HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1561City of Palo Alto (ID # 1561)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 5/2/2011
May 02, 2011 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 1561)
Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine}
Summary Title: 525 San Antonio-zone change & comp plan amend
Title: Public Hearing: Request by SummerHill Homes on Behalf of A&D Protocol
Transportations Inc. for a Zone change from R-1 (8000) to RM-15 (Low Density
Multiple-Family/Village Residential), a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
assign the Village Residential Land Use Designation to a 2.65-acre site currently
designated Single-Family Residential and in use as a preschool/daycare center at
525 San Antonio Road; and Approval of a Record of Land Use Action.
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
As set forth in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), staff and the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City Council deny the applicant’s
request for a Comprehensive Plan re-designation to Village Residential land use and RM-15
(Multi-Family/Village Residential) zoning of the 2.65 acre site currently designated Single-Family
Residential and zoned R-1 8000 (Single Family Residential with 8,000 square foot (s.f.) minimum
lot size).
Executive Summary
This report conveys to the City Council the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC) and staff to deny the application submitted by SummerHill homes on
October 25, 2010 to:1) amend the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designation of the
entire site from Single Family Residential to Village Residential to allow for up to 20 housing
units per acre and (2) rezone the site from R-1 (8,000) to RM-15 (Multiple Family/Village
Residential) for the eventual development as a Village Residential community featuring small
lots with 26 detached homes distributed throughout the site. The site is currently in use as a
private day care center, which is scheduled to close in June 2011. The Comprehensive Plan and
zone changes necessary to accommodate the originally planned 26-unit project (as well as the
later downscaled 23-lot alternative concept for development) was recommended for denial by
the PTC by a vote of 6-1 on March 23, 2011. The P&TC’s recommendation was based upon
existing Comprehensive Plan polices and prior Council direction on May 12, 2010 regarding
prohibiting designating R-1 zoned sites for increased housing density and the preference for
locating housing density increases within one-half mile of transit stations or on sites that are
May 02, 2011 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 1561)
well served by transit. While bus service is provided within one-quarter mile of the project site,
the San Antonio CalTrain station in Mountain View is more than one half mile from the project
site and is not afforded frequent train service. The recommendation for denial on this project
reflects an acknowledgement of that Council direction. Though an initial study was prepared
and is attached to this report, a denial is considered statutorily exempt from analysis and
determination of environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The applicant’s attorney has submitted a summary of their concerns regarding staff’s
position and interpretation of Council’s May 12, 2010 direction, reflected in a letter prepared
by their attorney and attached to this report (Attachment L). This is also briefly addressed in the
Discussion section of this report.
Background
The project site is located at 525 San Antonio Avenue, a 2.65 acre site consisting of two parcels
(147-08-047 & 1487-08-046) zoned R-1 (8000) (Single Family Residential) and regulated by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.12, requiring a minimum residential lot size of
8,000 square feet. The Peninsula Day Care Center, a privately operated non-profit child care
center and preschool on the site, will close in June after approximately 37 years of operation, as
the remaining founder is retiring and selling the property. The R-1 zone allows for the daycare
use via approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The daycare center, established prior to the
CUP requirement, is operated in seven structures providing over 18,700 s.f. of floor area
supported by a parking facility, play areas and minimal landscaping.
A site location map is provided as Attachment B. The site is bounded by San Antonio Avenue ,
Palo Alto Unified School District’s (PAUSD) Greendell campus (zoned Public Facilities), RM-15
zoned parcels and R-1 (8,000) zoned parcels in the Greendell single family residential
neighborhood. Access to the site is from the San Antonio Avenue frontage road. Five single-
family, single-story residences abut the site on the west on R-1 (8000) zoned parcels ranging
from 8,030 s.f. to 10,313 s.f. in area and fronting Ferne Avenue. The two adjacent multi-family
zoned (RM-15) properties are approximately 15,700 s.f. and 16,600 s.f. in site area, each with
two housing units on the cul-de-sac Byron Street, which supports two additional, developed
RM-15 zoned properties. A private educational facility (Gideon Hausner Day School) and an
affordable housing community (Palo Alto Gardens Planned Community) are located across San
Antonio. The 48-unit Rosewalk residential condominiums and the site of the approved Hewlett
Packard (Mayfield) residential development are also across San Antonio closer to Alma Street.
An application for tentative subdivision of the site into 10 parcels for single family residential
development was approved by Council in 2002 but has since expired. At that time, the P&TC
had voted 5-2 to recommend the map, with discussion centered on two issues: (1) the loss of a
child care facility contrary to Comprehensive Plan Policy C-11, and (2) the potential for the site
to yield additional housing units if developed at a multiple-family residential density.
Discussion
The applicant proposes to (1) amend the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designation of
May 02, 2011 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 1561)
the entire site from Single Family Residential to Village Residential to allow for up to 20 housing
units per acre and (2) rezone the site from R-1 (8,000) to RM-15 (Multiple Family/Village
Residential) for eventual development as a Village Residential community featuring small lots
with 26 detached homes distributed throughout the site. The project application was
submitted in October 2010. A second, revised conceptual site plan for 23 detached homes and
dual zoning (R-1(6000) and RM-15) was more recently provided for staff and P&TC
consideration, following neighborhood meetings, and can be found linked with the March 23,
2011 P&TC report on the City’s website.
Analyses of both concepts were provided in the P&TC staff report (Attachment E), which, along
with the draft Record of Land Use Action, supported denial of the application. Attachment F is
a set of Commissioner questions and staff responses regarding the project.
