HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report AnnualReportCity of Palo Alto
Memorandum
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 15,2010
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMLTNITY ENVIRONMENT
SLTBJECT: POTENTIAL TOPICS OF DISCUSSION FOR THE JOINT STUDY
SESSION MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint study session with the Planning
and Transportation Commission at 6:00 PM on March 15,2010:
1) Annual Report to Council
2) Other Planning and Transportation Issues
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director
Planning and Community Environment
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PURPOSE:
February 15,2010
Palo Alto City Council
Planning and Transportation Commission
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
includes data/rom 06-07 and 07-08
This report identifies emerging issues that the Planning and Transportation Commission has identified
from the project submittals and other planning data that have come before them in the previous three
years.
These issues serve as the basis for the Planning and Transportation Commission to make
recommendations to the City Council based on current data that may better align our City's land use and
transportation policies and processes with Palo Alto's community values and its governing documents,
including but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.
FINDINGS:
Based on the quantity of the projects and type of issues that have come before the Commission over the
last three years,
1) 2006-2007 had the highest number of development projects come before the Commission
2) 2007-2008 had the fewest number of projects and items before the Commission. However, Stanford
came before the Commission 4 times and the issue of supporting Grocery Stores in Palo Alto was part
of three of the items that came before the Commission.
3) 2008-2009 had the highest number of policy and planning related items come before the Commission
4) The top three cumulative types of development project items that came before the Commissioners
identified in the 2006 through the 2009 time period (three years) were:
a) Rezonings: Projects that requested a change to the underlying zoning.
b) Open Space: Projects requesting new and additions to existing structures.
c) Density: Increasing density, particularly housing, in places not near transit corridors and
infrastructure.
5) The top projects that Commissioners identified having the most amount of issues with (8 or more
issues) over the three year time period were:
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza)
b) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks)
c) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl)
d) 3270 W. Bayshore (Classic Communities)
6) The top three cumulative types of policy items that Commissioners identified in the 2006 through the
2009 time period (three years) were:
a) Safety: The City is working through several older projects and trials that had been
initiated in years past to support Traffic Safety issues, and support Bike-able and
Walk-able Neighborhoods.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 2
b) Open Space: Council driven re-examination of the Open Space zone has revealed significant
differences in the perceived use and appreciation of this area between some of
the area's property owners and the Comprehensive Plan.
c) Hotels: New hotel zoning and several hotel projects have come before the Commission.
ACTIONS:
NEAR-TERM ACTIONS.
The PTC recommends the following actions be considered before the rest because they present
opportunities to reduce or mitigate issues that have potentially greater impacts on the City than others:
1) Resist changing land uses that allow more / new multi-family housing when they are not adjacent to
existing transit nodes. Further study is necessary to understand both how to better balance new multi
family housing with existing infrastructure and how to align it with the City's ABAG policy that is in
development.
2) Continue to support addition of hotels to drive needed income with minimal peak hour trip
generation.
3) Continue to support retention of neighborhood grocery stores to serve needs to neighborhoods.
LONGER-TERM ACTIONS.
Of the remaining actions, the following present potentially significant impacts, but are likely to be
realized over a longer period of time:
1) Build out of previously approved multi-family housing projects will have long term impacts on the
City infrastructure and services. City needs to quantify these impacts especially in regards to south
Palo Alto impacts, and develop plans to mitigate them. For example as part of East Meadow Circle /
Comp Plan analysis area study, determine the impacts and develop mitigations as part of the area
study.
2) Sufficiency of parking in multi-family projects, especially large units with private garages.
3) Private Streets that do not meet the requirements of public streets.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 3
ISSUES:
In reviewing the Planning and Transportation Commission's 2008 -2009 actions, the Commissioners
identified the following issues. Below each issue is a list of the project applications and or other items that
appeared before the Commission or are generally known to members of the Commission in the last three
years and support the issue.
HOUSING & DENSITY
1) Density. Density is increasing away from transit corridors and other infrastructure.
a) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage (housing v LM) <06
b) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon (housing v LM) <06
c) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD) 06-07
d) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
e) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
:f) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
g) 2080 Channing A venue (Edgewood Plaza)
h) 488 West Charleston (PA Housing Corp)
08-09
08-09
2) Multi Family Housing. Approvals of Multi Family housing projects in Palo Alto have reduced
substantially over the three year reporting period:
a) 4219 EI Camino -Arbor Real (170 townhrns + 11 SFRs) <06
b) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage (76 townhomes) <06
c) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon (75 townhomes) <06
d) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07 -08 08-09
e) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
:f) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
g) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD) 06-07
h) 195 Page Mill Road 06-07
3) Parking. Meeting the letter of the parking requirements for multi-family projects do not appear to be
satisfying the parking demands of multifamily projects especially projects that have large units with
private garages.
a) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage <06
b) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon <06
c) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
d) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
e) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
:f) 2080 Channing A venue (Edgewood Plaza) 08-09
4) BMR Units. The City's BMR program continues to be supported:
a) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD) 06-07
b) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center) 07-08 08-09
d) 801 Alma Street 08-09
e) 488 West Charleston (P A Housing Corp) 08-09
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 4
5) Private Streets. Private Streets were used in a variety of Multi Family projects:
a) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage <06
b) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon <06
c) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
d) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
e) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
t) 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) 08-09
6) Private & Common Open Space. Private & Common Open space is required in multi-family
developments but exceptions are being granted in developments involving BMR units:
a) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
b) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center) 07-08 08-09
d) 801 Alma Street 08-09
e) 488 West Charleston (PA Housing Corp) 08-09
ZONING ISSUES
7) Grocery Stores. The support and availability of neighborhood serving grocery stores remains a
consistent concern:
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center)
c) G Combining District and/or Neighborhood Center Zoning
d) 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza)
8) Open Space. Use and appreciation of open space is evolving:
a) 1525 Arastradero Road 06-07
b) 712 Los Trancos 06-07
c) 3220, 3230, 3208 Alexis Drive 07-08
d) 3000 Alexis Drive (P A Hills Golf and Country Club)
e) Baylands 08-09
t) Byxbee Park 08-09
g) Open Space (OS) 08-09
07-08 08-09
07-08 08-09
08-09
08-09
9) Rezonings. Projects coming before the Commission that have included requests to rezone parcels
have decreased over the past three years:
a) 1525 Arastradero Road 06-07
b) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD)
c) 1001 San Antonio Road (Ciardella's)
d) 3981 EI Camino Real 06-07
e) 4233 Middlefield Road (Magnussen's)
t) 725 San Antonio Road 06-07
06-07
06-07
06-07
g) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07
h) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
i) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center)
08-09
07-08 08-09
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 5
10) Hotels. New Hotels are being proposed.
a) Stanford Projects 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
c) Extended Stay Hotels 08-09
d) Hotel Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Changes 08-09
e) 1700 Embarcadero Road (Ming's) 08-09
11) Erosion of GM&LM Zones. Projects eroding the City's GM & LM zones have reduced in recent
years, although the issue remains a concern and can threaten the viability of these zones in the City's
Southeast comer near San Antonio and Charleston.
a) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage <06
b) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon <06
c) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD) 06-07
d) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
PROCESS ISSUES
12) Site and Design -Process. Site and Design process reviews design elements before planning criteria
are defined.
a) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks)
b) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl)
c) 810 Los Trancos Road 07 -08
06-07 07-08 08-09
06-07
d) 801 Alma Street 08-09
e) 1129-1137 San Antonio Rd (Google's Children's Center)
08-09
08-09
13) Site and Design Applicability. In years past, several large projects did not go through a public site
and design process:
a) 4219 EI Camino -Arbor Real (170 townhms + 11 SFRs) <06
b) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage <06
c) 1101 East Meadow Drive Echelon <06
d) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
14) Tentative Map Process. Tentative map process presents different aspects of the same project to the
commission in separate hearings.
a) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
b) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) 433 West Meadow Drive 07-08
d) 200 San Antonio (Toll Brothers / old Hewlett Packard site) 08-09
e) Tentative Map/ARB Process Revisions 08-09
15) PC Process. Some project applications do not offer adequate benefits to the City.
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center) 07-08 08-09
c) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
d) 200 San Antonio (Toll Brothers / old Hewlett Packard site) 08-09
16) Capital Improvement Program. Current CIP Process does not meet City'S statutes to include
Commission input; in previous years the Commission's input and input has been solicited by
Commission too late.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 6
17) Submittal Deadlines. The deadlines for applicant materials submission have not been enforced.
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
18) Design Enhancements, DEE & Variances. Design Enhancements, DEE & Variances exceptions
have been permitted inappropriately.
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
c) 200 San Antonio (Toll Brothers / old Hewlett Packard site) 08-09
d) 801 Alma Street 08-09
e) 278 University Ave. 08-09
t) Exceptions and Variances Study Session 08-09
19) Setbacks. Several projects brought to light the fact that existing setback requirements may be
inadequate to accommodate sidewalk, planting and trees. EI Camino guidelines were applied to
locations not specified in the guidelines.
a) 901 San Antonio Road (ClL & BUILD) 06-07
b) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
d) 278 University Ave. 08-09
TRENDS & OPPORTUNITIES
20) Demolition. Demolition of existing buildings to allow new development has decreased during the
three year reporting period:
a) 940 East Meadow Dr -Vantage (demo industlcomm)
b) 1101 East Meadow Dr -Echelon (demo indust/comm)
c) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07
d) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl)
e) 901 San Antonio Road (ClL & BUILD) 06-07
t) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
21) Opportunities to Improve Traffic Flow.
a) Intersection ofEI Camino and Page Mill
b) On ramp to 101 South from San Antonio Road
c) Bike overpass across 101
<06
<06
07-08 08-09
06-07
22) Bus Service Reductions. VTA continues to reduce bus service for Palo Alto.
