Parking Ordinance. Chair Burt: Don. Mr. Larkin: Just real quickly before you go to the public I wanted to mention a couple of things. The first I know I have mentioned this to the Commission before but Steve suggested just as a refresher I should say there is a section of the designated area that is listed in the Housing Inventory as potential housing sites. Currently those, even though the GM zone prohibits housing, by right housing can be developed on those two sites. There are no design criteria for those so this would be the design criteria that would apply to those sites. I thought it was important to remind the Commission that that is one of the reasons for going forward with the PTOD out of schedule. The second thing I wanted to mention was for anybody that read the paper this morning, the daily news, there was an article about a potential police building site in the PTOD district. I wanted to just remind the Commission that that can’t be a factor in any decision regarding the zoning tonight. Chair Burt: Thank you. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Could you just clarify for me again if we don’t adopt a PTOD how would housing in the GM zone then be developed if a property owner decided that they wanted to move forward? Mr. Larkin: There would be no design criteria but they would have to meet setbacks and other criteria that are included in the GM zone but built to the RM-40 standards with no design criteria. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I have one other quick question. Chair Burr: Could I do a follow up to that one that you just asked? Don, with Council having designated no housing in the GM in the absence of a PTOD there could not be housing in the City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 11 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 GM but state law requires us to allow for housing in these transit oriented regions, is that correct? So we currently have a contradiction that we need to quickly resolve between those two different - the Council action and the state law and this is a means to resolve it. Is that correct? Mr. Larkin: That is correct. The state law would trump our Zoning Ordinance but because we don’t have anything in place the housing would be allowed under state law criteria, which is virtually nonexistent. Right, it is the housing opportunity site issue so it is those sites that are designated in the Housing Inventory. Chair Burt: Right, I stand corrected. It has nothing to do with the transit location. It is just coincidental that we had designated that site because in the Comp Plan we would have treated as a transit oriented development area. Mr. Larkin: That is correct. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I had not realized that we had the acoustical engineer here that had written that part of report. If you don’t mind I would like that person to just take a moment and just briefly describe how both form and material can affect the quality of acoustics. Mr. C. Williams: Okay. His name is JeffHornack from EIP. Chair Burr: Welcome Jeff. Mr. JeffHornack, EIP Associates: Thank you it is good to be here.. I work for EIP Associates an environmental consultant. For the past 20 years air quality and noise has been my area of focus. I did the survey and all the technical details that went into this study. In general the things that enhance reflection, as I mentioned also in the report, are kind of continuous fa,cades, high, !ong flat, reflective. Any design features that would depart from that scenario would tend to reduce the affect. So if you had varying heights, varying gaps in the fa,cade, if you had fa,cade materials that were inherently absorptive, if you had portions of a fa,cade that were oriented in different ways that would tend to disburse sound rather than focusing it. All of these features would tend to reduce the reflective effect. That is I think mentioned, all of them, in the summary at the back of the study that you see. Is there anything more I can add? Commissioner Lippert: Well, is it prudent for us to look at reducing say the quantity- of glazing perhaps on a side of a building being that glass is far more reflective both light and sound? Mr. Hornack: Actually it is not as reflective a material as say hard polished stone. It is probably more reflective than say wood siding. The windows would have their best effect for the occupants of a new building if you could ensure that the sound wouldn’t penetrate but they would not be an especially reflective surface compared to other materials. So I think that would not be among the top concerns when choosing design criteria. Ci& of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 12 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: What about acoustical plasters? Mr. Hornack: Again, sort of softer materials that don’t have hard reflective surfaces I think of stucco. Again, rough surface, concrete rather than sometimes you see this in reinforced concrete buildings where the surface seems polished that would tend to be more reflective than a rougher surface. Again, I think of like polished marble as very reflective. Again the harder the material the more polished the face of it the greater the reflective effect would be. I think more important though would be the extent of the surface like the height of it, the continuous len~h of it. That would be what you would really want to avoid more than - that would come first and the type of the material would be of a secondary nature. Commissioner Lippert: Would the stepping back of a fagade help scatter the sound? Mr. Hornack: In general the closer you have the surface to the source, if you are moving the surface closer to the receptors on the other side so the closer you move the buildings to the track side the more you enhance the intensity of the reflected wave on the other side. Again, the len~h and height of it also has an effect. If you had a surface that was broken up say 30 feet of reflective surface and a 30 foot gap the bigger the gaps were the less the effect would be. Again, the higher the buildings the more the effect would be. So you have an interplay of differer~t effects that affect the total intensity of the sound at your receptor point. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you very much Mr. Hornack. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Before you sit down same thing about that sound to follow up on that. Are square corners more likely to reflect sound as opposed to rounded edges? Mr. Hornack: Again, the sharper the angle the .... if you had a 90 degree corner you would get in a sense and even if it was in the from you would have total reflection from that part and none from the part that angled down. As you curved around you would be getting more reflection from the part you are facing. Again, because it is curved it would be reflecting the sound not right back to the source but sort of at an angle away from it. So that would have an effect. Vice-Chair Holman: So would the same thing apply then to rooflines? If you have a vertical wall and you have a flat roof is sound going to tend to be deflected more if there is a slope to the roof?. Mr. Hornack: In the sense if you have a flat roof in essence once you get past that roofline there is no reflection but as you have a sloped roof you have a transition, it is not a zero reflection but you have less than it would be if it were perpendicular to the wave hitting it. With the sloped roof the sound would come in and some of it would be reflected directly back but other parts of it would be reflected up so you wouldn’t get as much of an effect. Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you very much. City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page i3 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Then the other question I had was for Staff. There is considerable reference made to the retail and pedestrian overlay along California Avenue. As I read it the ordinance doesn’t continue those requirements of R and P with a PTOD application. Do I read that correctly or was it the intention of Staff that a PTOD application would include those requirements to continue with? Mr. C. Williams: A PTOD application if you rezoned it from the current is what you are saying to .... Vice-Chair Holman: Correct. Say for instance if there were an application for PTOD along California Avenue, which has R and P overlays on it, would not those requirements continue with a PTOD overlay application? I am not reading that that’s the case but I am wondering what StafFs intention is. Mr. C. Williams: Right. Staff’s intention is that they would continue and under the applicability section it says that in those zoning districts you can request the PTOD and then it says compliance with the provisions of Chapter 18.46R Retail/Shopping and 18.47P Pedestrian/Shopping combining districts shall also be required where such combining districts are applicable. So where they exist they would stay in place. Vice-Chair Holman: Great. What page was that? Mr. C. Williams: That is page 3 of the Ordinance under Applicability, the last sentence. Vice-Chair Holman: Thanks so much. Chair Burt: Okay, now we would like to hear from the public. Each speaker will have up to five minutes to speak. I have a total of 13 cards so far. You are not obliged to use all five minutes. If you wish to concur with another speaker and allude to that that is an efficient way to do it as well. Then there were a few speaker cards that did not refer to this item but they came in the same batch so I am going to assume that everyone who has turned in a card is intending to speak to item number two. If I call your name and you wish to speak to item number three, which is regarding the Quimby Act Park Ordinance fee structure, then just let us know. Our first speaker is Kate Rooney to be followed by Bruce Knoblock. Ms. Kate Roonev. Palo Alto: Thank you very much for allowing us to speak. I wanted to thank the City Staff for allowing us to hold the last neighborhood outreach meeting and for really addressing in a positive way nearly all the issues that we brought up at the meeting and to see them move forward and be incorporated into the PTOD document was very positive for our neighborhood group. So it is great to see it. When it happens it is great. Regarding the alternatives I don’t really understand why reducing the allowable density has to be a tradeoff with the BMR. I am sure there is a reason but I didn’t really understand the argument about why that has to be a tradeoff in option A. I think our neighborhood would prefer the lesser density but preferably not with the BMR housing going away. Regarding option B it is a confusing one for me to understand because I think in some ways we want to keep that City of PaIo Alto May. 10, 2006 Page 14 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 commercial center viable. The commercial area is a nice buffer in itself between the Ventura and the PTOD design criteria. I can see how including Fry’s has positive implications for the neighborhood too. I think the particular slide that was shown that showed the transitions to the Ventura neighborhood with housing on the Fry’s site and then going to smaller commercial is palatable but I don’t know what ensures that really happening in the future except for these documents. It is another loss of a viable commercial area that if it had good transition design could still be a nice transition to the neighborhood. So it would be interesting to see a discussion on it. So thanks again. Also, Transportation heard our comments about Park and Page Mill and in between this time they put in a sidewalk with pedestrian warning sigT~S and they have also been doing traffic monitoring in our neighborhood. So we really appreciate that. Chair Burt: Thank you. Bruce Knoblock to be followed by Suzanne Bayley. Mr. Bruce Knoblock. Palo Alto: Good evening. I am here on behalf of Essex Property Trust, which is the owner of 2785 Park Boulevard, which is one of the housing opportunity sites that was on the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. We are housing developers. We would love to get on with the business of building our project. As you know under the GM(B) zoning housing was allowed and that is why we purchased the site and that is why we started our application process. We actually got as far as we had an ARB public hearing and immediately after that is when the new ordinance kicked in not allowing housing from the GM zone. We work with Curtis and Staff quite a bit or not worked with them but conferred with them a little bit. We are very supportive of the PTOD. It is the only way at this point that we are really going to expeditiously move forward with our project. So we certainly support it. As a good by- product I think it is a good thing for the California Avenue area. I think it will reenergize the area and would urge you to please move it forward to City Council so we can all move forward and get this thing going. Thank you. We are also the site by the way that was in the paper this morning as the blue ribbon task force is zeroing in and I think part of the reason they are zeroing in on our site is because no one else wants them to build. There are a couple of parking lots and we are the only site left standing. Quite honestly we have no desire of waiting for a ballot initiative in 2008 for this to happen or not happen. So we are desirous of moving forward with our housing project. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Suzarme Bayley to be followed by Eric Topp. Ms. Suzarme Barley, Palo Alto: Hello. I have been before you, as have many of my neighbors. The last time we opposed the PTOD and tonight I am here to ask you to please approve it. That is thanks to Staff. They met with more than 25 of my neighbors at my house and they really listened to what we had to say. I think they agreed with us and they have come up with some really great additions and we are really supportive of it. However, and the big caveat is the only reason I have been involved with this and all of my neighbors is because of one particular rogue site that was mentioned before. What I would like to ask is that you do apply the PTOD design guidelines to that particular site as it develops otherwise we have sort of won the battle and lost the war. We don’t get all of the good things for our neighborhood that Staff has agreed with us and recommended to you. I hope you add that to your recommendation going forward to Cir. of Palo Alto 3~Iay I0, 2006 Page 15 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Council that things in the pipeline are subject to these guidelines too. Again, thank you so much to Staff for all the work that they did in working with us and listening to us. Thank you. Chair Burr: Thank you. Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I am sorry, but would you help us by naming your rogue site? I don’t know which one it is. Ms. Bavle¥: Well, I just meant the rogue projects that were on the Housing Inventory site that are GM that are now zoned GM and do not allow housing but apparently can move through because of this. I am talking specifically about the 195 Page Mill site. Thank you. Chair Butt: Thank you. Eric Topp to be followed by Bob Moss. Mr. Eric Topp, Palo Alto: I have been following the plans particularly for 195 Page Mill. I would like to say that I support the PTOD as it has been proposed here. I also would like to give props to the Staff for coming out and meeting with us and being so receptive to our concerns. It came as a shock to me that all of this could be for nothing if the Page Mill site is allowed to be built under GM in this uncertainty of what the state law requires. It would be unfortunate I think to have that built in any way other than the PTOD guidelines that we have talked about. We are certainly not opposed to higher density housing going in in that area. I think it is appropriate but we just want the builder to be responsive to our concerns, which are particularly the building massing, loss of views of the mountains, noise reflection, traffic issues and nighttime light trespass. One other thing I would like to say is that in a more comprehensive look at PTOD in that district the pedestrian crossing along Alma over Oregon Expressway needs improvement. That is the way I go to the train station if I want to take a train to the airport. Trying to get across four streams of traffic with a roller suitcase and not very good curb cuts is just harrowing. It is a problem for anybody that uses that kids, elderly, it is very poor. If you haven’t experienced it give it a shot but keep your wits about you because traffic is coming from all which ways and it certainly could be a lot better. Thank you. Chair Burt: Could you clarify what you were just talking about on the crossing? Were you talking about crossing Alma? Mr. Topp: I am talking about being on Alma and crossing Oregon Expressway or Page Mill. Chair Burt: I just want to make sure I understand it. Mr. Topp: To get to the bike tunnel on ..... Chair Burt: Okay, so you are crossing each of those offramps individually. Mr. Topp: Exactly. Exactly. Chair Burt: And so your concern would be that there be an improved pedestrian safety for those crossings. Ciu" of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 16 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Topp: Exactly. Chair Burt: Okay. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bob Moss to be followed by Wayne Swan. Mr. Robert Moss. Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Butt and Commissioners. I would also agree that the Staff has improved the draft ordinance significantly with this version but it still needs a little help. Fortunately they have made suggestions that you can adopt which I think would help it. That is adding options A and B. Let me give you a little different perspective on residential density. I think that RM-30 rather than RM-40 has a lot of advantages for a number of reasons. One of them is if we are going to allow density bonuses for additional BMR if we start with a !ower maximum then we will have a higher percentage of the total units built as BMR with the addition than if we start with RM-40. So since we are trying to get a higher proportion of BMR units in the residential that is built in the furore this gives a greater incentive for developers to put more BMR units in on a proportionate basis. Second, I am very concerned about the Fry’s site. The higher the allowed density in any of these sites the greater the incentive for the property owner to redevelop it. Therefore, if we start with an allowable density ofRM-40 Fry’s is going to go away. You can talk about having mixed retai! in there but the existing Fry’s site that building is going to be gone. So nothing we do should encourage that to happen. I think everybody in the City feels that Fry’s is a real benefit to the community for a number of reasons taxes being one of them. That leads me to one of the points in option B removing Fry’s from the area and I have heard arguments on both sides of this. Initially I thought Fry’s should be left out just because it is for thing more than 2,000 feet from the train station. So it actually lies outside of the required zone we are supposed to be looking at. Secondly, anything that is done to enhance the possibility that Fry’s is going to be redeveloped is dangerous. Third, it is not required. So at least in the initial cut on this ordinance I would like to see the map redrawn. You can always go back later if there is a compelling reason and extent the PTOD to include Fry’s. But initially I would like to see that area excluded. Cut it off at Olive as the Staff Report suggests and then think about it five or ten years from now. I still think that if that amortization pops up in 2019 and Fry’s is still there and still in business it will be extended yet again as it has been twice before. One of the things in the new graphs concerned me. In the conclusion slide it talks about retaining a high level of discretion at the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Council to determine appropriate uses for specific sites. That smells to me very much like wildcard zoning. That smells to me like a deve!oper who understands the system and can manipulate it and we have a few of them in this town is going to come in and get something that would normally not be allowed that would be totally out of proportion with the other sites in this area and it would bastardize the zoning and land use. So I would like to see a zone which is clear, concise and specific that everybody the City Council, Planning Commission, Staff and developers knows the parameters, knows the boundaries and has to fit within those parameters and boundaries. If they want something else PCs are still here unfortunately. I don’t like the idea of allowing wide ranges of discretion. I have seen too many errors made when we have that in there. Cir. of Palo Alto May lO, 2006 Page 17 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Finally, you have a letter regarding properties at 195 Page Mill and 2875 Park that says they should be excluded from the design criteria. I totally disagree. If they are going to be in the PTOD zone they should be included because they are part of that family and they should !ook like the other developments. I didn’t understand the comment from the City Attorney that they have a vested right legally according to former City Attorney, Ariel Calonne, a property owner does not have a vested right to build until they have a building permit. That is a legal vested right. Chair Burt: Thank you. Wayne Swan to be followed by Peter Lockhart. Mr. Wayne Swan, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I lived on Kellogg Avenue for the past 24 years. Before I make some comments I would like to give you a bit of background because it may be that I have a bias. Forty years ago I became a City Planner. I was Assistant Planning Director in San Mateo and as such it was before CEQA. It was before Proposition t3. The fees for applications like a variance, special permit or reclassification were very nominal. At that time Planning was a service the city provided to the public and the people that are building. So that is a beginning shot. Things have changed a lot since then. I was moved to Palo Alto in 1953 as a field project engineer and I bought a house in Fair Meadow. Since after that sometime a lot of traveling around doing other contract work I worked in San Mateo County for a number of years. One of the things that came up earlier tonight is the topic of density. We had a difficult time because of the western hills in San Mateo County there were no roads there and it was a matter of what can be done. A new concept of density was prepared and it became a part of the general plan, which I wrote. The population for gross residential acre, in other words, POP/GRA and land was measured to the centerline of a street or in the case there were no streets to the outline of what area was owned and property under question. So density was then related to the housing and the number of people normally living in a particular type of unit. It could be added up and density wasn’t a matter of numbers except a guideline of population per gross residentia! acre. Well that is all background. I want to read two or three things that I found in this big report. I only obtained a copy of it yesterday afternoon. The words that attracted my attention are related to public transit. I have had some experience in that by setting up the bus transit system in Burlingame. On page 4 at the bottom, Purposes and Benefits of PTOD, generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation. At the top of the next page, it is the pedestrian accessibility and mixed use nature of transit area that reduce the need for vehicle trips. Then going back to the Zoning Ordinance Update where the different programs are listed, I find it on page 1 of 3, Program H-1 mentioned transit along two major transit corridors E1 Camino Real and San Antonio Road whichever are appropriate. Then we go back to the key points on the map, which is before you up there. There is a large circle enclosing the 2,000-foot radius, which is the PTOD. There is a lot of area that isn’t included east of the railroad and north of ..... but the point I wanted to make is transit is available along E1 Camino. I personally think that transit oriented development is within two-tenths of a mile or !,050 of the centerline of a major street. So Birch Avenue is an automatic boundafy line for the two-tenths of a mile. Incidentally Rickey’s Hyatt project is all within two-tenths of a mile. Recently at a meeting at a joint venture project somebody said senior trips to the doctor, trips by people living close to E1 Camino can take a bus without getting a car out. They can go to a restaurant, shopping or what have you. I think it is Ci& of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 18 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 very significant so maybe there is a possibility of adding on transit oriented development close to E1 Camino. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Peter Lockhart to be followed by Sally Probst. 6 Mr. Peter Lockhart. Palo Alto: Hello. I am encouraged by this refreshing proactive approach to 7 design here. Staff has been extremely thorough and thoughtful and in fact I don’t know how 8 they have been able to do it they have been so diligent. The Pedestrian Transit Oriented project 9 has a few problems, every project will but very few and the benefits are enormous. It allows 10 Palo Alto to achieve many of its long held goals without spreading problems all over town. 11 Scaling back this proposal will only lead to far greater problems elsewhere and that is why I 12 want to say that options A and B in my mind are unworkable and will destroy the likelihood of 13 positive results in the area. I think they are real landmines. There are plenty of design 14 restrictions believe me. Everyone I have talked to in Planning has lots of restrictions and they 15 can really focus on them to allow good projects to happen. The best news I think is the area 16 already works and I think it will work even better with a pedestrian oriented district. Many ! 7 commuters walk on Olive Avenue every day. I see them singly or in groups of one, two, three, 18 four. I see them with their business clothes and their walking shoes and their good shoes in their 19 bags. I see them carrying their attach~ cases and then pulling little wheeled bags behind them. I 20 bike to Molly Stone’s it is fun and it is faster. My wife, Sandy, bikes the area on her new 21 Christmas bike and that has been encouraging us. We often entertain guests by walking down to 22 California Avenue no cars, no bikes just using our shoes and going for breakfast, lunch, dinner or 23 just after dinner just for entertainment to see what is going on down there. It is real close, it is 24 real fun and it works. In a few weeks we are going to take Caltrain to BART and BART to San 25 Francisco Airport and go visit her folks in Hawaii. It will be tough but we will do that and no 26 cars involved already. Like I said all projects have some drawbacks but the benefits are so great 27 and by putting them where they can work rather than having problems all over town I think is the 28 answer. I support the Staff and their proposal. I think they have done a phenomenal job. They 29 listened to the public they have extended their hearing process too. I would also encourage you 30 to give attention to the proposal request by Dave Jost if possible. I know that his parcel is 31 probably extremely difficult to develop in a positive fashion without that line being moved over 32 to Pepper. It is a good example of why the RM-40 works so much better you can get into a little 33 niche where you can either not have a project or have a project. I would be careful that one 34 vehicle approach at most enters on Pepper though. I wouldn’t want to put an impact on Pepper I 35 don’t think that would be right. Anyway, I want to thank the Staff for the hard work. I think this 36 project could benefit Palo Alto and many, many people in a great way. Thank you. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Thank you. Sally Probst to be followed by Carolynn Patten. Ms. Sally Probst. Palo Alto: Good evening. I have supported the Pedestrian Transit Oriented District for these many months. It is seven months now since this was first before you. I regret that it has taken so much time and I regret that there are as many resti-ictions as have now been added. Some of this is very desirable like articulation of buildings, etc., the sort of design guidelines that the ARB usually attends to but I would like to see you permit a zoning limit of 40 units rather than 30. I think that California Avenue, which is an area that I frequent frequently because I patronize many of their businesses, needs to be reinvigorated with additional City of Palo Alto Ma.v 10, 2006 Page 19 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DD 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 population. I think that this whole area needs to be reinvigorated and I am glad that Fry’s has been included. I am concerned that there are so many restrictions that you are not going to get much of this reinvigoration for the area or for California Avenue. We have only two train stations in town this one on California and the one Downtown. We should encourage greater density around both of them. There are also tremendous transportation opportunities along E1 Camino Real and there is the shuttle in addition to the train station. I think that the requirement for parking may be a little excessive. I think that we need to do what we can to include density within an infill within those areas of the city where it is practical and this is one of those. I have been disturbed that the two sites that were on the Housing Element have been held back for so !ong. I hope that they will be moving into the housing stage that has been suggested by their owners many months ago. I would really like to see infill here. We have a possibility of this initiative that is going to restrict any development in the County so that means either people live in the cities or they go to the neighboring counties. It is going to be extremely difficult for many people who need to live in the city closer to work to find areas to live in. Thank you very much. Chair Burt: Thank you. Carolyrm Patten to be followed by Brian Bayley. Ms. Carolvnn Patten. Palo Alto: Good evening. I am one of the now infamous Emerson Street neighbors. I have spoken to you previously initially when the 195 Page Mill project came before you and many of us objected. First I would like to express my great appreciation for being involved in the process and that the Plarming Commission and the City Council and the Planning Staff have been very responsive to our concerns as citizens and people in the community. We have understood from the get-go that there was going to be development and there were going to be changes in the area surrounding California Avenue and Park. Our efforts have primarily been to assure that these are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are humane for the people of Palo Alto. So in reviewing the Staff Report we were able to appreciate that most of our concerns have been addressed, certainly there are compromises that have been made but overall we would encourage that you approve this report and adopt the PTOD. My personal request would be that special attentions are paid to the issues of mitigating the sound reflection and the light trespass that could come from the commercial installations that emerge in this district. And finally we think it is important that the applications that are currently in the pipeline are approved and moved along. These would be the housing developments but that they are held to the guidelines of the PTOD that have been so painstakingly taken care of. Thank you for your attention. Chair Burt: Thank you. Brian Bayley to be followed by Robert Wheatley. Mr. Brian Bayley, Palo Alto: I live on Emerson Street as well. I have also been here before to speak about the PTOD and I would like to echo the sentiments of the other people you have heard tonight about the appreciation that we feel for being able to be a part of the process that has happened here. I think that starting with sort of the guidelines that you setout the last time we came and working with the Staff and the Planning Consultants we had some very lively discussions but I think very profitable ones. So I certainly appreciate that. I would like to speak tonight in support of the PTOD. I hope that it gets approved. I think that the changes that have been made have really made it a very worthwhile thing and something that will not have the City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 20 of 45 kinds of detrimental effects that we initially saw. So I would urge you to move ahead with that. Then again I would also sort of reiterate some of the things that you have heard about projects that may be in the pipeline and to make sure that they follow the rules and the spirit of what is being attempted here. I think there is a real opportunity to do something really wonderful here and so I would like to see that be taken to the full advantage. So thank you all and I urge you to move forward with this. Chair Burt: Thank you. Robert Wheatley to be followed by Terry Holzemer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mr. Robert Wheatle¥, Palo Alto: Hi I am the Manager for the Fry’s site, it is E1 Camino Center 11 actually but known by its tenant Fry’s. I wanted to be here to speak on behalf of the PTOD. I 12 think what is gratifying for Staff I am sure is to hear that all the people who previously opposed 13 it now support it pretty much. A lot of these discussions end in a very unfriendly discussion of 14 one side pitted against the other side. I think they have done a good job of being able to get a 15 workable proposal to you that is supported both by us who previously were on the other side as 16 well as those who are looking for a more workable way, a practical way to develop sites into 17 what we have been told the City wants which is housing. In our particular case, years ago our 18 commercial use was condemned to residential use so there was obviously a compelling need that 19 the Council felt to push it in that direction. The same reasons that brought the Council to 20 condemn the commercial use and put an RM zoning in place should be applied now to our site to 21 include it in the PTOD. If it was compelling enough to change zoning then our site is 22 compelling as a housing site to include it in the PTOD. One other thing that is unique about our 23 site is that it is the only one that stretches from Park up to E1 Camino I think in there and thus it 24 gets both the train as a transit mechanism and also the shuttle