Zoning
The development concept is not an allowed use per the City’s current zoning code (Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 18.12) and Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The 26 single
family residences would exceed the allowable density under the R-1 (8,000) standards and the
lot sizes would be 3,500 s.f. to 4,000 s.f. smaller than the minimum lot size required for R-1
(8000)parcels, hence the request for rezoning. A density of 26 residences (or 23 residences)
would also exceed the Comprehensive Plan’s maximum density of one to seven units per acre
for single family residential uses, thus the Comprehensive Plan amendment is requested. The
2.65 acre site could accommodate a maximum of 12 single family residences under the existing
Comprehensive Plan designation and the R-1(8000) zoning and deduction of roadway area. The
original 26 home proposal would therefore more than double the allowable population density
on the site.
Commission Review and Recommendation
The Planning and Transportation Commission considered the proposed project at a public
hearing on March 23, 2011 (Staff Report and minutes included as Attachment E). There were 14
public speakers; many were from the nearby neighborhoods and were concerned about the
potential strain on resources and the unpredictability of ‘up-zoning’, and some noted concerns
about the access and cumulative environmental impacts. The issues discussed by the P&TC
members included the Council’s direction in May 2010 regarding precluding density increases
on R-1 zoned sites, the site’s location beyond ½ mile from the Mountain View CalTrain station
and the lack of frequent commuter service, a concern over the baseline for traffic analysis being
the existing daycare facility versus the underlying R-1 zoning, and concerns about neighborhood
walkability.
Due in large part to staff’s representation of the City Council direction on May 12, 2010
regarding preservation of R-1 parcels (Attachment K), the P&TC supported staff’s
recommendation to deny the project by a vote of 6-1. The dissenting vote by Commissioner
Martinez was to express that R-1 zoning does not seem appropriate for the entire site.
Commissioner Martinez encouraged the applicant to move forward with the revised proposal,
his primary reason being that Council should evaluate the impact of its prior direction relative
May 02, 2011 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 1561)
to increased density on this R-1 site. He indicated that the City wants housing near existing
commercial, bus lines and community facilities such as parks and schools. He also stated that
the concept plan provided a good transition between R-1 and multi-family uses. Commissioner
Martinez also had concerns with the site being developed under its current R-1(8000) zoning
that would allow for larger, more energy inefficient homes which is contrary to the direction
future development should be taking.
Applicant’s Attorney’s Letter
The applicant’s attorney’s letter (Attachment M) expresses concern about potential interest in
the site by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) as forming the basis for the applicant’s
perceived staff shift in policy direction on this project. A letter from the PAUSD (Attachment K)
was previously provided to City staff, reflecting the District’s lack of interest in pursuing
purchase of this parcel, and staff has not adjusted its recommendation over time based upon
PAUSD interest or lack of interest in the parcel. Instead Staff’s recommendation for denial is
based on the current Comprehensive Plan policies to preserve the character of existing
residential neighborhoods and to focus upzoning in areas well served by transit as well as the
Council’s May 2010 housing direction not to upzone R-1 neighborhoods that are not well served
by transit. Staff also noted that a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment such as this is
entirely discretionary and the City is under no obligation to approve the requests (unlike
arguments that might be made in a quasi-judicial setting).
Alternative
As noted in the Discussion section of this report, the applicant provided staff with a revised
concept plan for 23 detached homes for P&TC review. The revised concept reflects six single
story homes abutting the five single story Greendell homes along the western property line,
with a transition to larger two story homes closer to the neighboring RM-15 zoned properties
along Byron Street. In addition to the reduction in the number of homes and a commitment to
single story homes at the R-1 edge, the revised concept plan also indicates full driveway aprons
for each home, allowing for additional off-street parking. The 23-lot alternative concept initially
accompanied an alternative rezone concept for R-1(6000) zoning for six homes abutting the R-
1(8000), which would have not required a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the portion of
the site abutting the R-1(8000). This concept was shared with the P&TC; however, the six home
sites did not meet the 6,000 s.f. minimum lot size criteria, given the roadway area deduction, so
the alternative zoning concept was not pursued.
If the Council is supportive of the RM-15 rezoning and Village Residential Comprhensive Plan
Amendment to support the revised concept plan for 23 homes instead of the original 26 home
proposal, then direction to P&TC and staff should be provided to prepare a draft Ordinance for
the rezoning, a draft Resolution for re-designation of the land use, and a recommendation on
adoption of the CEQA documentation.
Resource Impact
Any development of the property would be subject to citywide traffic impact fees and the San
May 02, 2011 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 1561)
Antonio/West Bayshore traffic impact fee. Fees to address impacts on parks, community
centers and libraries would also be required. The City’s park-in-lieu fee and facilities fee is
intended to offset impacts on park facilities, community centers and libraries from
development projects. Subdivision projects are subject to payment of parkland dedication fees.
If the property were “upzoned” the pending reassessment of the property value would result in
a substantial increase in property taxes. If Council directs staff to return with documents for
further consideration and approval of this application, additional information about resource
impacts would be provided.
Policy Implications
The proposed project is not supportable since it is not consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site or with Comprehensive Plan policies for locating
increased housing density near transit, and the Council has given specific policy direction to
avoid rezoning R-1 properties to higher densities. Though bus service is provided, the closest
train station to the site is located more than ½ mile away from the subject property, in
Mountain View, and that station is not afforded frequent train service.