08-09
a) Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Community Bus Study 07-08
INFORMATION ITEMS
23) Public amenities/benefits. Public amenitieslbenefits are being supported:
a) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 1525 Arastradero Road 06-07
c) 850 Webster Street 06-07
d) 2785/2747 Park Blvd. (Public Safety Building) 07-08 08-09
24) Safety. Traffic Safety, Bike-able and Walk-able Neighborhoods are being supported:
a) College Terrace Traffic Calming Project <06
b) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) Pepper A venue 07 -08
d) Charleston! Arastradero Road Corridor Project -Arastradero Road 08-09
e) MaybelVDonald Bicycle Boulevard 08-09
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 7
IMPACTS & RECOMMENDATIONS:
These issues have the following likely impacts on the City and Planning and Transportation Commission
makes the following recommendations:
HOUSING & DENSITY
1. DENSITY. DENSITY IS INCREASING AWAY FROM TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE.
Negative Impact: The community continues to feel the impacts of the projects that were approved in
prior years. All except one of these projects are located in South Palo Alto. Although these projects
individually do not require planning that is in addition to what has been submitted, collectively they
constitute a significant impact on the City's schools and community resources. Further, taken
collectively, they have been planned in ways that conflict with many of the goals of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. For example, some are located not near amenities, such as shopping and
transit that are important to creating walkable neighborhoods and reduCing neighborhood traffic
impacts.
• Recommendation: Develop area planes) to better coordinate and identify criteria that should
structure further development, such as East Meadow Circle/West Bayshore/San Antonio and
CalifomialVentura. Determine where best to locate housing considering impacts and nearby
amenities. Outcomes of this exercise could include, for example, ways of incentivizing desired
types of housing that have lower impacts and discouraging types of housing that have greater
impacts. Use more realistic assumptions about the housing impacts on schools, as preliminary
school district figures show much greater student yield from this housing than was predicted. This
work has been started and is underway.
2. MULTI FAMILY HOUSING. THE BUILD-OUT OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
PROJECTS HAS CREATED AN IMBALANCE BETWEEN HOUSING AND CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND
SERVICES.
Positive Impact: Several of the Multi Family Housing projects are also Mixed Use developments.
These projects are rezonings that support the Comprehensive Plan.
• Recommendation: Continue to both support rezonings consistent with Council direction to
develop projects supporting Comprehensive Plan New Urbanism concepts, to ensure provision of
sufficient commercial development to serve residents and support the City's economic health and
continue to monitor the mix of retail, housing, and other uses in mixed use development.
Negative Impact #1: Increases of (he City's housing stock puts pressure on limited resources
including the following:
a) Palo Alto Unified School District (382 of the students in PA USD come from new housing since
2001, which is over 25% of the increased enrollment of 1,478from 2001 to 2008)
b) City's existing infrastructure
c) City's existing public facilities and amenities (parks/libraries etc)
d) City's existing traffic conditions and level of service
e) City's capability to meet ABAG requirements
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 8
• Recommendation: Study these impacts to determine if new or revision to existing City Policies
should be pursued, including:
a) Investigate the quantitative impacts on the City's infrastructure to determine what actions /
policies the City should pursue to mitigate these issues.
b) Work with the PAUSD to better understand and quantifY how these impacts affect their
resources and future planning.
c) Use more realistic assumptions about the housing impacts on schools, as preliminary school
district figures show much greater student yield from this housing than was predicted.
d) Evaluate the impact increased ABAG housing requirements may/will have on the City's
infrastructure and PAUSD's resources and work to find ways to reduce or mitigate these
impacts.
e) Ensure impact fees adequately cover the full cost of identified impacts, particularly as costs
of implementing mitigations increase.
f) IdentifY areas within Palo Alto that are underserved by parks and other amenities, particularly
those areas in which high-density housing developments are occurring or have occurred
recently.
g) Collect and analyze unit sizes and affordability of market rate units, and the impact of unit
size on school student yields.
3. PARKING. MEETING THE LETTER OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS DOES
NOT APPEAR TO BE SATISFYING THE PARKING DEMAND OF MULTI F AMIL Y PROJECTS ESPECIALLY
PROJECTS THAT HAVE LARGE UNITS WITH PRIVATE GARAGES.
Negative Impact: parking appears to be overflowing into adjacent neighborhoods.
• Recommendation: Study adequacy of parking requirements for multifamily projects especially
projects with large units and private garages.
4. BMR UNITS: THE CITY'S BMR PROGRAM CONTINUES TO BE SUPPORTED:
Positive Impact: Several of the projects substantially increased the City's housing stock, and
consequentially addressed the City's ABAG BMR housing requirements. Three projects contributed
more than 400 living units.