and the bus lines that are up and 25 down E1 Camino. Another reason to keep our site in there is that it is I think the only one that is 26 really large enough to create a neighborhood feel with a redevelopment where you can have all 27 the positive elements of a PTOD incorporated and have it feel like it is a neighborhood or not 28 just a little island that was created in the middle of other uses. So I think there are a lot of 29 reasons to include it. It provides some flexibility to have mixed uses. It does many things that 30 would be positive rather than just having it be an RM zone. There have been comments about 31 Fry’s. Fry’s will not be pushed out by this. Fry’s will be much more influenced by the attitude 32 of the City in working with Fry’s and addressing their specific needs as a long-term tenant in 33 Palo Alto. This is not an impediment. This if anything opens the door to a discussion of how 34 mixed use could be applied rather than saying this is an RM zone there is no place for any other 35 zoning. This opens the door to the discussion of mixed use and how commercial fits into the 36 neighborhood. There are many other things that have been addressed that I won’t spend too 37 much time on. I think trying to get too specific on how the angles or what shapes might be 38 included is too specific. You can’t engineer that kind of thing. That is something that Staff will 39 work with and has many tools to work with developers to make sure it is articulated and make 40 sure it is not a massive polished surface front. That is something that will have to be worked out. 41 Again, I would just encourage you to leave Staff’s recommendation in place. It is something that 42 has been worked out over time with tremendous amount of study, with tremendous amount of 43 input from neighbors and compromise with different groups who had different concerns they 44 were bringing to Staff. To further cut into it and try to impose last minute compromise at this 45 point is to take away all the positive work that Staff has done and all the input that has been Cir. of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 21 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 !9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 made on all sides that brought it to this point. So again I would encourage you to take Staff’s recommendation as it is and pass that onto the Council. Thank you. Chair Burt: Mr. Wheatley, I have a question for you aside from wanting to make sure that you understand we are not here to rubber stamp. My question is that the currently proposed retail FAR in the PTOD district if Fry’s were included is that FAR adequate to meet Fry’s needs under the notion that Fry’s might have a mixed use at the site of retail and residential? Have you looked at the FAR that you would be allowed under the PTOD? Mr. Wheatlev: The first thing I would say is that the current zoning leaves no FAR for retail. This opens the door to it. What I think would have to be done is that we have had some discussions with the City Manager, Frank Benest and others to see what would have to be done to have Fry’s stay and have that be a viable option for them. I probably would have to include other elements other than what is in the PTOD to have them stay and be happy. It might have to include other sites. It might have to include some compilation of land to have them stay. There are a number of things that the City can do that would attract and keep Fry’s here but they would have to take a fairly aggressive approach and listen to what Fry’s needs are and then see how best that could be done. Chair Burt: My question is a little more specific. Have you looked at whether the FAR that would be allowed to Fry’s ..... Mr. Wheatlev: Probably not. It is probably not adequate in and of itself, no. Chair Burt: Okay, thanks. Our next speaker is Terry Holzmer to be followed by Denny Petrosian. Mr. Terry Holzemer. Palo Alto: Good evening. I am here representing not only myself but our homeowners association which is the Palo Alto Central East Residential Association, which I believe is the largest residential association that is in the affected PTOD area. I would first of all like to thank the City Staff and the members, Curtis Williams and his people for coming to our public meeting which was attended by not only members of our association but a number of our associations in the neighborhood. I appreciate their coming and allowing us to give our input and taking some of those ideas back with them and incorporating them into the newer version I guess you could say of the PTOD. I would like to say that we, as a homeowners group, we still do have a number of concerns. We still are concerned about the density levels and we believe though the new option, option, A which incorporated the RM-30, would be an excellent start to what we would like to see in our area. We believe that lower densities make a lot of sense because we already are severely impacted by parking and severely impacted by the lack of open space that we desperately need in our area. Another thing that is important to remember in our concerns is our parking limitations. Right now conditions in our peak business hours create a very maxed out, what I consider a maxed out, situation. Adding more properties with higher densities will only increase that problem in our area. We would like to make sure that the City takes that into account as they move forward with new projects especially in our area especially in these peak business times Cir. of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 22 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 because that seems to be where the largest impacts occur. Another concern that we have as we move forward of course is the police building. We don’t really understand how this could affect our neighborhood and we ask even though this is not a direct connection between PTOD and the police site we are concerned about what PTOD could do to what the City is going to propose there. We would like for that to be kept in mind as that project possibly moves forward. Finally, are our concerns about open space and parks in our area. We feel like there isn’t enough. There are some small parks in our immediate area but since we are talking about higher density levels we are talking about more families and families are a wonderful thing. They spend a lot of money and they benefit the business areas I know. But there is also the impact of where when children are done with school and in the summertime what do they do in our area. We have a great dea! of concern about that and having the facilities to accommodate them is a critical thing. I would encourage the City to constantly keep that in mind when they talk about building higher density projects. What do we do with families? What do we do to provide adequate facilities for them? Finally, I would just like to say I do appreciate all the members’ hard work on the PTOD. I do think that with the proper inputs that have occurred that we are making progress toward a good PTOD proposal. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Denny Petrosian to be followed by our final speaker Edie Keating and then we will be taking a break. Ms. Denny Petrosian. Palo Alto: I want to strongly support Bob Moss’ comments on including options A and B. I think the Fry’s property is a big can of worms. I think it is too huge in its planning implications to be just slipping in under an overlay zone. I want to strongly recommend as Bob did not to delete the BMR bonus provisions. Now actually that is an exception to my support of my comments. Do not delete the BMR bonus provisions, please don’t do that. It is not fair to create something nice and so forth at the expense of people of lower incomes. I am very concerned that what we are talking about here is two pieces of property that the Council made a mistake on by removing the housing potential. Now we have included this huge PTOD area here to deal with that mistake. I think what that is doing is hijacking the Comprehensive Plan process. Aren’t you supposed to be doing an area plan for this under the Comprehensive Plan? Now what it looks like is happening here is planning by application. You have some applications, you want to facilitate them, you want this property to go for housing to comply with the state but that is not doing an area plan. So really I would encourage you to again follow Bob Moss’ suggestion and maybe he would differ with me on the changing of the boundaries but if you are concerned about these two properties why not make it a corridor instead of a huge 2,000 foot circle and have it go along that blue and white arrow line just to the edge of those properties 2785 Park actually the end boundary would be 295 Page Mill then you would go down along Park, you would finish up on the other side and then come down the track. So it would be a corridor, it would be a PTOD corridor instead of a huge circle. Exactly what Bob was concerned about is going to happen. You include Fry’s in this and they are going to come in with an application. They probably already have one drawn up. That is going to generate its own momentum and what about those 12 acres that are supposed to go for housing? Is this just going to get thrown out the window without any look at this as what is the highest and best use or function of this area that the area plan is supposed to accomplish? This is planning by the back door. The applications and the design all seem to be wagging the planning Ci~" of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 23 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 process. I really hope that you will not direct the Staff to invest our tax money into a fancy mixed-use plan of some kind. That is your job. That is an area plan. I really do want to thank the Staff for including the neighbors and doing a great job. They have been wonderful communicators in talking with us but it looks like it is really too weighted to these proposals and not your thinking about what should be done in this area plan. I really think that these 12 acres of housing potential are too important just to include in some application that Fry’s is going to bring forward under the PTOD. It is not about making it convenient for the owners to continue retail on this site. There is housing zoning on here. It is not about doing that for the owner. It is about deciding whether you want to keep those 12 acres of housing, making that decision, biting that bullet and passing it along to the Council to ratify. So I want to just encourage you to make this a corridor that ends at the properties that you are talking about and let that be dealt with or comply under the state and then make an area plan for Fry’s and so forth. So please eliminate Fry’s from the PTOD. I guess that is pretty much all I want to say but please don’t let the planning happen by an overlay zone. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Our final speaker is Edie Keating. Ms. Edie Keating, Palo Alto: Hello. First I would like to say thank you for two things that make a lot of sense to me that really appeal to me. One is the possibility at least of getting traffic lights at Park and Page Mill at those crossing because I think those are really needed. Also the direction to preserve view sheds because it really is a public benefit to get a glimpse of the mountains. The most important thing is that a PTOD district is moving forward because housing in this area just makes so much sense. I will say more about that as I have time. Of the alternatives before you I would not reduce the density. While Bob Moss told a great possibility about getting more BMR if you start with the lower density it may not be an attractive option to developers and you may end up with just fewer units period. I would allow the higher density. One of the things that are important now that we all are utterly clear that global warming is real is the opportunity before Palo Alto to do more with its jobs/housing imbalance. If we had more people living here on average though they all won’t work in Palo Alto there are so many jobs in Palo Alto that on average we will be making a big reduction in commute traffic every time that we are adding housing. This is a place where it makes so much sense where the train and the bus lines are coming in or letting people commute out. Of the Fry’s site I will let others decide that. To me since it is already zoned for housing and my view of the PTOD is about allowing housing I am not as clear on including or not including that site. There have been questions raised about if we add the PTOD district will it cause an exodus from other uses into housing. Until a few months ago every zoning in the City had housing as a possible use and the California Avenue area remained with its services in tact and there was not a huge exodus to housing as far as I could see. Some of which I think is appropriate but it still is a vital retail area and has been for a long time. Finally, it is furmy how this topic keeps having me come here and speak about myself and tell my own story but I really think it is relevant because I’m the kind of person who enjoys living in PTOD type housing that might be developed in this area. First, yes I am watching my budget a bit that is why I live in similar housing right now, a rented townhouse at Alma and East Meadow. Cir. of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 24 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I have really enjoyed walking to the Albertson’s there. One of the ways that I do watch my budget is that while there are three drivers in my household, myself and two teenagers, we have just one car. It saves a whole lot of money and so if people who choose to live in this denser housing are like me also watching their budget that may be an important way that they manage their dollars too. With the options of using transit that are available there for either myself, my children it all makes sense. It all really works. And finally I would just like to tell you all the things that have drawn me to that area to shop. I am the type of person that might move there I am already shopping there. I am already using Printer’s Ink, I am enjoying the caf~ near the train, and I get my rug cleaned on California Avenue once a year. When my kid hurt his arm he went to the physical therapist there. So it is a ~eat area with a lot of vitality. Yes, we miss Printer’s Ink Bookstore but perhaps adding the PTOD development area will bring back some of that vitality. For every argument there is a counter-argument but my gut says that there still will be retail there and adding housing will make it more viable and more vital. Thank you. Chair Burt: Thank you. Don, did you have a comment before our break? Mr. Larkin: Just real quickly before we go to break I need to correct one thing that Mr. Moss brought up. I did not use the words ’vested rights’ that is a term that has no applicability to this situation. So in case there was some confusion that is not what I said. Chair Burt: Thank you. So we will take about a ten-minute break and then reconvene to do our discussion. At this time we would like to reconvene. It is now the appropriate time for Commissioners to ask questions of the Staff and if appropriate or necessary ask questions of speakers. Then we will proceed into our discussion. Who would like to go first? Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Before we do that do we want to decide if we are going to be able to get to the next item this evening? Do we want to make a conscious decision about that so Staff is either encouraged to stay or allowed to leave? Chair Burt: Okay. Let’s go over that. The next item that is commonly known as the Quimby Act but it is the Park Dedication Ordinance. Could Staff comment on the timeline in which Staff needs to proceed on that? If we did not get to it tonight does that create a problem? Ms. Julie Caporgno. Advance Planning Manager: Thank you, Chair Burt. We are scheduled to go to Council on June 5 so the option would be to continue this item to May 24 but May 24 is the night that you are going to be discussing the Comprehensive Plan Amendment so you may have the same problem that evening that you are going to have tonight. Then it would be a very quick turnaround for Staff. We are going to have a very quick turnaround on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment anyway because we are going on the fifth to Council with that item. So we would prefer if at all possible to do it tonight if that is okay with you. The discussion that we had with you and the Vice-Chair indicated that we thought we might be able to get through this relatively quickly. So hopefully that will be the case and if you would be ~villing we ~vould prefer doing it tonight. City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 25 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Chair Burt: So having heard that and the importance of trying to get through it tonight if it is okay with the Commission let’s proceed in anticipation of getting to it. I think once we get to it that item will go pretty quickly. Paula. Commissioner Sandas: I just wanted to say that I noticed on our Tentative Agenda listing that it would be potentially continued to May 31, this particular item. So if we can avoid continuing it to May 31 that would be great. Would that give us May 31 off?. Chair Burt: Okay, let’s get rolling. Who would like to go first? Dan. Commissioner Garber: A couple of quick questions. What is the underlying zoning that underneath the auto dealerships where the Auto Dealership Overlay is right now? Mr. C. Williams: The underlying zoning is GM. There is one auto dealership with the AD Auto Dealership Overlay on it and the underlying zoning with that is GM. There is another site just outside the boundaries that also has the Auto Dealership Overlay and then there is a site associated with that that I think is a service garage area for the Mercedes on Park that is in the district and is GM but doesn’t have the AD Overlay on it. Commissioner Garber: One more. Can you discuss I am thinking specifically here of the Fry’s site and if it is included in the PTOD you mentioned in the Staff Report that that would allow for planning of that site by the owners of that site to occur sooner than it would if it were not included in the PTOD. Am I understanding that correctly? Mr. C. Williams: Not necessarily. It would allow for them to begin looking at the flexibility and the options that the PTOD allows. So yes from that practical perspective that is true but they could start looking at alternatives outside the PTOD arena as well and talking to the City about rezoning to something else or looking at a PC or other avenues. I think the PTOD allows them to start as Mr. Wheatley said, start sort of exploring with the City a variety of potential options. Commissioner Garber: The important piece I am hearing is exploring with the City. Mr. C. Williams: Right. I think he has indicated they have had some meetings already to have some discussions. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Again, I just want to confirm this with you. With regard to the process for people applying PTOD to their property they would have to request of the Planning and Transportation Commission that the property be rezoned and that there be a hearing and we would then forward our recommendation to City Council. Is that not correct? Ci& of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 26 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. C. Williams: That is correct. Don, correct me ifI am wrong, but there is an initiation process of the Commission initiating that rezoning and then actually coming back for the hearing before you and a hearing before the Council. Commissioner Lippert: In that hearing process what the applicant would then be doing is basically coming up with what their proposal for that project would be. So they would say we are planning on developing so many units of housing at so much FAR and so much retail and it would have to also demonstrate the parking for that, correct? Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I think realistically they would include the types of uses, the amount of the uses, the square footages, the densities, the basic layout of it, the parking proposal, a TDM plan and all those parameters. It wouldn’t include all of the design components some of those would be left for ARB to look at. But yes, all those basic parameters would be before the Commission and the Council when they request the rezoning. Commissioner Lippert: I have one other question that is a follow up on Commissioner Garber’s questions. With regard to the Fry’s site and other sites as well, I am getting into sort of subtleties and nuances here, one of the provisions of the PTOD will allow for the expansion of the PTOD boundary by having sites that are adjacent to the PTOD that are contiguous and can take advantage of that zoning as well. So if the Fry’s site was omitted from the PTOD it could in fact if it is abutting the PTOD district be able to take advantage of that by annexation at some point, correct? Mr. C. Williams: No. It is not correct because the Commission at a previous meeting directed us to delete that portion of the ordinance that allows the boundary change to be considered in conjunction with the application for the PTOD rezoning. In stead what would have to happen is we would have to come back and amend the PTOD chapter and as part of that amend the map that goes with it to accommodate. Commissioner Lippert: So that provision is gone. Mr. C. Williams: Right and I think that is why, I know you have a request tonight from another property owner for that small R-1 lot and I think that is one of the reasons they are making that request is they understand that if it doesn’t happen in the beginning it is going to be a laborious process to try to work through it later. That is something you certainly can consider too. Does it make more sense to have a little more flexibility on the boundary if you are going to change it? Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: So regarding the letter from Jost Heating, is their property, 411 Pepper, adjacent to the existing boundary? Mr. C. Williams: Yes it is. Commissioner Garber: Could you just point that out on the map or which side if the street it is on? Cir.’ of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 27 of 45 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. C. Williams: It is right there or now it is up there. It is on this side, right there. Commissioner Garber: Is there any reason why we couldn’t include it? What would the arguments be pro or con? Mr. C. Williams: Well, I think we had excluded it because we excluded all the R-1 area on Pepper. This I don’t think we have any objection to doing that. I’ve talked to an architect and told her that if they do that then they are going to have R-1 on one side and they are going to have the daylight planes and the setbacks and such that go with that and she understands that. The properties that they own are actually not the one immediately next to it but the one immediately behind and then the next one up to the comer so it is like an L-shaped parcel. The answer to your question is no and in fact it sort of squares off to some extent the boundary line up there to do that. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Related to that if we did that tonight are the neighbors across the street concerned about that? Would that cause other problems? They are going to have to do a backup. It may give them a little more depth to do something on the side that is in the middle of the PTOD if they use this property to backup to the R-1 but what about the neighbors in the little PC across the street? Oh, they are already in the PTOD. Mr. C. Williams: Yes, they are included in the boundary already and this would basically be even with the lot line that they have and make it squared off with the lot line that they have. Mr. Larkin: We would probably need to do some additional noticing prior to City Council meeting on this but if the Commission wanted to consider it tonight they could. Chair Burt: Okay. Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: A couple of three things. We talked about in the past the importance of Park Boulevard and that being bicycle and pedestrian friendly. There was talk tonight again about the bicycle corridor. It, however, doesn’t have the R and P overlay as I think Staff had talked about in the past would open to adding that so is that still the case? Staff would still be open to adding the R P overlay to Park Boulevard at least down to Olive? Mr. C. Williams: We would be open to that but that would take a rezoning of properties to apply that specifically in that way. Part of the ZOU has not been to specifically rezone sites. The other thing is that we believe that the context-based criteria we have here essentially do the P, the Pedestrian, part of it they don’t do the R-Retail. That would take an ordinance change to or the actual rezoning to extend the R down there. I think, as a follow up item we certainly would like to get your input on that know if you are interested in doing that because there is some logic to trying to do that. City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 28 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Holman: I think maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my question. What I was trying to ask was that as a part of any PTOD application that the R and P be applied along Park Boulevard rather than it being applied to the existing zoning. Mr. C. Williams: I see. Yes, I think that is a reasonable thing to do. I think you would see it and you would probably want to do that. Now you may see a request that you think has merit that doesn’t have retail on the first floor, that is certainly the P part of it certainly makes sense all the way up and down. Retail, I don’t know, when you start getting far enough south if you feel like it should be there or not but you would have that opportunity under the PTOD to do that. Vice-Chair Holman: Great. There was a comment made tonight about the Cal-Ventura area being an area that should be a study area. Would Staff like to comment on that? It is Policy L31 in the Comp Plan. Mr. C. Williams: Right. There are a series of about ten policies there that relate to California Avenue. One policy has to do with creating a transit oriented residential around the train station. The others have to do with creating a mixed-use environment and diversity. One has to do with creating a coordinated area plan. Our sense is that doing this zoning at this point in time in the overlay and the fact that it is a discretionary process and has a !ot of flexibility within it number one doesn’t preclude coming in at some point and doing that but that it is important at this point to get these provisions on the ground and have this flexibility. As you know doing a coordinated area plan can be a very long process and we believe that this gets to the intent of that multitude of policies that are in the Comprehensive Plan. Vice-Chair Holman: Dealing with the Fry’s site if I might Mr. Wheatley tonight said that, if I understood correctly, that the FAR that is allowed for retail under this proposal wouldn’t sufficiently meet their needs to be able to expand Fry’s at that location. I think I heard that correctly. So really this doesn’t help us towards retaining or expanding Fry’s on that site. So what is the advantage of applying the PTOD to the Fry’s site from the perspective of retaining those sales tax dollars? Mr. C. Williams: Well, I would probably let Mr. Wheatley talk to what that opens up for them but we think that will create an impetus for like he said it might involve additional properties being included, that there are ways that can be accommodated. It may not be that the 190,000 square feet or whatever it is is the ideal for a brand new Fry’s but I think he could tell you that they again are supportive of this because it does open up the chance to talk about the flexibility to do some other things with other properties and make the whole package work for Fry’s. So I don’t think he was saying that Fry’s couldn’t happen under this project. Chair Butt: So and Mr. Wheatley may want to add to this, ifI might just share a similar related question. I think one of our objectives is to have a retail vitality in the California Avenue area, Cambridge, the adjacent streets. We certainly have the current zoning that allows them to have the retail but whether it is at the Fry’s site or other retail or service uses that currently exist in these areas the one concern I have is are we creating a formula in the FAR of the residential versus retail or service that actually incentivizes some of those valuable uses to want to flip to other applications. Now I appreciate that Fry’s may want to look at other sites as part of some City of Palo Alto May I0, 2006 Page 29 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 master long term planning and that might be a separate way to address this but I would want to make sure that we haven’t actually had an unintended consequence where we create incentives that result in something different than what we hope for. So I would have that question of Staff but first if Mr. Wheatley would like add any comments that he has to our questions. Mr. Wheatley: Thank you. I apologize I think my comment was open to interpretation more than one way. What I was saying is if you just look at the FAR allowance there is enough square footage and it does allow enough for Fry’s to be in there. My comment was more if you want to really incent Fry’s to say I think it takes a collaborative effort with the City and a creative approach to say what does Fry’s really need? No one knows what Fry’s really needs to stay. What is the value of being closer to E1 Camino or having an entrance from E1 Camino? How do we not chew up the whole site with parking? Fry’s could take the whole thing just with parking. How do we work to get this to work? I think what the PTOD does do is to Fry’s it says we are not zoning you out. We are allowing zoning that or putting in place zoning that allows you to stay now how can we work with you to make this work? So I think it is a very positive development and a step towards keeping Fry’s and having that dialogue. Chair Burt: I think that is consistent with what our hope is just with value of housing we want to make sure that we don’t incentivize folks to say when crunch the numbers the best use of my land is get out of the retail business. Mr. Wheatley: I think we have already had a preliminary discussion as I mentioned with the City and we would welcome other discussion about how we would make this work so that we can take care of all the needs of the community and get some housing and get everything that should be there. Chair Burt: Thank you. Dan. Commissioner Garber: Just to be clear, right at the moment the zoning for Fry’s allows no retail it only allows retail through an exception. Is that correct? Mr. C. Williams: Correct. The zoning does not allow retail right now. Commissioner Garber: So creating a PTOD overlay allows retail within that. Mr. C. Williams: Right, to a .35 FAR. Commissioner Garber: Right. Thank you. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Still that topic and not just the Fry’s site. I have had in previous meetings concern about the loss of existing business and the loss of retail. I stil! have that same concern with the .25 of the .35 or even the .20 of the .35 to be non-retail commercial. I guess my question is did Staff consider that there would be no net loss of retail space? We can’t dictate City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 30 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 what specific uses are in a particular building. Did Staff consider a no net loss square footage of retail or retail and even personal service but certainly retail square footage? Mr. C. Williams: We didn’t consider that but again that is something that as a project came that could be a vital part of your discussion. I don’t know that as a blanket statement for every site out there that that’s where we would want to go. It seems like there would be some locations where maybe that is appropriate and other locations where maybe you would want more retail than is there now and sort of make up for what was done somewhere else. Unless what you are talking about is trying to make those tradeoffs from site to site not just on a specific site of no net loss. Vice-Chair Holman: It could be site to site. I am also thinking about California Avenue most specifically because what could be argued is what we did I think in the SOFA area is the first x- number of feet from the street would have to dedicated to retail and that satisfied the R overlay. It has been a couple of years but I think that is pretty close to accurate isn’t it Mr. Emslie? Yes. So I guess I have some concern that that might satisfy the R overlay especially along California Avenue so we might end up with some token retail on the street, which helps the pedestrian aspect, but we are still losing square footage to retail sales. So it is a concern. Does Staff have another way of being able to address that? Mr. C. Williams: We haven’t thought that through and I am not familiar with the details of the SOFA requirements. Again, our thought was you would be able to look at that as a project came through. Again, California Avenue with the existing requirement for retail on the first floor is pretty much set so we are not seeing that that’s likely that there would be any loss along there. Maybe you understand something I am not getting. Chair Butt: So I have this similar generalized concern. Say along California Avenue a property owner said I have my existing building and I have an option to rebuild according to the underlying zoning, which gives them quite a bit of latitude or under a PTOD. Has Staff thought through those scenarios and the likely economic incentives that might cause that property owner to choose one of those options and is there a risk that the option they would choose is not the direction that we are trying to incentivize with this whole program? Mr. C. Williams: Yes, and very specifically thought that through and it is hard to imagine a situation where it is an incentive to use the PTOD over the CC. The CC right now allows a 2.0 floor area ratio as opposed to what we are talking about which is 1.25 for mixed use. If you have 60 percent of the project as residential it is a 3.0 FAR and it requires retail on the first floor. So the retail is there, the residential is there probably in a greater amount than the PTOD is going to allow. This is all limited by parking constraints and those types of things too. So it is hard to imagine where the incentive would be to do that. Chair Burt: So you are pretty confident that the properties in the CC zone which are the commercial areas along California and also some of Sheridan and Cambridge really as it is setup the current underlying zoning is what they will choose to revert to if they were to redevelop their property because that gives them their best development potential. Ci& of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page .3I of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. C. Williams: I would think so. It allows office use too. It is not as constrained on the office use as this is. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: A follow up to that. As Staff knows I am uncomfortable with that comparison because it is the parking constraint that keeps that kind of redevelopment from happening, as I am understanding it. So it is kind of funny, it is real but it is kind of an inapt comparison as well. When we go forward, again something else I have been uncomfortable with is when we go forward with the ZOU we are going to be looking at parking standards. So depending on what happens with the parking standards we might see more development under the CC2 but again we may not. So at this point in time given the parking standards that we do people are redeveloping under CC2. So it is not really - that is more of a threat than the PTOD is because they aren’t redeveloping under CC2 because of parking standards. Does this make sense? Mr. C. Williams: We!l the parking standards aren’t any different for PTOD and I can tell you I think with a pretty good degree of certainty that you are not going to see different parking standards when the parking standards come forward either. The basic standards are not going to change. We are going to have flexibility to have the adjustments that are in there now and we will probably look at putting some kind of cap on how much you can reduce the way we are doing here in the PTOD. So I don’t see that there is going to be any significant change in those parking standards when they come forward either. Generally we found when you have mixed use the biggest constraint for parking and Rick correct me if I am wrong but it usually ends up being the residential part of the parking because you have to have your couple spaces, one of them has to be covered and also the Parking District doesn’t give you credit for residential. It gives you credit for the commercial so you can buy your way into parking for commercial but you can’t do that for residential. We looked at some Downtown sites and we would have to change the whole requirements of the Parking District to allow some of that mixed use to happen because of the lack of residential parking. So I think that is where the rub is in the CC2 zone is pretty much all in the Parking District down there. So I see it being restricted and the PTOD doesn’t get around that parking limitation. Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you and that is the first I had heard that so that’s good to hear that. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I want to go in a different direction and talk a little bit or ask a question or two about the density issue because 40 is what we’ve been talking about and 30 is the alternative. You have listed on Attachment H a whole list of projects that currently exist or developments that currently exist of which 11 are greater than 30 units per acre and one of them is up to 66 units per acre. Now these aren’t 66 units on an acre, we have a smaller project than that. When you talk about going to 30 units instead of 40 units you are not changing the FAR, you are not changing the height, you are not changing the site coverage on any of that. So that just means we are getting larger units if we go to 30 units rather than smaller units. Am I reading that correctly? Cir. of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 32 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. C. Williams: Yes. Commissioner Cassel: So going to 30 units isn’t going to change the mass on the site at all it is just going to give you bigger units with larger size families in them. Mr. C. Williams: Right. What we heard from the community though was that more of the concern was the impact on traffic and parking and parking in parks and schools, which was related specifically to the density. Commissioner Cassel: But smaller units produce fewer people and smaller units produce fewer school children. Mr. C. Williams: I am with you. Our recommendation is to stay with the 40. Commissioner Cassel: Right, but I am just trying to make sure that we have it clear and we have it on the record that although you would reduce the number of units to 30 you do not necessarily get much less in the number of school children because you will have more bedrooms versus more living room and kitchen space. Mr. C. Williams: Very possibly. Commissioner Cassel: You do not reduce the mass of the size of the building that is on the site in any way. You just get larger units. Chair Burt: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Can you just take a moment and clarify for me under the lesser intensity option A, item number 2, delete BMR bonus provisions allowing for applicants who request bonus pursuant to state law? My understanding of that is that is a way for us to have some control over SB 1818, which allows for a developer or property owner to exceed the height limit or violate daylight planes or setbacks or to create more housing units. Is that correct? Mr. C. Williams: Right. We think it is more appropriate to specify what those bonuses are here in the ordinance than leave that to change of what somebody can argue they should get and wrangle through the process and perhaps end up in litigation. So that is why we have included them in here and it is to address that issue. Commissioner Lippert: So basically what it does is it neutralizes SB 1818 by addressing that. Mr. C. Williams: That is our intent. I don’t know that Don can say that it absolutely does that but it is the intent of it, yes. Commissioner Lippert: Great, thank you. Chair Burr: Dan. Ci& of Palo Alto May I0, 2006 Page 33 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 !8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Garber: Question for our consultant. The effective area that was described earlier this evening as approximately 40 percent of the area that is within the PTOD boundary is that enough to create an effective Pedestrian Transit Oriented Design? Mr. C. Williams: I want to be sure Rick knows where that 40 percent is. What we are talking about is the GM properties including Agilent and Fry’s. All that is approximately 40 percent of the entire PTOD area. Mr. R. Williams: I think that the key point isn’t that it is just 40 percent of the area but if you think of the whole PTOD area and that being the 40 percent that is probably the least pedestrian friendly today and the ability for it to be kind of more comprehensively designed a few of those key sites are going to have a critical impact on Park, California Avenue and the neighborhood to the north of that is already of the quality and character of the PTOD. So what this would do in those 40 percent would basically mean that closer to 90 percent of the whole area would have that pedestrian character and quality. As was noted by the Fry’s representative that is the key site to creating a sense of neighborhood and identity there which would connect the rest of the area together in a very strong positive way. So in that sense it is not that it is just 40 percent but it is the 40 percent that makes the biggest difference. Commissioner Garber: You are using the 40 percent to leverage the 90. Mr. R. Williams: That’s right. Commissioner Garber: And it sounds like a yes. Thank you. Chair Burt: I have another question on some retail and some service. It is the auto areas. We have just one remaining auto dealership there or are there more? Two. Two auto dealerships and some auto service. Mr. C. Williams: Actually one of the auto dealers is just outside the boundary. One of the AD overlays is just outside the boundary but their service area is in the boundary. The sales area is not. Chair Burt: Okay. So once again my question is are we creating incentives whereby those property owners will say why the beck should I continue to have auto sales or auto service here I can make a lot more money by flipping it to a PTOD? What is your analysis of that prospect and whether we are endangering that we will have an outcome that is different from what we have intended? Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: In so far as until recently many of these sites had that ability under the current zone and really with marginal discretion provided they met the zoning standards it wouldn’t even need a discretionary permit. It would be an AR_B review. Because we are adding the possibility of retaining the commercial we think that this provides an incentive so that if there a higher economic use that is related to residential it acknowledges that and Ci& of Pa!o Alto May I0, 2006 Page 34 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 allows for the possibility of mixed use as a way to equalize the economics and retain the commercial use if at al! possible. Chair Burt: So in the case of auto sales or service do you think it is feasible that that mixture of uses would occur and be compatible? I understand in theory but .... Mr. Emslie: It sounds kind of outlandish that you would have mixed use with auto related uses but I quite frankly as planners we never cease to be surprised at the kinds of mixed use proposals that are considered Very viable. I would not discount the ability for something as unusual as auto dealers and residential to be mixed. It is quite remarkable what in high value areas what we are seeing as mixed use. Chair Burt: Can you envision any modification to the formula that we have on different FAR that might create a better incentive to retain that service or sales function there? Should we have a higher weighting in FAR toward sales or service, retail or service? Would that help tip the scales in the direction that we would like to see as an outcome? Mr. C. Williams: You mean something along the lines of and you are talking not just auto dealers but retail and service generally? Chair Burt: Well, I don’t know. It might be best to break that out. We might have subsets of the area that would have a higher FAR allowable for sales or service and a lower one allowed for housing. It might be the automotive areas. M_r. C. Williams: Rick can probably speak to some of the economics of this but I don’t think there is a reason why we couldn’t have for instance a .5 FAR allowed for a site with an AD Overlay or some kind of formula like that that allows that to happen. I think Rick has talked a little bit before about the possibility of incentivizing retail more. Mr. R. Williams: I actually think we have been pretty aggressive with the nonresidential uses. That is an acknowledgement that Palo Alto is in kind of a unique situation that if you want to have nonresidential uses as part of a mixed use. Most communities would probably be more in the 10 to 15 percent of nonresidential use within a mixed-use development. It is only in a particular situation where you would get a Fry’s or a grocery store or something like that where you would have a greater than 10 percent or maybe 15 percent nonresidential use. So I think that the reality is that at .35 we are really as high as you would really ever need to go and what would happen is that people would then start trying to bring in more R&D type uses and larger floor plates would probably add more traffic creation than you would want to look at for these areas. So I think that we have been very cognizant that we don’t want to incentivize greater kind of general office floor plates and that we are really looking at, by keeping the percentage relatively low, that you are going to be getting more localized services and not the larger floor plates for office and R&D use. And that the service industry will really be better incorporated into this if you keep it at a smaller piece. If you started going to the 50/50 split and there are cities where you had to have a 51 percent commercial uses as part of a mixed-use project. What they found was they didn’t have any of their projects go forward because that wasn’t a great enough Cir. of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 35 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 proportion of residential to give a residential character and quality to a development. I think that is still a direction where we wanted to go from a policy standpoir~t but still allow a pretty wide flexibility in nonresidential uses as well. Chair Burt: Forgive me, I should be clear on this by myself but the way the wording is currently framed does a developer have to retain any of the retail or service in order to get the housing FAR that is allowed? They don’t, correct? Mr. R. Wi!liams: No. Mr. C. Williams: To retain it as far as with the mixed use 1.25 FAR? Chair Burt: Rick has said that basically we have been pretty aggressive in how much retail we would allow on the site. So if we give them from that end we have gone the appropriate distance but if we still have a formula where they don’t need to retain that in order to get the more valuable housing wouldn’t there still be a potential that we have incentivized them to drop the retail and just put in the housing? Mr. R. Williams: We kind of looked at it a little bit the other way and that is we have put a cap on the residential. So you can do a certain amount of residential FAR and then the only way to go above that base FAR is to do commercial or to do retail. So the incentive is it is kind of cream on the top. That is plus. We aren’t letting you use your entire FAR al!owance with residential use. So in a way we have sort of done the same thing. We haven’t asked you there are parcels that don’t have to be, and it wouldn’t be appropriate probably to have nonresidential uses on it, but it gives them the ability to do it above and beyond what the residential allowance would be. I think that is a pretty substantial incentive. Chair Burt: So basically they are not required to have the retail in order to have the residential but they basically get a retail bonus. Mr. R. Williams: That is right. Mr. C. Williams: The FAR in a mixed use is 1.0 for residential so you don’t get more than that so the rest of it if you want is nonresidential. Chair Burt: Lee, was yours on that subject? Karen has a follow up. Okay. Lee and then Karen. Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to remind the Chair that when we did do the RM-40 zoning regulations in the Zoning Ordinance Update one of the things that we did do there was encourage retail as part of the RM-40 zoning also. So that component I think is consistent. Chair Burt: Thanks. Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, along the lines of Commissioner Burt’s questioning there are developers though who are housing developers. Being a zone for what you want kind of person if we want mixed use then that is what we should be saying that we want it seems to me. We City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 36 of 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 have heard it in these Chambers there are developers who come forward and say what we build 2 is housing just like there are developers who come forward and say what we build is commercial, 3 we don’t build housing. So I understand that there is this incentive or this cream or in the 4 Midwest we would call it ’gravy,’ that has been added to this proposal but I am not sure we are 5 going to get what we think we might get given the different types of developers that are out there. Mr. R. Williams: One of the things is that as part of this application process they aren’t just allowed by right to have this overlay zone. So as part of the review process there is the ability for the Planning and Transportation Commission to put forth a strong desire to the applicant that in order to get this zoning on a site that you really feel is appropriate for retail that retail should be an important component of it. That would be looked more positively on than not. However, I don’t believe as much as I am a very big proponent of mixed use I don’t believe mixed use should be everywhere and I think that you really do need to focus your retail on particular areas. You don’t want to do anything, which creates a secondary node of retail that is going to start fighting with California Avenue. I don’t believe that the Fry’s site would fight with California Avenue I think it would be a positive for California Avenue. I think that if you try to string retail out too far I think that the only thing worse than not enough retail is too much empty retail space. I think you want to keep it focused and have the residential play that pivotal role of supporting the retail. If there is a particular site that everybody feels should have retail on it as a Commission you have the ability to place that as one of the criteria that you have in a PTOD zone as part of this discretionary review. Vice-Chair Holman: One thing that would make me feel more comfortable about this is on the process, which is Attachment E under Intensities it identifies density, square feet, FAR and under Land Uses it just says land uses. I think I would feel more comfortable if this was clearer. If it also included as part of our discretionary review and determination about whether to recommend one of these applications if after land uses it parenthetically mentioned things such as mix of uses, impact on city revenues, and those sorts of inclusions if Staff is comfortable with that. I think it would make the review process and our discretion much clearer going forward after we are all not sitting in these chairs. Is Staff comfortable with that? Mr. C. Williams: That’s fine. It is actually 18.66.060B under the review process where it outlines that the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council approval establish limits on allowable or required uses and intensity and then it has all those things you listed of development. So if you would like us to spell out uses more than that. Vice-Chair Holman: If other Commissioners are okay with that I would. Mr. C. Williams: That is perfectly fine. Vice-Chair Holman: Then since I am on this process page here just a real quick one. There is an appeal that is included after the ARB review, which is the typical place that that would be. Did Staff consider that there might be an appeal after the City Council determination? Otherwise it would go all the way through the whole ARB process and if then it was reviewed because people didn’t agree with what the uses were then it is kind of a lot of wasted .... Ci& of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 37 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. C. Williams: There is no appeal of the Council’s decision. The Council’s decision is final. Vice-Chair Holman: Of course. Mr. C. Williams: Other than court. Vice-Chair Holman: That’s true. Thank you for that. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: He answered my question about the fact that you don’t want retail every place you want it in nodes. I was going to ask a slightly different question but that got the point. Chair Burt: Yes and I think the concept that we were exploring was actually about retail in places where it currently exists not plunking it down where it is not viable today. Okay, so it sounds to me maybe we are ready to go into, no, Dan. Commissioner Garber: I apologize two more things. I just wanted to talk about the word ’discretionary’ that was presented in the PowerPoint slides earlier. My understanding is that the overlay district is employing a zoning methodology which is obviously much different than the other zoning that has been used to date in those areas in that it requires in fact more involvement by applicants in order to developer or redevelop their properties. It requires a significantly higher expectations in terms of what goes in there because of the form code that has been defined for it and allows for much more highly managed outcomes as a result of both of those things such that the opportunities for success are greater for the community than they would be under the normal prescriptive zoning. So I guess the only thing I wanted to confirm is that this portion of it is not discretionary and the outcomes are pretty highly focused here. That hasn’t changed at all even though you are describing it as a discretionary process. Mr. C. Williams: I think generally you are right. There is sort of a balance between setting some parameters and limits and then allowing within that framework you and the Council to define what goes there. Don can speak to you more about the difference between discretionary and quasi-judicial actions that you or the Council or the Director takes. The word ’discretionary’ they way we are using it is it is a legislative action to rezone and it really opens up a lot more basis for you to find that you can’t support a particular proposal whereas with the other kinds of actions like a variance or something like that you have very specific findings and you have to rely on those specific findings. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. I just needed to clarify the use of the word and that legal legislative as opposed to just everything is open and it just depends on the personalities that happen to be reviewing it at the time. Thank you. Chair Burt: Karen, you have one final question? City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 38 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Holman: I have a cleanup question about BMR in the red stripe version on page seven, number two. It is talking about the density bonus and it says, such that one additional BMR unit is provided for every three additional market rate units constructed. It isn’t specific about those BMR units in relation to the three additional market rate units that those would comport with the requirements of our BMR Ordinance in terms of comparable size units and that sort of thing. Is Staff comfortable with this language? Mr. C. Williams: Yes because number one above with bonuses are only applicable where it specifically states Program H-36 of the Housing Element and then C under there says BMR units shall meet the affordability and other requirements of Pro~am H-36 and the City’s BMR program policies and procedures. So that is broad and encompassing the whole BMR program that we have that requires that they be like the market rate units in size and quality and that kind of thing. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, so I guess where I was confused then, I don’t want to nit this but maybe where I got off was they are numbered one, two, three, four, five, six so I guess the density increase, the FAR increase, height increase they seem like they should be underneath the one because they are types of bonuses. I don’t want to nit it now but just something to think about. Mr. C. Williams: Yes, we can look at that and see if it can make it clearer. Vice-Chair Holman: Thanks. Chair Burt: Paula. Commissioner Sandas: Are we ready for a motion? Chair Burt: I think we are pretty close. Dan says he has one quick question. Commissioner Garber: There is a letter here from the Courthouse Plaza Company, which was placed at our desks. I haven’t had time to read it. Are there things in here that the Commission should be considering as part of the discussion? Mr. C. Williams: The request basically towards the end the architect, Hoover Associates letter in particular, is that they I don’t know if it is specific to but I think it is specific to not imposing the daylight plane, setback, design type requirements along the railroad is I think what that is directed towards. So I think that is what you should consider that is what their request is. I don’t know if they made a specific request to not have to be subject to this regulation, I don’t think so. So I think that was the thrust of their letter. Mr. Larkin: Thank you. Just so I can elaborate a little bit the reason that it is something that is a proper subject of discussion is that for other ZOU items the Commission has recommended and the Council has adopted provisions to say these do not apply to applications that have already been received. That is not a legal requirement and that is actually where the vested rights discussion becomes important and why I clarified my statement. At this point nobody who has City of Palo Alto Ma.v 10, 2006 Page 39 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 !2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 an application has a vested right to develop without the design criteria. The Commission has a choice of not applying to applications that are received but Staff is recommending that it does be applied to future applications and current applications that don’t yet have a vested right. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Burt: Before entertaining a motion I would just like to say I should have made the statement before everybody left at break time as a number of the speakers noted this process even though it has taken some extra months has evolved into one where Staff has really reached out and responded to adjacent neighborhoods and property owners. While perhaps not everyone is getting what they would see as an ideal it certainly seems that this has been a very constructive, valuable process that has brought people closer to agreement on outcomes and I think the entire Commission has appreciation for both Staff’s work and the contributions that have been made by the public and all the participants. We get a lot of ribbing about Palo Alto process but we have a lot of people in Palo Alto who given a good proactive opportunity to make valuable contributions and I think this is a good example of it. I think that goes to both residents and property owners and we would just like to extend our appreciation for a!l the good work that has been done. Having said that I would like to entertain a motion. Paula. MOTION Commissioner Sandas: I move that we the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of Chapter 18.66 of the Zoning Ordinance to create a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District in the vicinity of the California Avenue Caltrain station. SECOND Commissioner Cassel: I will second it. Chair Burt: Is that intended to include the Staff recommendations as stated? Commissioner Sandas: Yes. It does not include the alternative recommendations, however. Chair Burt: Understood. Would you like to speak to your motion? Commissioner Sandas: Yes, please. I have listened with intensity this evening. Having said all that I feel like I need to say about the PTOD having been through several meetings about this topic and I have to commend the Staff for including the community to the level that you did. With every meeting that I have attended on this subject there have been questions that have come up, there have been concerns that have come up and the Staff has addressed them to the best of their ability and our consultants as well. I really appreciate that. That makes our job as Commissioners a lot easier. The second thing is that personally I am not so oriented towards the details and I really respect my colleagues this evening for turning over the last of the minute stones and asking the proper Ci~ of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 40 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 questions that addressed some other issues. I have been very excited about the whole notion of the PTOD from the get-go and have been looking forward to the opportunity to make this motion and get some closure and push this to the Council. So having said that I will stop speaking. Chair Burt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I am glad this is finally reaching some progression stage so that it will go to City Council. In your text comments I think it would be helpful if you add some comments about transit including the bus. We have excellent bus transit on E1 Camino and that in fact does add to it. We have a Marguerite that runs up and down California so this has very good access within short distance for a variety of public transit with the Marguerite being free and going to all of the places at Stanford. So that really is a transit oriented nub in more ways than just the train station and probably used more extensively than the train station if you counted people. The difference between 30 and 40 units is some cars, it is some school children but it is not as clear and obvious as it looks because what this brings us is smaller units and the same mass. It is the mass that I think we feel when we are looking at something and how tall it is and how large it is and it is a subtlety that we tend to interpret into the number of units in a space. I think Fry’s should be included. I wanted to comment on that the reason being that I think we have better control over how the units blend out into the neighborhoods. Whereas if they just came in on their own and they asked for some other kind of development option we have such as a PC zone we probably wouldn’t get the blending into the neighborhood that we are really looking for. We really need that blending down into the neighborhood so that we don’t have one large building right at the edge. I think that will give us some options there. Obviously we want to include the BMR we do not want to be at option of the state and have someone go to the state and say yes, you are going to do this. We want to have our own rules in place and if we don’t have our own rules in place we are going to follow exactly what the state wants us to do. We have to be within their guidelines obviously but this gives us more options. I think we need the setbacks and the daylight planes and I think those should be along the train lines and I think those should apply to all projects currently in existence. TheR overlay zone does exist on California Avenue and in the areas where we want it and we would really have to think if we want it all the way out Park Boulevard and since this overlay zone only exists for those projects that come in and not all the way out that really is not part of this particular process. I think that our considerations of retail will be part of our evaluation or your evaluation as projects come forward. Thank you. Thank everyone for their constructive comments and their willingness to work together. It is really impressive. Chair Burt: Dan. Commissioner Garber: I would like to support Commissioner Cassel’s comments. That covers most of mine. I would also like to learn if there is support for a friendly amendment to include the property at 411 Pepper as well as the comments that Commissioner Holman had for the inclusion of the additional text to the motion. City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 41 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 !3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Burt: Do the maker and seconder accept that as a friendly amendment? Commissioner Sandas: Yes. Commissioner Cassel: Yes, I’m sorry I didn’t remember that. Thank you, Dan. Vice-Chair Holman: I would just like clarity about which text did you refer to, Dan. Commissioner Garber: You were talking about the uses being called out as part of the review process. Vice-Chair Holman: Great, thanks. Mr. C. Williams: Then also looking at the BMR clarifying that text there in that BMR to make sure that we are referencing all of those bonuses being subject to the City’s policies. Chair Burt: Thank you, Curtis. Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I too support the motion. I want to make a couple of important points. First of all I think that this process rewards developers for doing the right thing. It can be characterized as being "PC Lite" it doesn’t negate the existing zoning but what it is is another item in our toolbox to use when we are reviewing development in Palo Alto. PTOD isn’t automatic. It is subject to the requirements for the rezoning so I think that is pretty obvious and there is nothing preventing applicants from applying for PC zoning. So already there is the underlying zoning, the PTOD and PC zoning that they can take advantage of. I think probably the most important thing here and I have mentioned this before and probably people are going to start getting sick of it but it is supports the four tenets of smart growth and urban sustainability which are density, diversity, design and transportation. The first one is the integration of housing reinforcing an economically healthy neighborhood. The second one is diversity, which is mixed use w~thin the same parcels and within the neighborhood. Design, which is the context-based standards that have been developed for this. Then lastly is transportation, which is an opportunity to get people out of their car, the transportation demand management programs as well as having Caltrain and buses along E1 Camino Real. So I think that is probably one of the meatier pieces of this PTOD ordinance. One other thing that I want to mention which I think has been sort of skirted around and we have danced around it and we’ve talked about it but really sales tax isn’t one of the criteria by which we look at zoning here. I know it is discussed here but it isn’t a piece of criteria. Sales tax isn’t generated by merchants. It is generated by consumers and what is important is if we can have an economically viable healthy neighborhood people in this neighborhood are consumers and they will be buying goods and they will be paying sales tax, which will reinforce the economic base. Furthermore, if we are going to look at sales tax why not property taxes? These properties are going to be flipped, properties right now are subject by Prop 13 and again when they are sold the Cir. of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 42 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 tax basis for those parcels are reappraised and in fact they pay more property taxes. So I think that sales tax is one way to look at it but the other way to look at it is property taxes in terms of supporting government infrastructure. If Fry’s is desirable in Palo Alto an effort should be made to try to retain them but maybe not in this area. Then very last I just want to say that this may be the very best solution for a very, very bad situation. I know that we have gotten ourselves into a little bit of trouble with the GM zone and the fact that it is in the Comprehensive Plan as zoned for housing and that is in conflict with one of the uses right now. In some ways I think that this is a silver lining in a cloud right now. So I support this. Chair Burt: Karen. Vice-Chair Holman: I need to clean up my mess from earlier. I asked the question about after City Council decision was that appealable and actually I meant was it referendable. I just used the wrong word. So that was really my question. Mr. Larkin: Yes, it would be referendable. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, thank you for that clarification and sorry for my misuse of the word. I also want to congratulate Staff because I think we didn’t do this at the beginning but I think where you did pick up and start going to the public you obviously have had a great affect and provided a lot of clarity and a lot of information to the public and this has come a long way. That is much, much appreciated and congratulations to you Curtis and Clare I presume and Rick and crew and members of the public for coming out and participating in that process. That is the whole purpose of this is for engagement and hopefully a meeting of the minds and we don’t always, always agree. Having said that I support much of what is here and I do still have some concerns so I don’t know if I am going to be able to support the motion but I am going to try to get it to where I can if we can up here reach some agreement. One of the things I would like to add as a friendly amendment if the maker and seconder would agree with this is to add the R and P overlays as a part of a PTOD application along Park Boulevard extending down to Page Mill. Commissioner Sandas: Can you explain R and P overlays? Vice-Chair Holman: I am sorry, retail and pedestrian. Commissioner Sandas: Yes. Commissioner Cassel: No, and I think I explained that in my notes that that’s a different zoning process. You are talking about the whole of Park Boulevard and we don’t necessarily want retail all the way down Park Boulevard. We need it in nodes, in sections where it is working. You are City of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 43 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 talking about something in a zoning that already exists rather than on the site itself and that needs to be determined based on where it is as the development comes forward. If you have to put it everywhere down there it may not be appropriate. Vice-Chair Holman: Let me try the pedestrian overlay then. Commissioner Sandas: Just to back up to the R and P after hearing what Phyllis had to say I actually a~ee with you, Phyllis. I didn’t quite understand the implications. So I say no. Commissioner Cassel: You get to talk about the pedestrian first. Vice-Chair Holman: In the Pedestrian Overlay the reason I am proposing that is because this is a pedestrian and bicycle corridor. So if you want to make it pleasant for people to travel this route then that is one of the things that would help assist that. Commissioner Sandas: So a pedestrian transit overlay district doesn’t already imply that pedestrian is in there? I would assume that it did. Vice-Chair Holman: It does everywhere in the design standards but it doesn’t explicitly spell out Park Boulevard separately and I think Staff has said that they would support that. Commissioner Cassel: My understanding is that this overlay zone will apply to every unit that goes down and it will be required to have wide setbacks. That is what all these design guidelines are for. Commissioner Sandas: Can Staff speak to that a little bit because Park Boulevard is definitely in the radius and so I can’t understand why we would single it out when it is part of the big picture. Mr. C. Williams: Well, there are a couple of things to say. One is that I think our response was that what we would support is if somebody came in with an application that you also consider the R and P at the same time and whether that is appropriate or not but not that it automatically be applied or that there be some implication that it necessarily would have to be there. The P Overlay, the pedestrian, essentially requires pedestrian design features, weather protection for pedestrians, display windows, retail pedestrian arcades, landscaping, architectural design features to preclude blank wails and such. These are things that the context-based design does I think better than the few paragraphs that are here. I don’t think this conflicts with it but I also don’t think it adds anything to the context-based design requirements that are already in the PTOD. So it is not a big deal one way or the other but it doesn’t seem to us to be necessary to do that. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, maybe I understood previously that Staff would support doing that so I thought it would be an improvement. Mr. C. Williams: No, our intent was to consider that at the time it came in whether that was necessary. Looking at this I don’t think the P is if it comes in as far as the retai! goes I think that is something you should consider but I don’t again agree that we want to necessarily imply right now that all of Park Boulevard should have retail on the first floor. Cir. of Palo Alto May 10, 2006 Page 44 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Vice-Chair Holman: I was only going down to Page Mill not all the way down. Mr. C. Williams: Okay, well that would be better. Vice-Chair Holman: Per your previous comments. Okay. Well, we will see what we can get. actually would like to see the FAR of office as a part of option A limited to .2 of the .35 if the maker and seconder would accept that. Commissioner Sandas: No, because we did not include option A in the motion. The motion does not include options A or B. It stands as the Staff has written it. Vice-Chair Holman: Okay. Given that then there were a couple of other things that I wanted to have added too. One was to eliminate the GM sites south of 0live, in other words to eliminate the AD Overlay sites and I have all along supported deleting or not including the Olive Avenue residential portion. So given those they won’t be accepted as friendly amendments. As much as I do support many other aspects of this I won’t be able to support the motion. As far as Fry’s goes I have always been opposed to including Fry’s in this for some of the reasons that members of the public have also said given what the representative of Fry’s site has said tonight. It is a discussion that could happen whether the zoning is there or not so I am not sure that it really helps anything along or not. I will not go on anymore about that. MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1, Commissioner Bialson absent and Vice-Chair Holman voted no) Chair Burr: Well I am going to support the motion. I regret that we really didn’t explore this issue of whether or not there should be any additional restriction on the office space as one aspect of option A that might have been appropriate. I think overall the balance is good. I would like to clarify just one aspect in the retail discussions we actually didn’t discuss tonight about the sales tax revenue. That was only Commissioner Lippert who referred to that we talked about retail. Within the retail there are other important aspects besides the revenue aspect from sales tax. It is consistent with the Comp Plan objectives in economic aspects both synergies and revenue that is a factor but it is also service to both residents and workers in our community and it is valuable from those standpoints in that it serves them it also impacts the transportation aspects whether it be pedestrian or simply shorter car trips. So there are a number of reasons why both retail and service are important for us to really strive for aside from the sales tax revenue although I don’t think we should dismiss the sales tax revenue aspect. Having said that I think this plan does a good enough job of addressing those and for those reasons I will support it. Anybody else have anything else to add? Okay then I would like to take the vote on it. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nay) So that passes five to one with Vice-Chair Holman voting no and Commissioner Bialson absent. Thank you everyone we are going to have one more item which some people may find exciting. City of Palo Alto May I0, 2006 Page 45 of 45 Cities21 ATTACHMENT F Palo Alto PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development) Traffic Reducing Housing 7/10/06 revision, by Steve Raney, Cities21 Palo Alto is a national innovator in Traffic Reducing Housing (TRH), having shrewdly added TRH to Stanford West and the "December 2004 El Camino Soccer Field + Housing" Agreement. The PTOD-TRH program described on this page evolves innovative TRH policies {from Stanford West, Stanford Faculty/Staff Housing, Santa Barbara’s Casa de Las Fuentes, and Novato’s Hamilton Park} to an even higher level. Casa de Las Fuentes has 42 homes in the vibrant pedestrian/transit-oriented Santa Barbara downtown, with only 16 cars (for more details, see: http://www.cities21.orq/CasaDeLasFuentes.htm.) Palo Alto Council is providing national global warming leadership, with efforts including the Mayor’s Green Ribbon Task Force on Climate Protection. PTOD-TRH represents the most cost-effective CO2 reduction that Council can implement. Compared to the rest of the Silicon Valley, 547 new PTOD-TRH homes will produce three million annual pounds less of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas and produce three million fewer annual VMT (vehicle miles traveled). These residents will save $2,500 per year in auto operation costs and will avoid one hour per weekday stuck in commute traffic. PTOD, as the name suggests, is for pedestrian/transit maximization and automobile minimization. The TRH program will select new residents with fewer cars who will drive less. New residents intending to drive a lot have many better Palo Alto housing options than moving next to a train station. Goals: ¯Minimize greenhouse gas emissions to create a better world for our children. ¯Minimize inconvenience caused to existing neighbors by minimizing resultant parking demand and by minimizing resultant traffic congestion at the already congested local intersections, especially around peak commuting hours. ¯Reduce real-estate development costs to ensure that PTOD real-estate developers make a good profit and are sufficiently enthusiastic about their experience to promote innovative transit village development to their peers. ¯Implement a policy that achieves these goals initially and also achieves these goals in ensuing months, years, and decades as jobs change and new residents move in. It Works! TRH was pioneered in Palo Alto / Stanford. "The most cost-effective traffic reduction in the Bay Area is to provide housing for workers. Stanford makes money on the housing when they match housing and jobs. This is a traffic reduction measure with a ’negative cost.’" - Jeffrey Tumlin, Principal, Nelson Nygaard Associates transportation consultants (Joe Kott’s employer), and former member of Stanford’s transportation department. How important is TRH? Crucially important! Here’s what the experts are saying: "An increasing number of Silicon Valley workers have been forced to live farther and farther away from their jobs, with thousands having to commute two to three hours a day, one way, to get to work. This underlines the importance of creating housing in the Silicon http ://www.cities21 .org/workerHs ngCATO.htm 7/11/2006 Cities21 Page 2 of 3 Valley not only to improve workers’ quality of life but also to cut down on traffic and air pollution"- Carl Guardino, CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group (Portsmouth Herald, March 2001 ). ¯Palo Alto Weekly’s Sue Dremann covered Palo Alto’s global climate change efforts in the June 21, 2006, lead article. "Getting people out of their cars is one solution, and closely related would be creating a blueprint for making home and work spaces easily accessible without driving. One working model is at Stanford University, where priority in housing is given to people who work there. At Stanford West, people who work at the hospital can bike to work." See pages 14-15, 17-19: http:/iwww.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morfluepdf/2006/2006 06 21.paw.section1.pdf ¯In the Weekly article directly above, Palo Alto Councilmember Peter Drekmeier characterizes the TRH opportunity: "Proximity is more important than the efficiency of a vehicle. Our biggest impact on climate change is driving." ¯Fran Wagstaff, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, TRH "is a great idea." ¯William Fulton (author: The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl): TRH "is certainly a very timely topic and many people are looking for answers ... I am asked for answer to this all the time, both in my professional capacity and in my elected capacity (Ventura City Council)." TRH "is potentially very important." ¯Stephanie Jennings, former Editor of Fannie Mae Foundation’s Housing Policy Debate: TRH "has a lot of potential." Is there another answer besides TRH? No! While Anthony Downs (Brookings Scholar and author: Still Stuck in Traffic) advises commuters to learn to cope with traffic congestion delay in the short run, he believes that, in the long run, jobs and housing will eventually move together or "co-locate." From an analysis of current research, Berkeley’s Robert Cervero disagrees that co-location will come about without intervention. He concludes that the natural incentives for people to reduce the distance between work and home have not been working. "Average journey to work distance has been increasing; jobs/housing balance continues to exacerbate." Thus, we conclude that co-location is very important, but we need to implement policy measures to reduce the distance between jobs and housing. Is TOD without TRH actually transit-oriented? No. Suburban residential TOD serving auto- supportive jobs results in "auto-centered TOD." Per Travel Characteristics of TOD in California (Caltrans funded research authored by Lund, Cervero, and Willson), residential TOD by East Bay BART heavy rail stations serving "auto-hostile" job locations in San Francisco produces 40% transit commute mode share (and 50% auto share). Residential TOD by South Bay Caltrain commuter rail stations serving auto-supportive job locations with free parking produces only 17% transit mode share (and 80% auto share). Thus, South Bay TOD, while outperforming adjacent non-TOD (4% or less transit mode share), is still very auto-centered. TRH can transform South Bay TOD mode share to 80% "green commutes." Many Bay Area cities have preferences (or have considered preferences) for teachers, public safety officers, and/or public employees, but none of these programs provides significant traffic reduction compared to TRH. These cities include Cupertino, Larkspur, Los Altos, Menlo Park, Milpitas, Mountain View, Oakland, San Anselmo, San Carlos, San Jose, San Francisco, San Rafael, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, and Walnut Creek. PTOD-TRH Policy Implementation http ://w~vw.cities21 .org/workerHsngCATO.htm 7/11/2006 Cities21 Page 3 of 3 PTOD is a new zone in the Palo Alto General Plan Update. To minimize traffic, Council should adopt the following: a) find a "compelling interest" in the goals above, b) select new residents with fewer cars who will drive less, c) minimize residential parking spaces, d) "unbundle" residential parking, meaning residents should be charged $50 per month per parking space, e) encourage the sharing of adjacent parking spaces (at Agilent and Caltrain) with new residential developments. The approval of major new residential PTOD projects will then be contingent on meeting these adopted items. Council’s implementation of PTOD Zoning will result in a 25 percent land value increase in those areas and will reduce parking construction costs. Both of these benefits make PTOD real-estate development more profitable; therefore, Council should not "give away" the PTOD designation to developers without ensuring that the most transit and pedestrian-friendly place is created. A more detailed explanation of PTOD-TRH can be found at: http:/ANww.cities21.org/workerHsnqPaloAIto.htm Cities21’s TRH research has been funded by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Collaborative Network for Sustainability" grant: http://tod.hacienda.orq/PRT/epa.htm. TRH research has included three "roundtable" meetings and 30 individual meetings. Meeting participants have represented EPA, HUD, Urban Land Institute, National Housing Law Project, Reconnecting America, National Association of Realtors, Berkeley Program on Housing, California State Housing & Community Development Department, California State Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, ABAG, MTC, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, AIA Housing Policy Committee, Urban Ecology, Sierra Club, Fair Housing of Marin, Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities, Virginia Tech Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, and planning department staff members from multiple cities. http ://www.cities21 .org/workerH sngCATO.htm 7/11/2006 Cities21 Page 1 of 7 Resident Selection Case Studies Last updated 7/10/06 Stanford Facult/~i 17 Bay Area Resident Selection Programs Stanford West Pasadena Novato Hamilton Field Pteasanton Santa Barbara Green Ridge, NY Stanford Faculty/Staff Ground Lease Housing - http://www.sta nford .ed u/d ept/fsh/ind ex. html, http://www.scrl.org/newfshou sing.htm Eligibility rules: http://www.stanford.edu/deptlfshlima~ibility.pdf Stanford has 842 faculty/staff ground lease homes on campus, with more than 300 planned over the next 10 years. Founder Leland Stanford specified that University land could not be sold, therefore the houses and condominiums are sold, but the ground beneath is leased. Stanford provides the housing to senior faculty