Environmental Review
This project, if considered approvable, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requirements. Staff completed a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Attachment J) for the re-designation, rezoning and 26-home concept plan for presentation to
the P&TC. The document was posted on the City’s website with the P&TC staff report and was
advertised and made available for public review between January 28, 2011 and February 17,
2011; no written public comments were received on the document. CEQA Guidelines Article 18,
Section 15270 Statutory Exemptions, notes that CEQA does not apply to a project a public
agency rejects or disapproves; therefore, the recommended denial does not carry any
requirement for a final determination of potential impacts in accordance with CEQA.
COURTESY COPIES
Katia Kamangar, Summerhill Homes
Penny Ellson, Greenmeadow Homeowners’ Association
Srini Sankaran, Greendell Homeowners’ Association
ATTACHMENTS:
·Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action for Denial (DOC)
·Attachment B: Site Location Map (existing zoning)(PDF)
·Attachment C: Comp. Plan Land Use & Circulation Map (Excerpt)(PDF)
·Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (PDF)
·Attachment E: P&TC Staff Report & MInutes, 3/23/11 (PDF)
·Attachment F: Commissioner Questions & Responses (PDF)
·Attachment G: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)
·Attachment H: 26-Home Site Plan (PDF)
May 02, 2011 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 1561)
·Attachment I: 23-Home Concept (PDF)
·Attachment J: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)
·Attachment K: Council Minutes of May 12, 2010 on Housing Element Direction (PDF)
·Attachment L: Letter from PAUSD, 1/12/2011 (PDF)
·Attachment M: Applicant's Attorney Letter, 4/13/11 (PDF)
·Attachment N: Correspondence (PDF)
Prepared By:Jason Nortz, Planner
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
1
APPROVAL NO. 2011-2
DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO DENIAL OF 525 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE APPLICATION:
REQUEST FOR REZONE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT (LAND USE MAP RE-DESIGNATION)
10PLN-00364 SUMMERHILL HOMES ON BEHALF OF A&D PROTOCOL
TRANSPORTATIONS, INC.
On [Date], the Council denied a request for: (1) a re-
designation from Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Designation to Village Residential Land Use Designation, and
(2) a rezoning from R-1 8000 (Single Family Residential, 8,000 s.f.
minimum lot size) to RM-15 zone, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.The City Council finds,
determines, and declares as follows:
A.On October 25, 2010, SummerHill Homes, “Applicant”
submitted an application and fees to request a Zone Change and a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with the intent for eventual
development of a village residential, 26 unit single family
residential Subdivision (“The Project”).
B.On March 2, 2011, the Applicant submitted a revised
concept plan, rezoning and land use re-classification proposal for
23 homes for staff’s and Planning and Transportation Commission
(“Commission”)’s consideration.
C.Following staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission reviewed the project on March 23, 2011,
and concurred with staff’s recommendation for denial based upon the
findings herein.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review. An Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and notice of intent were
prepared and circulated for a 20-day public comment period from
January 28, 2011 through February 17, 2011. The study analyzed the
original proposal for rezoning the entire site to RM-15 and
reclassification of the entire site to Village Residential, with a
development concept for 26 home sites.
SECTION 3.Finding for Denial of Rezone. Pursuant to
PAMC Chapter 18.80, the following Commission-recommended denial
findings are hereby affirmed by the City Council to deny the
requested zone change:
2
The requested change of district boundaries (rezoning) would not be
in accord with the purposes of this title (Title 18) and would not
be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The purposes of (Title 18) shall be to promote and protect the
public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and
general welfare, including the following more particularly
specified purposes:
(a) To further, promote, and accomplish the objectives, policies,
and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan;
(b) To lessen congestion and assure convenience of access; to
secure safety from fire, flood, and other dangers; to provide for
adequate public health, sanitation, and general welfare; to
provide for adequate light, air, sunlight, and environmental
amenities; to promote and encourage conservation of scarce
resources; to prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of population, to facilitate the creation of a
convenient, attractive and harmonious community; to attain a
desirable balance of residential and employment opportunities;
and to expedite the provision of adequate and essential public
services to the community.
·The existing zoning of the site, single family residential
R-1 (8000), would allow for development of single family
homes on larger lots (8,000 s.f.) and thereby maintain a
balance of density adjacent to a neighborhood having the
same zoning and density. The requested rezoning to RM-15 to
enable a subdivision containing residential lots between
3,000 s.f. and 4,500 s.f. would more than double the density
on a site intended for larger lot single family residential
use.
·The proposal is for an increase in residential density for
‘village residential’ multiple family housing on a site
having a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Single
Family Residential. The proposal is not in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan, since Village Residential housing is not
permitted in single family neighborhoods. Further, Goal L-3
text notes “Eichler homes were oriented towards private
backyards” and encourages “protection of privacy if second
stories are added” and states “in some single-story
neighborhoods, second stories are not desirable.” Policy L-
12 states, “Preserve the character of residential
neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to
be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent
structures.”
3
·Comprehensive Plan Program T-3 states, “locate higher
density development along transit corridors and near multi-
modal transit stations.” The site is beyond ½ mile from
transit station, so is not well served or likely to be well
served by transit; therefore, rezoning a low density parcel
to increase density of housing on the site is contrary to
Council policy for location of more dense residential
development within ½ mile of transit stations well served by
transit.