• Recommendation: Continue to support projects that contribute to a sustainable balance of housing
and jobs in the City.
5. PRIVATE STREETS. PRIVATE STREETS WERE USED IN A VARIETY OF MULTI FAMILY PROJECTS.
Negative Impact: Limited parking, emphasizes the enclave or "gated community" feeling of the
proposed development, contributes to increased density (built floor area).
• Recommendation: Study and propose requirements for when or under what conditions
development projects should be required to meet the City's street requirements. Council has
addressed this issue by adopting the Private Streets initiative.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 9
6. PRIVATE & COMMON OPEN SPACE. PRIVATE & COMMON OPEN SPACE IS REQUIRED IN MULTI-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENTS BUT EXCEPTIONS FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING GRANTED IN
DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BMR UNITS.
Negative Impact: Private open space is often omittedfrom BMRproject design and common open
space is often too small and not adjacent to living units.
• Recommendation: Study and propose requirements strengthening the private & common open
space in developments involving BMR units.
ZONING ISSUES'
7. GROCERY STORES. THE SUPPORT AND AVAILABILITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING GROCERY STORES
REMAINS A CONSISTENT CONCERN FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
Negative Impact: The potential loss of neighborhood serving grocery stores threatens the viability of
our walkable neighborhoods, and our neighborhood retail base.
• Recommendation: Study opportunities to better support neighborhood serving grocery stores and
encourage their economic viability. (Note: this study has been initiated. This work may also
support the review of the expected Edgewood project submittal.)
8. OPEN SPACE. USE AND APPRECIATION OF OPEN SPACE IS EVOLVING.:
Negative / Positive Impact: Proponents of proposed changes to the use and definition of open space
are in tension with opponents of these changes:
=-::;...=.;== Property owners in the OS Zone believe that their property is burdened disproportionately
by regulations that do not address the unique character of the district. Others believe that the unique
character of the OS district requires greater public input over how that district is regulated
Baylands Composting. Members of the public supporting the City's retaining of composting functions
within the City for both environmental and sustainable reasons are in conflict with the City's plan to
turn the Composting station into parkland.
• Recommendation: Engage community to better understand causes and develop recommendations
to address these issues. During this timeframe, a subcommittee of the Commission met repeatedly
with residents from the OS Zone in order to address a series of concerns about projects in the
Zone. That exercise resulted in recommendations from the Commission for changes to OS
Zoning. Council has asked the Commission to continue to pursue the topic of maximum house
size in this OS Zone. The Commission also studied the issue of composting operations in the
Baylands, and recommended the formation of a Blue Ribbon Task Force on the topic. Work on
both of these topics continues.
9. REZONINGS. PROJECTS REQUESTING REZONINGS HAVE HELPED RETAIN AND ENHANCE REVENUE
GENERATING BUSINESSES AND USES NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING RETAIL USES REMAINS A CONCERN:
Positive Impact: Many of the rezonings support the Comprehensive Plan and City Council Policies by
retaining retail use and supporting revenue generating uses.
• Recommendation: Continue to both support zoning and transportation projects that support our
walkable neighborhoods and economic vitality, and support traffic programs that reduce traffic in
neighborhoods.
10. HOTELS. NEW HOTELS ARE BEING PROPOSED.
Positive Impact: Bonus density appears to be encouraging hotel projects and the subsequent
collection of Transient Occupancy Tax.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 10
• Recommendation: Continue to support zoning that incents hotels that generate Transient
Occupancy Tax. Review projects to evaluate effectiveness of the density incentive. (Note: the
zoning ordinance is being revised so that extended stay hotels are not given a density bonus
without a development agreement.)
11. EROSION OF GM & LM ZONES. PROJECTS ERODING THE CITY'S GM & LM ZONES HAVE REDUCED
IN RECENT YEARS, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE REMAINS A CONCERN AND CAN THREATEN THE
VIABILITY OF THESE ZONES IN THE CITY'S SOUTHEAST CORNER NEAR SAN ANTONIO AND
CHARLESTON.
Positive Impact: Preservation of these lands for their existing uses.
Recommendation: As part of the area plan for Meadow Circle, study the need for and possible
additional strategies for preservation of GM and LM parcels.
PROCESS ISSUES
12. SITE AND DESIGN -PROCESS. SITE AND DESIGN PROCESS REVIEWS DESIGN ELEMENTS BEFORE
PLANNING CRITERIA ARE DEFINED.
Negative Impact #1: The project approval process sometimes allows too early commitment to project
specifics (e.g., Alma Plaza), involves inappropriate use of DEEs (e.g., 278 University Avenue), or
limits the ability of the PTC to provide specific feedback on projects or to approve them with binding
conditions (e.g., College Terrace Centre).