and staff. Faculty is either tenured or has a 3 year or greater appointment. Staff is restricted to those at the top of the salary curve. Top Stanford Hospital doctors also qualify. Thus, this Resident Selection program is an elite program. It is covered by the Fair Housing Act (FHA), but, as long as Stanford does not discriminate in the hiring of top staff and doctors, the preference is allowed. Additional lease restrictions ensure that this housing is the lessee’s principle residence. Only the faculty/staff member signs the lease, even though a spouse may have a larger financial interest. PRICING & SELLING: Faculty/Staff sellers set their initial asking price, and list their houses in Stanford’s "Homes for Sale and Rent" newsletter. This newsletter goes out to interested, qualifying faculty/staff. All eligible persons may put an offer on the home. Sellers and potential buyers negotiate from there. See: "How to Sell a Campus Residence," http://www.stanford.edu/dept/fsh/images/HowToSell.pdf. EVICTION POLICY: (Eviction policies are important for creating programs that generate short commutes in ensuing decades.) Once the lessee ceases primary residence or fails eligibility criteria, they must vacate within 2 years. Upon death of a professor, surviving spouse DOES have survivorship rights. But, if there is no surviving spouse or domestic partner, then the professor’s estate must vacate within 2 years. Stanford West Apartments - http://stanfordwest.stanford.edu/ Stanford West is a 628 unit project with apartments and townhomes. Apartments are prioritized based on the following priorities: First Priority: Employed by Stanford 1A) Stanford faculty 1B) Stanford public safety officers http ://www.cities21 .org/workerHsngCases.htm 7/11/2006 Cities21 Page 2 of 7 1C) Stanford staff Second Priority 2A) Stanford Hospital employees 2B) Stanford Visiting Fellows 2C) Stanford Shopping Center & Stanford Research Park employees. Stanford Research Park is a large Palo Alto office park with more than 20,000 workers. Below market rate units are also covered by this priority plan. It appears that the demand for housing in the first priority tier (1A thru 1C) is so strong that all the Stanford West units are allocated to the first priority tier and none of the Stanford West housing is ever allocated to Palo Alto workers (such as those in #2C, Stanford Research Park, that is situated inside Palo Alto, rather than inside Stanford boundaries.) Thus, for the more recent "Mayfield Agreement," for in-fill housing planned within Stanford Research Park, Palo ¯ Alto has imposed housing preference limits to ensure that more Palo Alto workers/residents occupy this new housing than Stanford workers/residents. Market rate rental pricing is set by Stanford, working upon recommendations from local realtors. Stanford prices low enough to provide a bargain, but high enough to avoid the IRS, which tests for market value, and could rule that a subsidy for below market housing is employee compensation. [Real estate agent - name withheld by request] EVICTION POLICY: "Each household will be re-qualified annually. Leases will not be renewed for those who no longer qualify. Upon retirement, a lessee is no longer eligible." Estimated annual VMT savings (and pounds of CO2 saved): 3.6 million miles & 3.6 million pounds of CO2. See the "Stanford West" spreadsheet tab in this spreadsheet for the calculations: wrkfrc PA VMT.xls Novato Hamilton Field Rental and For Sale Affordable Housing As well as market rate housing, the city entitled 297 affordable rental units and 351 affordable ownership units for this military base redevelopment project. The affordable units are deed restricted (to remain affordable). Of these affordable units, 1/3 are covered by the Resident Selection Plan. The ownership and rental units are deed restricted to remain affordable. The Resident Selection criteria is applied at the point of residential entry. There is no provision for eviction of households that lose their eligibility over time. Originally, a 9-tiered selection plan was proposed. This was reduced to 6 tiers, then, to 3 tiers. From our investigation so far, it is legally possible to A) not only cover affordable units with Resident Selection, but also to cover market rate units with Resident Selection, B) cover 100% of affordable units with commute-reducing Resident Selection. However, such extensive preference would receive political challenge, and should be politically mitigated by an Upward Mobility Program. Likewise, Mike Rawson argues that less than 100% of affordable units should be covered by Resident Selection, due to the severe shortage of affordable units. This argument has merit. The developer was indemnified by the city from fair housing liability for the Resident Selection Plan. "... the City... shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the Developer... from any http ://www.cities21 .org/workerHsngC ases.htm 7/11/2006 Cities21 Page 3 of 7 costs or liabilities arising out of a legal challenge to the adoption, provisions, or implementation of this Plan." The City eventually takes over administration of the Resident Selection program for ownership units from the developer. Documents of note: ¯Three important scanned documents are available in the following combined 5.7MB PDF: wrkfrc Novato combined.pdf. The documents are: A) May 2001 City Council Resolution approving The Hamilton Affordable Workforce Housing Resident Selection Plan. B) April 2001 Hamilton Affordable Workforce Housing Resident Selection Plan. C) March 2003 Revised Version, Hamilton Affordable Workforce Housing Resident Selection Plan. ¯Council discussion of limiting preferences to 1/3 of units: Selected Council Minutes. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF NOVATO, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 10, 2001. Nancy Kenyon (Marin Fair Housing)was instrumental in reducing preference coverage from 100% down to 33%, based on the argument that such preferences would perpetuate historical discrimination. Important Language in Public Documents: A) May 2001 City Council Resolution approving The Hamilton Affordable Workforce Housing Resident Selection Plan ¯<In this paragraph, Novato shows they have carefully considered Fair Housing and Civil Rights Law> "WHEREAS, the Resident Selection Plan applies to only one-third of the deed restricted affordable rental and ownership housing to be developed in the Capehart/Hillside areas in order to insure that the implementation of the Resident Selection Plan priorities does not arbitrarily discriminate against or cause any disparate impact on any protected class of persons." ¯Excerpts from Novato council’s FINDINGS: o "City of Novato" ... "and the public entities in the County of Marin .... face a severe impediment in their ability to recruit and retain qualified employees due to the lack of affordable housing for such employees within or near their jurisdictions." o ... "the lack of affordable housing" ... "negatively impacts regional transportation, the local jobs/housing balance" ... B) April 2001 Hamilton Affordable Workforce Housing Resident Selection Plan ¯A tiered Resident Selection structure was proposed in the December 1999 Development Agreement, with the following priorities: 1. City of Novato employees; 2. Novato local government employees; 3. Others who work in the City of Novato; 4. Residents of the City of Novato; 5. Local government employees working in Marin County; and 6. Marin County residents and employees. ¯ Once the affordable ownership units are all sold, the City (rather than the developer) is responsible for administering and marketing the Resident Selection Plan. http ://www.cities21 .org/workerHsngCases.htm 7/11/2006 Cities21 Page 4 of 7 C) The Revised March 2003 Resident Selection Criteria (1) first priority, to employees of the City of Novato; (2) second priority, to employees of the Novato Fire Protection District, the Novato Sanitary District, North Marin Water District, Novato Community Hospital, and Novato Unified School District; and (3) third priority, to employees of other public entities with jurisdictions in the County of Matin working in or providing services to the residents of the City of Novato. ¯Annual reporting is required to track the Resident Selection Plan, with a current list of qualified residents, "broken down by order of priority and income category." D) The Novato General Plan was modified to encourage housing preferences: Novato General Plan, Chapter 3, Housing: "Housing Preferences. Consider preparing an ordinance that establishes preferences for Novato residents, public employees, single-parent heads of households, and for those employed in Novato in renting or purchasing affordable housing units." Novato General Plan: Housing Element: http://www.ci, novato.ca.us/cd/g p/G PCHAP3. HTM L. Santa Barbara Casa de Las Fuentes For 42 low-income downtown units with excellent access to jobs, shops, recreation, and transit, Santa Barbara adopted commute-reducing housing preferences: ¯Highest priority: for residents who work downtown who do not own a vehicle and agree to not own one during their occupancy. Rent is $50 per month less expensive for residents who do not park a car. Household size is one or two people per unit, as the units are small. All employed household members must work only in the downtown area. ¯Second priority: for residents who work downtown The Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara (HACSB) has led the development. HACSB and Santa Barbara City Council adopted a policy that walking to work and reducing auto mileage in downtown was an important public policy objective. The 42 unit development has only SIXTEEN CARS! Eviction policy: a tenant who becomes unemployed has 90 days to find a new job within the downtown district, or to move out of the building. Likewise, if one employed resident takes a job outside of downtown, the household must vacate. Resources: Two-page project summary article from Housing Development Review Web site for prospective tenants, including application form. A letter from the employer or a pay stub is required for proof of downtown employment. HACSB request to legal counsel on downtown worker ~reference. 5/11/98 IlCasaDeLasFuentes.htm http://www, hacsb.org/casa.html. J[LettertoLegalCou nsel.pdf II http ://www.cities21 .org/workerHsngCases.htm 7/11/2006 Cities21 Page 5 of 7 Legal counsel memo. Finds downtown worker preference easily falls under "government purpose." Policy is nondiscriminatory. Meets CA Fair Housing IILegalOpinionOnDowntownWorkerReqt.pdf Law. (There is no disparate impact analysis in the brief.) I 6/11/98 HACSB memo to Santa Barbara. One vehicle per unit restriction. Downtown worker restriction. Vehicle Ownership Limitation Agreement (for tenants). 10/8/01 . HACSB memo to SB. Page 4 discussion that eviction for violating the "one car per unit" restriction is enforceable. 1/27/99. SB Conditions for Approval memo. 8/17/00 PowerPoint presenation with many pictures of the development. 13 MB. Housing award proposal. Lists previous awards. Provides detailed project description. Covers benefits, turnover and marketing challenges, etc. LtrToCityl 0_8_01 .pdf ’110111 27 99CommissionPacket.pdf II . IConditionsOfApp roval081700, pdf IIcasadelasfuentes13M B’p-p2 I AwardProposalAshlnstitute2006.doc Quotes from the "housing award proposal" above: "This program can work in other locales as long as the basic restrictions and occupancy policies are proposed and enforced, e.g. restricting occupancy to those that work within a specified boundary near the development and limiting/discouraging vehicle ownership. These types of restrictions and occupancy preferences can be legally established for a development so long as the ’need’ for the restrictions and preferences are identified through the planning process and are imposed on the project as conditions of approval." "The most significant obstacle we’ve encountered has been to educate the public on the environmental and economic benefits of not owning or operating a vehicle. California is a state that is large and expansive and where ’the car is king’. And while some California cities are progressive in terms of developing mass transit, many have no or poor transit systems. And despite ever-increasing traffic congestion, pollution, and the costs associated with owning a car, it remains difficult to convince Californians to forgo vehicle ownership. CNN recently released a survey showing the cost of car ownership in selected cities around the country. In Los Angeles, a short 95 miles to the south of Santa Barbara, the annual cost totals $10,361 for insurance, gas and maintenance with over $3,000/year going toward insurance alone." "Casa’s workforce housing could be considered a permutation of workforce housing of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries popularized at the time by the railroad and agriculture industries. The initial concepts are the same; develop housing for workers close to where they work. Originally designed to be convenient and profitable for the companies, today’s adaptation is designed to improve the community’s overall economy as well as provide housing where people work--particularly downtown. Housing downtown lifts the human spirit for it promotes human interaction as well as access to urban culture. It reverses the negative urban planning models of yesterday that put housing in a suburban setting and all other uses in other areas such that the automobile is the only way of getting from one to the other. Getting workers out of their car and away from commuting gives them more leisure time and reduces traffic and pollution." Of Casa de Las Fuentes’ 11 awards, the top four are: National Association of Home Builders, Best Urban Smart Growth Neighborhood http://www.cities21 .org/workerHsngCases.htm 7/11/2006 Cities21 Page 6 of 7 League of California Cities, Helen Putnam Award for Excellence ¯ California State Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA), Award of Excellence, Outstanding Planning Project Award ¯Builder Magazine Grand Award, "Best Redevelopment Rehab or Infill Site Plan" Pleasanton housing preference Thanks to Sharon Hightower and http://lists.cacities.org/mailman/listinfo/hced for this case. Pleasanton has a "mixed preference" preference, both encouraging shorter commutes and favoring existing residents. The preference applies to affordable housing. See July 2000 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A REVISED CITY PREFERENCE SYSTEM FOR CITY-ASSISTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS - MS Word document. Pasadena housing preference guidelines Thanks to Sharon Hightower and http:lllists.cacities.org!mailman/listinfo/hced for this case. Pasadena has a "mixed preference" preference, both encouraging shorter commutes and favoring existing residents. They require resident selection for affordable and workforce housing (moderate income) units that are supported or sponsored by The City. See Feb 2005 "PASADENA LOCAL PREFERENCE AND PRIORITY SYSTEM GUIDELINES" - MS Word document. Green Ridge near White Plains NY Two large developments near White Plains, New York, offer preferences for affordable residences, offsetting the Westchester County $520,000 median home price: "Green Ridge offers a 125-unit home ownership plan with a preference for those who work in New Castle, Mount Kisco and the Town of Bedford. Green Ridge, as Stone Creek has done before, addresses a critical shortage of workforce housing that threatens the quality of life in New Castle and the surrounding community, while at the same time maximizing land for open space." See article: "Green Ridge, Not Just a Development ... a New Direction," http://www.greenridgenow.com/html/qreenridge.html. Other Bay Area Resident Selection Programs To underscore how prevalent housing preference is, there are 17 Bay Area cities with housing preferences and another three with programs under consideration. Some are taking small steps with programs encompassing only a few units. Others like San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Milpitas have large programs. Some preference programs are simple; others have up to 9 priority tiers: City Preference Corte Public employees Notes I rather than preferences, theywent with http ://www.cities21 .org/workerHsngC ases.htm 7/11/2006 Cities21 Page 7 of 7 Madera Cupertino Larkspur Los Altos Menlo Park Mill Valley Milpitas Mtn View Mtn View Oakland San Anselmo San Carlos San Jose San Jose - Hitachi site SF SF- Treasure Island School district, city employees Public employees Teachers Public employees 4 tier system for public employees Work/live in town for 1/3 of units Teachers, public safety workers Work/live in town Teachers Public employees Work/live in town Teacher Worker Preferences targeted marketing. BMR program BMR program Under consideration for 12 units Under Consideration 12 condos IIBMR program IIFunded by housing impact fee ItBMR program IIIIBMR 1116 unit affordable complex II These were considered, but did not move forward 1143 aptsTeachers SF residents, teachers, police, firefighters SF - I-Hotel Phillipino preference - hsng in a Racially based preferences were NOT Phillipino neighborhood allowed San Rafael Public employees BMR Public employees, teachers,Sunnyvale child care workers Sunnyvale Work/live in town $120K condos Tiburon City workers a few rental condos Walnut Work/live in town Part of housing element under considerationiCreek http ://www. cities21, org/w orke rH s n g C as es.htm 7/11/2006