·Council discussion regarding the Housing Element on June 23,
2010 included reiteration that denser housing should be near
transit stations and direction to not rezone R-1 areas to
higher density housing.
4
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_____________________________________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by _____ titled “______”, consisting of ___
pages, dated _____, (revised ______), and received ______.
2. ...
3. ...
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
March 23, 2011
DRAFT EXCERPT
525 San Antonio Rezoning and Comp. Plan Amendment*: Request initiated by SummerHill
Homes on behalf of A&D Protocol Transportations Inc. for a Zone Change from R-1 (8000) to
RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family/Village Residential) and a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to assign the Village Residential Land Use Designation to a 2.65-acre site currently
designated Single-Family Residential and in use as a preschool/daycare center. Environmental
Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Good evening Commissioners. The proposal is to
rezone a 2.6-acre site and assign a Village Residential Land Use Designation to allow
development following the Village Residential development standards. This is the first request
for the Village Residential Land Use Designation. A zoning table was provided as a Report
attachment to allow for comparison among the standards for R-1 (8000), R-1 (6000), RM-
15/Village Residential, and the project. Staff’s slide show includes images from the existing
zoning of the area, which you can see on the screen here. I am going to go ahead and point with
the fancy laser pointer.
This is the site. It is two parcels and is adjacent to the Greendell Elementary School, or former
elementary school. Here is the Greendell tract of many Eichler homes. The Greenmeadow tract
is on this side of the Cubberley campus. The slide show includes the Comprehensive Plan
existing land use designation you will see the red box here. It has the single-family residential in
the yellow land use designation.
Also we have the applicant’s revised proposal, which of late shows an interest in putting this
piece as R-1 (6000) rezoned from R-1 (8000), and this part of the parcel being an RM-15 to
allow for the Village Residential. This is the applicant’s revised 23-lot proposal showing six
homes along the Greendell tract, and the remaining 17 homes in the Village Residential layout.
The single drive, two driveway cuts onto San Antonio. This shows the preliminary map that
would reflect that 23-lot concept. This is the 26-lot concept that they first came in with back in
October.
This is a 2002 subdivision that was approved but has been expired for several years now for ten
lots that originally came in. So I am going to take you back to the original image so you can
have something to look at about the zoning. The applicant will also have a slideshow showing
the project in more detail, and I believe photographs of the site.
Staff has provided written answers to Commissioner questions. The question topics included the
use of LEED for Neighborhood Development Checklist to analyze the project. The Checklist is
not required for this application since it did come in October. However, the applicant has said
that they would prepare one. We have not received a Checklist for LEED-ND to help with the
analysis.
Other questions included land use, school district capacity and interest in the parcel, allowable
density under the site’s existing zoning, restrictions to the concept plan shown if the rezoning is
approved, maximum house size and comparison to the Alma Plaza homes, and whether any
follow up review by the Planning and Transportation Commission would occur if the rezoning is
approved by Council.
Staff did note that the environmental document on the rezoning and the original 26-home
concept would remain valid if the rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan designation, and the 23-
unit concept were approved by Council, as any impacts would be less than the impacts that were
already identified.
As far as the school issue the discussion of the Housing Element and population concerns on
page 7 of the Staff Report includes a sentence that starts with, “Based on the Palo Alto Unified
School district,” and continues from there. An excerpt from the initial study explanation about
public services, which the environmental document did explain Staff’s finding that there would
be no significant demand for school services therefore a less than significant impact was noted in
accordance with CEQA. Attorney Silver has more to say regarding consideration of the project
relative to schools. I want to say there was a letter submitted by owner and Director Williams
will address that.
So Staff’s recommendation is provided in a Draft Record of Land Use Action for denial, and it
was provided for the Planning and Transportation Commission to discuss and perhaps modify as
desired to forward to the City Council. If the Commission believes as Staff does that the request
is not in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and the Comprehensive Plan. If the Planning
Commission agrees with the Staff’s recommendation to deny the rezoning the written findings
and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission will be forwarded to the
Council within 30 days in accordance with our Municipal Code.
Alternatively, if the Planning and Transportation Commission instead initiates the rezoning and
determines a Village Residential Comprehensive Plan designation can be supported Staff would
then prepare a draft Resolution and Ordinance for the Commission’s review and
recommendation at a future meeting. I will now turn it over to Curtis.
Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you. Since this project involves a
housing project that is adjacent to a school district and many of the public members have
commented on school impacts I did want to just outline the Commission’s purview in this area.
There is a state law that prevents the City from denying a project based on school impacts. We
have discussed this in the past. I just wanted to remind the Commission of that state law
prohibition. We are required to analyze population increases and school impacts. In the
environmental documentation there is an evaluation of that to this particular project and has not
found an impact on school services nor a population impact to the extent there would have been
an impact. Again, state law proscribes the ability of the City to mitigate those impacts by
imposing school impact fees, and that is really the extent of the City’s ability to mitigate any
identified school impacts.
Now I will turn it over to Curtis.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Thank you.
Commissioners, I just wanted to respond. I know you received a letter from the current owner of
the property and in that letter there is a statement that Staff encouraged the proposed
development that has come before you tonight. I just want to clarify that first of all that is a
pretty significant overstatement I think of the Staff’s actions and positions on this request. I am
not sure it was exactly intended that way in any event, but just to respond to it.