• Recommendation: Revise the project approval process to enable early imposition of restrictions
but reserve approvals for late in the process when the full scope and impacts of the project are
known. Include in CEQA analyses of projects the cumulative impacts of nearby pending or
anticipated projects. Evaluate how traffic impacts should be determined when there is a new
development replacing one or more buildings that have been partially or completely vacant for an
extended period of time, rather than assuming a hypothetical full occupancy as a baseline.
Negative Impact #2: Current planning application review processes limit the ability for the City to
adequately and comprehensively assess project impacts on the City's resources.
• Recommendation #1: Evaluate current process (including the Tentative Map process) and develop
recommendations that close the process gaps that keep the City from more fully understanding and
addressing the individual and cumulative impacts of larger projects; such as Hyatt, Elks/Summer
Hill, Vantage, and others.
• Recommendation #2: Suggested order of review should be PTC -ARB PTC.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 11
13. SITE AND DESIGN -ApPLICABILITY. SEVERAL LARGE PROJECTS DID NOT GO THROUGH A PUBLIC SITE
AND DESIGN PROCESS.
Negative Impact: Large projects that have significant impacts on the community are permitted to go
through the approval process without adequate public notice and input. Current planning
application review processes limit the ability for the City to adequately and comprehensively assess
project impacts on the City's resources.
• Recommendation: Study whether or not all large projects should go through the site and design
process and if so, define appropriate criteria to be included in this process, including number of
acres, mixed used square footage, total FAR andlor number of housing units.
14. TENTATIVE MAP PROCESS. TENTATIVE MAP PROCESS PRESENTS DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE SAME
PROJECT TO THE COMMISSION IN SEPARATE HEARINGS.
Negative Impact: process does not allow full project impacts to be revealed and understood.
• Recommendation: Study the Tentative Map Process and develop suggestions that will allow a
more comprehensive understanding of the project's impacts so that the Commission and City can
better address these impacts.
15. PC PROCESS. SOME PROJECT APPLICATIONS DO NOT OFFER ADEQUATE BENEFITS TO THE CITY.
Negative Impact: Lessening the value of the projects that can truly benefit the City.
• Recommendation: Study ways to increase effectiveness of the Planned Community zone. Include
addressing the apparent lack of enforcement of public benefits and conditions of approval in
existing PC's, and require applicants who justifY their projects based on financial
necessity/requirements need to provide financial justification/analysis for review by the
Commission / City.
16. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. CURRENT CIP PROCESS DOES NOT MEET CITY'S STATUTES, AND
PROCESS NEEDS FIXING; PUBLIC AND COMMISSION INPUT; IN PREVIOUS YEARS THE SCOPE OF THE
COMMISSION'S INPUT HAS BEEN TOO NARROW AND INPUT HAS BEEN SOLICITED FROM THE
COMMISSION TOO LATE
Negative Impact: The Commission has not had the required or appropriate opportunities to provide
input into the CIP process.
• Recommendation: Revise CIP process to allow earlier input from the Commission, and also input
that is consistent with statutory requirements. This process has been changed, and
implementation is underway.
17. SUBMITTAL DEADLINES. THE DEADLINES FOR APPLICANT MATERIALS SUBMISSION HAVE NOT BEEN
ENFORCED.
Negative Impact: Projects have substantively changed after review by recommending body, and
without adequate public notice.
• Recommendation: The deadline for applicant materials submission should be enforced. The
deadlines should be adequate for public review by public, staff and reviewing bodies. If
substantive materials are submitted late, after the deadline, and not consistent with the reviewing
body's recommendations then the item should be returned to staff and the reviewing body for
action.
18. DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS, DEE & VARIANCES. EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN PERMITTED
INAPPROPRIATEL Y.
Negative Impact: Projects are being approved with inappropriate exceptions.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 12
• Recommendation: Study and recommend revisions to criteria and purview. This issue is currently
being reviewed by a PTC sub-committee.
19. SETBACKS. SEVERAL PROJECTS BROUGHT TO LIGHT THE FACT THAT EXISTING SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS MAYBE INADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE SIDEWALK, PLANTING AND TREES. EL
CAMINO GUIDELINES WERE APPLIED TO LOCATIONS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE GUIDELINES ..
Negative Impact: The pedestrian experience is not optimal, and safety is compromised
• Recommendation: Study the appropriate setback requirements to accommodate adequate trees
and plantings, while permitting for a pleasant and safe pedestrian experience. Also, only apply EI
Camino Guidelines along El Camino. If it is deemed desirable to have additional guidelines for
other corridors, develop and adopt those guidelines, possibly using the El Camino Guidelines as a
modeL
TRENDS & OPPORTUNITIES
20. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS TO ALLOW NEW DEVELOPMENT.
Unknown Impact: The City has not fully considered the impacts demolition of existing structures has
on its Comprehensive Plan and environment. Should residential demolitions that upgrade housing
stock be allowed when they reduce the availability of smaller, less expensive housing stock? Should
the City require the analysis of multifamily, commercial and other non-residential buildings to
determine their potential for adaptive reuse before allowing their demolition? Is it reasonable that
demolitions account for half of the materials in Palo Alto's waste stream?