Early last year I think it was we were getting a lot of inquiries about this property. Most of the
potential purchasers were interested in multifamily development that was in the RM-30 and
sometimes even RM-40 density range. We indicated I think uniformly to all of those, and there
might have been a half dozen or so that saw us, that there is no way that we could support
something like that. SummerHill came in and they talked to us about RM-30 zoning and RM-15
zoning. We indicated that RM-15 did have or there were some advantages to looking at a
transition that that would serve as a better transition than an RM-30 or RM-40. We did indicate
to them that even better than that was a Village Residential which is more restrictive, it is 12
units per acre maximum, but that what they would need to do is they would need to show that
they could make that transition from the Eichler homes on the one side to the multifamily on the
other, and that they would need to work with the neighborhood to see what the neighborhood
would feel about it. We did not take a position on the project per se, but we indicated that if they
were looking to change zoning that those were probably some of the issues they needed to
address, and we talked about some other detailed issues.
After that time the Council and Planning and Transportation Commission jointly at one point had
a meeting to talk about housing sites, potential housing opportunity sites where we could
intensify zoning to accommodate more housing. Then the Council ultimately in late June of last
year did set some direction for what we should look at. A couple of the key criteria that they
came up with were number one, new or intensified housing should be located close to transit,
areas that were well-served in fact was the word they used by transit. Secondly, they did not
want us to intensify our existing R-1 zoning sites. I think we probably were a bit delinquent in
getting that word directly to this applicant, but nevertheless they were going through the process
with the neighbors. There were a number of neighborhood concerns raised, some of which I
think they have addressed and some of which they have not at this point. Subsequent to that,
later in the year, we did meet with them and talk to them about the fact that Council had provided
this direction, and because of that and because of the adverse neighbor’s response that it looked
to us likely that we would not support this project.
I also would point out that we did have some discussion about the fact that the school district had
or there had been some word that the school district might be interested in this parcel.
Subsequent to that we determined that that was not something that we could not consider as part
of our deliberations, and the Commission cannot consider it part of theirs. In fact, the school
district told us they didn’t have anything going that way and we should proceed with our process.
So here we are. Ultimately, clearly it is the Commission’s, as we always tell applicants, and
Council’s determination as to whether this is a good fit for this property or not. That is a
summary of the history. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Okay, great, thanks very much for that presentation. At this point we will go to the
applicant. My understanding is they have a presentation. You will have 15 minutes in the
beginning and then after public comment you will have an additional three minutes for any wrap
up or any additional comments you want to make. So when you are ready we are ready.
Just as a reminder to the applicant and also members of the public, as you begin to speak a light
will go on, it will be a green light. When you have one minute of time left that will change to
yellow, and at that point you should be thinking about wrapping up your comments. So with that
welcome. Please state your name for the record and we will get going.
Ms. Katia Kamangar, SummerHill Homes, Applicant: Thank you. Good evening
Commissioners and Chair Tuma. I am a Senior Vice President and Managing Director with
SummerHill homes based here in Palo Alto on California Avenue for the past 35 years.
I would like to start off thanking Staff for all of their efforts on our proposal. Not withstanding
the tremendous respect I do have for your Staff we were disappointed with the recommendation
and have to respectfully disagree with it. We believe that we have a compelling basis for our
request. I plan to show you this evening how our requested actions are consistent with the City’s
goals and guiding documents, how the site given its location and adjacencies, access to retail and
transit, is an appropriate location for the requested density of 23 homes, and to respectfully
request your recommendation of approval on our application.
As you are undoubtedly well aware as part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation program
the City of Palo Alto needs to provide its fair share of housing units needed to serve the Bay
Area’s growing population. Not unlike other cities on the peninsula Palo Alto is fairly built out
we all know, which means that planners and developers have to just get that much more creative
in identifying where housing opportunities could lie whether it be from conversion of a
nonresidential use or potentially an intensification of an existing residential zoning designation,
as is the case here before you this evening.
We recognize that Palo Alto is also in the middle of a four-year Comprehensive Plan and
Housing Element Update process and that discussions are underway. My comments here tonight
will be in relation to the existing Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element since those are the
documents that have not been updated yet, until such time that they are I am going to be using
that as my context.
So let’s start in with the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element. The key question here is
where do we find sites that have the necessary characteristics to be good housing sites, good
access to multiple forms of transit, services within walking distance, ones that can withstand
intensification in density without placing an undue burden on the existing residents. I am here
this evening because we believe that 525 San Antonio Road has all those characteristics, and in
fact it does support a number of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies you have in place.
While there are others here, a few of the key ones that I wanted to highlight for you from the
Comprehensive Plan specifically. Our approach is directly in line with Policy L-6 and Program
L-4 by providing a gradual density transition. I will illustrate that in greater detail for you later
in my presentation. We utilized the Village Residential as Curtis mentioned, and as it is
referenced in Program L-13 using small single-family homes and that is directly in support of
this policy and program.
Regarding the Housing Element, and I am not going to read these slides. Obviously there is just
too much text here. I will highlight that our proposal furthers Goal H-1 certainly by providing 20
market rate and three below market rate housing units. We are consistent with Program H-1
given that the site is within walking distance of the San Antonio Caltrain station. In fact, this
program in particular really states very clearly to us that increased housing density along San
Antonio is desired. Both Goals H-6 and H-10 also point to increasing densities and smaller units
for families and children. Our use of Village Residential on small lots really supports that goal
by offering a different home type that is currently found in this particular neighborhood. Our
proposal is also in keeping with Program H-36 by setting aside 15 percent of the units as below
market rate.
Now let’s turn to the zoning and the surrounding land uses. Here is a picture of the property.
Most of you are probably quite familiar with it right on San Antonio Road. Here is an aerial
view of the site kind of to illustrate the context here for you. Here is the site and here are the
existing Eichlers that back up to the site as well as the apartments adjacent along El Camino. So
the site is on one of the city’s main arterials, obviously San Antonio. It carries about 20,000
vehicles per day. With respect to the land uses they are varied. On the west you have the
Eichlers under single-family R-1 (8000). On the north you have the school owned property. To
the south and to the east you have RM-15 apartments, townhomes, as well as commercial uses,
and then RM-30 over here.
So on one side you have the R-1 (8000). I have some imagery here from the Eichlers that back
up to the site. Sere is the other side, which is apartments and these are 22 units to the acre. So
clearly we are in between two very different residential density designations. This is what led us
to the proposal that we have before you. Across the street there is also San Antonio Village,
townhomes and office use, and the Rosewalk townhomes across the street as well.
Here I am highlighting some of the surrounding zoning designations again for you to illustrate
the proposed project site here in white. The R-1 (8000) is here, RM-15 in the light green, which
is 15 units to the acre and office uses, and RM-30 over here off to the left. So the purpose of the
Village Residential is to “serve as a transition to moderate density multiple family districts, or
districts with nonresidential uses.” As I showed that is exactly where our site is. It is next to
multifamily on one side, commercial uses, and then lower density residential on the other. Under
the Village Residential the permitted densities range from eight to 12 units to the acre. So our
proposed project is really based on an overall density of 8.6 homes per acre and what I would say
here is that clearly it is not high density residential, as has been mentioned by some. It is in
progression, going from left to right we looked at the density. You have the Eichlers here
approximately four units to the acre, here is our site. The ones that are crosshatched here on the
left illustrate the fact that we have offered to do single story homes there. So that brings the
density of those down to 7.4 units to the acre. The rest of the site being at nine units to the acre,
and again to the east of us is an existing 22 units to the acre. So a progression in densities and
that is in direct response to the comments received from the neighbors, concerns over privacy.
So we feel that this is an appropriate use for Village Residential zoning designation, and it does
achieve the intended Comprehensive Plan objectives of not having broad changes in density
designations, as I earlier alluded to.
So in addition to being in a transitional area, major arterial, the site has great access to various
forms of transit. Although the Staff Report states that it is not considered transit-oriented
development per the pure definition the site is clearly within walking distance of numerous
transit stations. This yellow circle here is a half-mile radius. The site is shown in blue. While
that is half acres that you see there between us and the San Antonio Caltrain station the walking
distance is yes, .58, but I have walked it. It is a nice 15-minute walk. I would argue it is
definitely in the zone and the intent, and very suitable for slightly increased density.
The site also has great access to neighborhood services and retail. A website called Walk Score
(walkscore.com) that rates walkability of different locations. Here what we are seeing is the City
of Palo Alto between these lines here, the blue lines, our site is down here with the little star.
Zero to 100 with anything over 70 is a great walkable neighborhood. The darker green is the
most walkable. That is downtown, University Avenue, California Avenue. What you see here is
ours is also very walkable and that is because right at Charleston and Middlefield you have nice
shopping, grocery stores, and so on and so forth. So here is our score, it is 78, very walkable.
What I would also like to point out is on their exhibits as well it says transit is within .58 miles of
the site. So very, very close proximity.
Regarding neighbor outreach we engaged with the surrounding neighbors in various formats for
the last six months. Back in the fall we reviewed our initial site plan, which had 26 single-family
homes all two story. The main concerns we heard at that point were school capacity, density,
traffic, parking, loss of privacy potentially for the Eichlers, and potentially setting precedent
having two story homes backing up to the Eichlers. So we took this initial input and looked at
ways to address the concerns raised. Over the past few weeks we had additional meetings with
both Greendell and Greenmeadow. Along the way of course we had several other meetings as
well with our neighbors individually.
What we did in response to the neighbor concerns raised is we introduced, as I mentioned earlier,
single story homes all along that R-1 interface with the Eichlers. That significantly I think takes
the temperature down in terms of concerns with privacy, understandably. We reduced the home
count from 26 to 23. We also introduced 20-foot driveway aprons for all the homes. Initially
some of the homes had more of a five-foot type of driveway apron where you can’t park a car,
and neighbors were concerned that there would be spillover parking into their neighborhoods.
So by introducing full driveway aprons we significantly improved the ability to park cars within
the subdivision. I feel that most people felt that these are very welcome changes and well
received.
So our proposal is consistent with the goals and policies. It is very walkable and well served by
transit, addresses a number of neighbor concerns, and the other thing is that the proposal has very
limited potential impacts as confirmed by the City’s environmental analysis. Under the Land
Use category, which is the diagram I have up here, they have identified no potentially significant
impacts in terms of inconsistencies. Under Public Services here highlighted with a little blue
thing around it are school impacts at the project level and cumulatively speaking are not
considered potentially significant. For context, just looking at it with the current zoning allowing
14 units, and using the City’s and the Palo Alto School District’s student generation rates 14
homes would generate 11 school age children. With our proposed project of 23 homes we would
generate 17 school age children. So the difference between the current zoning and our proposal
is six students, which is why the school impact was found to be less than significant by the City’s
environmental analysis as well as the school district, frankly.