• Recommendation: Study the impact the demolition of existing structures has on the City's
Comprehensive Plan and environment, and develop recommended actions. The data that could
support this study includes the following:
o the gain and loss of residential units as a result of redevelopment,
o the comparative costs to the owner/tenant compared to current rates,
o the gain and loss of retail square footage and income to City as a result of redevelopment,
o the comparative cost to retail and neighborhood serving businesses as a result of
redevelopment,
o environmental impacts of demolition, and
o benefit analysis to community of redevelopment for use in policy decision as to
rate/scale/type of redevelopment most beneficial.
21. OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW.
Negative impact: the City has missed or is at risk of missing or delaying several opportunities to work
with Caltrans to improve traffic flow and the bicycle network in Palo Alto.
• Recommendation: Engage Caltrans earlier on the identified opportunities to improve traffic flow
and the bicycle network in Palo Alto
22. Bus SERVICE. VTA CONTINUES TO REDUCE BUS SERVICE FOR PALO ALTO
Negative Impact: Significant reductions in opportunities for residents and visitors to use public
transit and thereby reduce environmental impacts.
• Recommendation: Engage more proactively with VT A to insure the City's bus needs are being
met.
INFORMATION ITEMS
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 13
23. PUBLIC AMENITIES/BENEFITS. PUBLIC AMENITIES/BENEFITS ARE BEING SUPPORTED:
Positive Impact: Public Amenities provide a community benefit.
• Recommendation: Encourage true public benefits for PC developments and in particular the
dedication of more parkland in proportion to population growth.
24. SAFETY. PALO ALTO'S TRAFFIC SAFETY, BIKE-ABLE AND WALK-ABLE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE BEING
SUPPORTED:
Positive Impact: There is continued satisfaction in both the results and the prOcess of integrating the
City's Traffic Control and Calming Projects:
• Recommendation: Continue to support these programs and evaluate their results post
implementation. Consider improvements to arterial routes that reduce impacts on residential
neighborhoods (such as improvements to northbound EI Camino Real right turns onto Oregon
Expressway, so as to reduce cut-through traffic on Pepper Avenue).
2008 -2009
Planning and Transportation Commission
Annual Report to Council
Appendices
February 15,2010
Appendices
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Comnlission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 15
ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL
Background and Report Purpose:
In 2006 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recognized several issues:
• That the staff's Comprehensive Plan Update report was overly administrational and not action
oriented in its content and format to influence current policy making;
• That eliminating this report freed up significant staff resources; and
That the rate of change impacting the City's lands was occurring significantly more quickly than
the Comprehensive Planning cycle.
Therefore at its fall 2006 retreat the PTC decided to prepare an annual Planning Commission report to
City Council evaluating development and other projects in Palo Alto that had come before the PTC
occurring over the last year and their impacts on the City. In this way the Report would become a more
effective tool to address demographic changes, technological development and environmental challenges
and more effectively implement the Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The function of the report is to identify emerging trends in the community, serve as a basis for identifying
issues and making recommendations for the City Council to take actions, and to serve as an annual
repository of critical planning data.
The Commission intends that this report be used to enable better alignment of the City's long term land
use policies and processes with Palo Alto's community values, its governing documents and the evolving
needs of the community.
Process:
For preparing the report the PTC subcommittee has been working with staff to:
1. Identify major projects over the past year 06-07 and compare it to key Comprehensive Plan
policies/programs, and the Palo Alto Zoning Code.
2. Identify the short-and long-term trends and issues resulting from the developmental trend.
3. The following data sources were consulted to perform the analysis for the report, (See the attached
CD for the data, which can also be downloaded at URLxxxxx.)
a. Pertinent school enrollment data from new housing construction;
b. Number of residential building permits issued within this time frame;
c. Number and type (BMR, market rate) of dwelling units approved and entitled through the
planning department within this specified time period;
d. List of multifamily residential projects in the "pipeline," the previous land use, existing zoning
district and type of housing proposed;
e. Number and type of residential demolition permits issued and replacement structures;
f. Transportation data as applicable;
g. Rezoning applications and/or approved rezoning within this specified time period;
h. List of commercial development in the ARB process and commercial development approved by
the ARB within this specified time period;
i. List of commercial building demolition permits issued and list of new commercial building
permits issued (identify gain or loss of commercial square footage);
j. Changes in single-family residences in square footage.
Appendices
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 16
Commissioners:
The Commission is composed of seven members who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of
the City, and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto. Terms are for four years and commence on
August 1. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 16.48. Palo Alto residency is a
requirement.
2006 -2007 Commissioners were Karen Holman (Chairman), Lee Lippert (Vice-Chair), Pat Burt, Dan
Garber, Arthur Keller, Paula Sandas, Samir Tuma.