Under the Traffic category, I wanted to touch on this as well because it is extremely unique. It is
rare to find residential development proposals that generate no new traffic. The reason for that is
of course is that the site is currently used as childcare center with over 300 children, 50-some
employees on it Monday through Friday on a daily basis. Based on the traffic study that was
done, which I will also state was done during school hours when school was in session, the
actual traffic counts show that with the proposed development it would generate one-tenth, less
than one-tenth of the traffic that is currently being generated by the current use. So I think those
are very compelling factors in that the City’s own documents point to the fact that it is quite a
low impact residential development. We feel that it is appropriate in the context of the
adjacencies and access to retail, access to transit, and we would request your approval this
evening.
I would like to offer for Mr. Herman Shaw to get up and just speak for a few minutes. He is the
property owner. If that would be acceptable and I still have time.
Chair Tuma: There is one minute remaining on your time.
Mr. Herman Shaw, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. Just to clarify the point, I am not
the property owner.
Chair Tuma: Sir, if you could identify yourself for the public record.
Mr. Shaw: My name is Herman Shaw. I live at 2077 Williams Street in Palo Alto. I have been
associated with that particular site well over 45 years, but as far as the childcare operation it is in
its 37th year. I am not the property owner. My wife who passed away recently the property was
designated to her heirs and to her children, although we had worked together for a number of
years. The actually development of the property is not within my purview. I can only say that
we have cooperated with SummerHill in respect to wanting to do exactly what they thought was
best as far as the parents, the children, and the people that were associated with our center were
concerned. When they approached us a year ago indicating that they had an interest in buying he
property, and that the property had basically been sold to them, we began to cooperate with them
with respect to what the future of our center was going to be. Am I done?
Chair Tuma: If you could just go ahead and wrap up your thoughts.
Mr. Shaw: Okay. Anyway, we cooperated with notifying parents a year in advance of closure.
We provided on March 3rd a daycare fair for each parent that wanted to attend. Approximately
83 percent of the parents attended. There were 29 different caregivers there each separated with
their private table, etc. So that all the parents that were involved in our center could have an
option to see what was available in the entire Palo Alto and the surrounding area.
With respect to traffic, Katia touched on that. Currently as of last Monday we had 336 children
onsite and the majority of those children come in single-family cars both to and from our center
in the morning and in the evening. Also, our buses make 28 trips a day from the center to the
various schools going and coming. We do not bus from home to school but we do bus to about
13 different public schools in the area for those children in our school age program.
So just to recap it all, we have served about 12,000 children in our 37 years. It has been out
passion to provide the best service possible. We support this project because we feel that it is
time to move to other areas and do other things that we might want to do in our shall we say
twilight years of life. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Before we go to the public I want to welcome Commissioner Keller
who joined us at approximately 6:30. Before we go any further I believe he has a disclosure that
he would like to make having joined us.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you Chair. I had a conversation about a week and a half ago or so
with Mr. Baer talking about his work with the developer here. He said that it was currently a
daycare center and he said it was about three acres and that there was an option price of $9.0
million on the property. He and/or the people who were working with the developer met with
the business manager of the school district and there was a discussion about the nature of the
amount of land for a new school. He mentioned, Robert Fried, President of SummerHill Homes.
He talked about the potential for Village Residential. He said that unlike some of the other
developers in Palo Alto SummerHill is good on, as he put it, fence-line issues and in terms of the
adjacency to Ferne is one story, he mentioned that. The question to address is whether we
should increase the density of the land and that potential on the value of the land, but I am not
sure that that is really for the purview of the Planning Commission, but it is a land use issue
whether it should be up zoned and not necessarily related to the quality of plans.
I also had a conversation earlier today with Penny Ellson who pointed out that there are
developments on the Mountain View side of this sort of Mountain View-Palo Alto border. We
are aware of the Mayfield site development that came before us, but we are not directly aware of
the developments that are going on at the San Antonio Center at San Antonio and El Camino.
Apparently there are proposals for increased development in terms of housing and in terms of
additional retail. The question that she asked me and for which I didn’t have an answer was
when we compare in terms of baseline and comparison, do we compare it to the existing which is
I am not sure if it is a conforming use or a nonconforming use, but do we compare it to the
existing use or do we compare it to the existing zoning? Perhaps at some point the City Attorney
can answer that question. That concludes my disclosure.
Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. With that we will go to the public. At this point I have 15 cards.
If there are any other members of the public who would like to speak this evening please submit
a card. We will take those for about another five minutes.
I will call the speaker and then the person to follow them. If the person to follow the current
speaker could come sit down in the first row here before they speak that would help facilitate
things. Again, as you approach if you could state your name for the record and you will have
three minutes. Our first speaker will be Sandra Scaling followed by Osborne Hardison.
Welcome.
Ms. Sandra Scaling, Palo Alto: Thank you, Commissioners. Good evening. I am a resident. I
am not a member of the Greenmeadow neighborhood organization or Greendale. I am very
impressed with the neighborhood community spirit that is here. I live on the other side of San
Antonio Road. I live in the San Antonio Villages townhouses. So my issue with any property
that is developed in this area is the impact on the traffic on San Antonio Road.
I am also concerned about there are 300 children in daycare at that daycare center. That daycare
center has been active for as long as I have raised my children in this area. So I am concerned
what is happening with those families.