2007 -2008 Commissioners were Karen Holman (Chairman), Daniel Garber (Vice-Chair), Pat Burt*,
Susan Fineberg*, Arthur Keller, Paula Sandas, and Samir Tuma, Lee Lippert.
2008 -2009 Commissioners were Daniel Garber (Chairman), Samir Tuma (Vice-Chair); Susan Fineberg,
Karen Holman, Arthur Keller, Lee Lippert, Fabio Rosati*, Paula Sandas*.
*Indicates that the Commissioner was not on the commission the entire year.
Appendices
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 17
ITEMS AND ISSUES
All of the The development projects and policy items from the three fiscal years from 2006 to 2009, that
the Commissioner's identified issues with, are charted in the following spreadsheets.
All of the spreadsheets "roll-up" the items. Meaning if a particular item came before the Commission
more than once over the fiscal year, that item is only shown once. For instance "Stanford Projects" came
before the 2008-09 Commission 4 times but it is only shown once.
Both development project and policy items that came before the commission are on the left, and the
Issues that the Commissioner's identified are at the top. Each year the project or policy item appear before
the Commission, the year is recorded in the columns C, D.& E. The number of issues each items contains
is summed on the right. The number of projects each issue is supported by is shown at the bottom.
Items Sequentially & by Issue.
This chart show the items from 2006-09 and is sorted to show the items sequentially, earliest at the top.
The issues, across the top of the chart, are sorted by assigned number. The chart simply shows how the
items and issues are arrayed over time.
Items HOT List
This chart is sorted to show the items that have the most issues, on top. The issues that have the most
items have been sorts to the left. There for the items and issues that are highest and most left are the
"hottest" items and issues the Commission dealt with.
2006-07 Items
This chart is sorted the same as the HOT List but only includes the items from the 2006-07 fiscal year.
The development projects items and the policy items have also been counted on this sheet.
2007-08 Items
Same as above but for the 2007-08 fiscal year.
2008-09 Items
Same as above but for the 2008-09 fiscal year.
Policy Items
This chart compiles just the policy items from all three years and is sorted the same as the HOT List.
Proj Devel Items
This chart compiles just the project development items from all three years and is sorted the same as the
HOT List.
Report To COuncil
2008-2009
Palo Alto Planning Transportation Commission
Items Sequentially & by Issue
M:\Users\Dan\I'TC\2009\Annual Report to Council\PTC Ilems 07, OS, 09 v3.xlsx Items Sequentially & by Issue printed 11/3/2009
Report To Council
2008·2009
Palo Alto Planning Transportation Commission
Items HOT List
57 441 Page Mill Road ................. _ .. _ .. _ ... _ ... _ .... "
60 Basements
Count
M:\Users\Dan\pTC\2009\Annual Report to Council\PTC Items (fl, OIl, 09 VS.I<ls.ltems HOT List printed 11/3/2009
Report To Council
2008-2009
Palo Alto Planning Transportation Commission
2006-07 Items
4 Copltallmprovements Program
._._~_2._~~.~.!.r~i~I~~.~S.~L .. _ .. _ .. _. ____ _
25 P& TC Report to Council
26 Retreat
___ .~.~.~.!'.i~~.p'!.~ .. p'.~.'i~.i~.~.~~!J.~~,=~~u:~_._._ .. _._.
_._.~~~~~~.~n.~~iI~':v..~:?!~':r'.~.~~.~!.'<'.'I:'~~ .. ~~L_._
........ ~~ .. ~?~~n.!.~'!.'~~~_r::~~.:~: .. s.~~!~~~~~i~.ity._
31 ZOU Projects
06-07
06-07
06.()7
06-01 .... ".~.-,.-.. -.---.. ---.... -.... ~,~-.. -,.-" ·· .. ···"-··-.. ~ .. -·POiltY-itemsco;nt ...................... _ .. _ .. _ ..... -
Development Projects Count 24
M:\Users\Dan\PT""OO9\Annual Report to Council\PTC Rems 07, 08, 09 v3.xls. 200tH!11tems printed 11/3/2009
Report To Council
2008-2009
Palo Alto Planning Transportation Commission
lOON)8 Items
47 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Community Bus Studv
35 Annual Report to City Council ...................... _ ..... _ ....... _._ .. _ ... _ ...... _ .. _.~ ... -." ... -."" ..... .
36 Commission Retreat
37 Comprehensive Plan Update
------------------~r_---
45 Housing Programs Study Session .......... _ ... _._ ....... , .. _--, ............................. -".-.-.'-" .... _.,-_."_ ... '"'-
46 Pepper Avenue ·············_-_··_·· __ · __ · __ ··_·· __ ·· __ ·_···poiiCiiiems Count
Development Projects Count
M:\Users\Oan\PTC\2009\Annual Report to Countll\PTC Items Q7, OS, 09 v3.xlsx 2007-08 Items
13
printed 11/3/2009
Report To Council
2008-2009
Palo Alto Planning Transportation Commission
2008-09 Items
Total Items Count 36 .... _. __ .~.~~!.t.a.I .. I.~p..:.~~~.~.~.t~ .. ~~~~.~ ..... _ t .. 06-07 •...•... + ........... ·I .. ··.O ... 8 .. -.. () ... ~.) ... 1 ...... + ... + ..... ,i .... -t .... + ... + ..... ,O...,j ........... j •..... + .... + ..... + .... Ie ...... + .... + ....... + ... ,
3a ~.~~mbln.I.?.s...o.!strlct ~nd/~~.~~!s.~.~~~.~.~.c.~~t.~.~.z..?.~!~g t............ +.0 ... 7 .. -0 ...... 8 ... +.(.1 .. 8 ..... 0 ... y .... 1 .••• + ... + .... , ... ,.-.. + ... + .... .,. • ....., ......... !······+···+····--t·.· .• lf .•• · •..• + .... +.···-j-··+.··,:···"+.+ ... 1_ ·f ..... i! .•.•.•.• !
61 Baylands
-,~--...... --.. , ... , ... , ....... ,.~" ..... ~.-"" ..• "".~.".,.,._,._,
64 Exceptions and Variances ................................................ _ ..... -............ -.............................................. + ............ +_ ............ + .................... 1"""'",.._ ..
65 Extended Stav Hotels
.... -" •• " •• ,,-,-•• -,--.---..... ., .. « .. ~.,-••• -,.-.... ~-, ...... , •• ,. •• ,." .... ,., ...... ,.,." .... _,._" ...
67 Hotel Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Changes
... .,,, .. , .... _ .. "' ••••••• """""~"H"'""'"" ., .""" ".".". _ ••• _._
72 • 35 Annual Report to City Council
36 Commission Retreat
37 Comprehensive Plan Update ·_·_·_··_ .. «._._._ .... ·., ... _'."'"m ..... '~·.·.· .. ,· ... ·, .. ··~·_~·_, .. _,~.~»_ .. _ .. _ .. ~_ ... _ .. _.
60 Basements
70 Palo Alto Airport
Policy Items Count
Development Projects Count
M,\Users\Oan\PTC\2oo9\Annual Report to Councll\PTC Items 07, 08, 09 v3.xlsx 200B-09ltems printed 11/3/2009
Report To Council
2008-2009
Palo Alto Planning Transportation Commission
Policy Items
4 Capital Improvements Program 06-07
38 G Combining District and/or Neighborhood Center Zoning 07-08
46 Pepper Avenue 07-08 ............ _ ............... _ ..... """-"_.,,.-"""". """"."""". +"."""",,. "+,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1'"'''''''-''''''''1''",,,,,,-,,,,,,-+,,,,,-,,1,,''''''';'''''''''''.,,""+ .. ,,"
47 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Community Bus Study 07-08
"" .. "._"._" .... " .. """ ... " .. """._"-" ... """"" .. " .... "_ .... " ... ",, ... ,, ... ,, .......... ,, ......... " ... " ...... _" t-""·-""""+""""·"""""I·"""· _1· .. " .. +· .. "'+"""'"'''''+'''''
61
63
64 Exceptions and Variances ,.rn._ •• __ ~. __ .,_,._ •• _,_, •••• ~ ___ ,~ ____ , •••. _. ___ ._. __ ._" ___ '~"M ___ '''''_''''"'~
65 Extended Stay Hotels
67 Hotel Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Changes
........ ~.~.~~ .. r.~!~i."'.lJ.!~L ............. " ... " ..
.... " .. ~.~.~.~:.c.!I.:~o .. ~.:,:~.~~!I.
26 Retreat
27 Revised PTC policies and procedures
29 Sustain ability Programs and Policies (SS)
.. " ... ~~ .. ~.?~.~~?l.~~~ .... _ .... " ........... " ...... _ ...................................... .
..... _~s. ... ~~~~.~~~ .. p..~~ .. t.~,,~i~.~?~~~i! ....... " .......... " ................. .
36 Commission Retreat
.. ~.?5?~.p..~.~.~~~~.1~~ .. ~1.?? .. ~~.~~~~."
45 Housing Programs Study Session
,.~,~." .... ~ .. -........ ~ ... -.. ~.-.-.......... -.-.. ,-.,_ .. _ .......... _._ .. _ .. _._ ... _._ ... _.-
60 Basements
66 Historic Covenants for Residential Zones
70 Palo Alto Airport
Count
M:\Users\Dan\PTC\2009\Annual Report to COuncil\PTC Items 07, 08, 09 v3.xlsx Policy lIems printed 11/3/2009
Report To Council
2008-2009
Palo Alto Planning Transportation Commission
Devel ProJ Items
M:\Users\Dan\PTC\2OO9\Annual Report to Councll\PTC Items 07, 08, 09 v3 .• 1sJc Devel Proj Items printed 11/3/2009