San Antonio Road is the major thoroughfare for trucks in and out of our community to Los Altos
and Mountain View. It is the primary road that is used by the major trucks. That is the zoning of
that road. I don’t know what that is but I do know that because the other arteries are Rengstorff
and Embarcadero and those roads are not for trucks. San Antonio is. San Antonio was just
beautifully redeveloped. Unfortunately they forgot to put the bike lane in the middle. It may be
a walker friendly area neighborhood according to the internet, but as someone who lives there,
and now with the new school there, which has been an excellent addition to that community area
it is not a very safe neighborhood to walk through.
Transit is marginal. I cannot take the bus from there to my place of work at the VA Hospital. It
is quicker for me to ride my bike than it is to take the bus. The train is out of the question.
I am worried because this is an access road, a major access road. As evidence we have just had a
major earthquake in Japan, this is a major access road in the event of an earthquake. There are
no other arteries in or out. Developments, pieces of property in Mountain View behind the
Toyota dealership that are vacant and the HP site are huge pieces of property. I am asking the
Commission to be mindful, creative, and innovative when approving our future sites for future
housing, future developments, and the impact on our schools. I
See advertisements on 101 advertising live here, send your kids to Palo Alto schools. I come
from a generation where they were closing the schools, and we were telling the school district
please keep them open the city will change. Young people will come, and they are here, and our
schools are feeling it. My son is a teacher at Gunn High School. Thank you for your time.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Osborne Hardison followed by Warren Storkman. Welcome.
Mr. Osborne Hardison, Palo Alto: Actually I have a slide I wanted to get up. I am homeowner
from Palo Alto. I have been a homeowner since 1995. I live in the Greendell neighborhood.
First off I just want to touch on a couple of corrections I think to the SummerHill presentation.
They are not on or the project is not located directly on San Antonio it is on a little service road
off of San Antonio so the impact on traffic might be a little bit more than implied just being able
to get right on San Antonio there.
The San Antonio station, as you probably all are aware has also been on the list to be closed by
Caltrain, so the implication that that is going to be around might not be so true in the future.
Specifically though I wanted to discuss kind of the proposed development from the standpoint of
its impact on the neighborhood in South Palo Alto, specifically with regard to fair share. I went
through and looked at Census data from 2000-2010 and came up with the chart that you see up
there. It shows that the overwhelming number of new homes in the area have been on the South
Palo Alto side of the city. When you take into account the impact of more houses and what it
does to the schools, the traffic, the infrastructure, and you are thinking about fair share think
about what we have already been burdened with in South Palo Alto. That is pretty much what I
wanted to talk about.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Warren Storkman followed by Srini Sankaran.
Mr. Warren Storkman, Palo Alto: I live in the Fairfield Estates, which seems to be overlooked
many times. We are a group of several homes in there. When I bought my property back in
1954 we were given the impression that this part of the city was going to stay R-1 8,000 square
foot lots and ever since then everybody tries to encroach upon that and cut the size of whatever
they want to do down. Unfortunately I guess the battle is in Oregon Avenue. When the city was
divided in two, when they decided to build Oregon Avenue as most of you probably know the
haves and the have-nots. We are in the south of Oregon Avenue and with the have-nots and we
accept all the unlikely things like we want to have such as the gentleman just mentioned. We are
getting an overabundance, crowding in the area. I just want to say that I would like to see it stay
R-1.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Srini Sankaran followed by Marlene Kawahata.
Mr. Srini Sankaran, Palo Alto: I am the President of Greendell Community Association. As you
can see Greendell is the neighborhood that is right next to 525 San Antonio Avenue. We have
about a little over 100 homes in that community, and six of them are fence line neighbors of 525
San Antonio.
Next slide, please. Greendell is overwhelmingly opposed to rezoning 525 San Antonio Avenue
from its current R-1 (8000) to any higher density housing. Why? There are several reasons and
I will mention a few because we have only three minutes.
The first is schools. South Palo Alto has had an enrollment expansion. Let me focus on
elementary schools and our own neighborhood elementary Fairmeadow. There has been roughly
a 25 percent increase in the number of Fairmeadow area elementary school students/residents in
the last five years. That is an increase of 121 elementary school student residents. It is rather an
understatement to say that the school district has a major challenge in handling this growth.
Increasing the density of housing in this area will make the problem worse.
Next is the general increase in housing in South Palo Alto. We all know that the bulk of recent
housing has been in the south. Between the recently built and the proposed to be built we are
looking at about 1,000 units in just a few years. It is not just the schools but almost all public
facilities in South Palo Alto are difficult to get. For example, just like many people in Palo Alto
I play recreational sports. I coach kids’ sports and such. Getting a playground reserved has been
just extremely difficult. I just found out yesterday that playgrounds at Cubberley are booked five
months in advance. We are already seeing a deterioration in quality of life due to
disproportionate increase in housing in relation to the public facilities we have, adding more
density than what we have planned before in the Comprehensive Plan will be not a good thing.
Third is the traffic on San Antonio Avenue. San Antonio Avenue is a border street between
Mountain View and Palo Alto. We can’t just take Palo Alto. In Mountain View along between
Middlefield and El Camino 475 new housing units have been built in recent years. About 900
new housing units, and another 100,000 square feet of office or retail space is planned for
expansion soon. So just think about that for a second, roughly 1,400 new houses, and 100,000
square feet of new retail space between Middlefield and El Camino on San Antonio. We think
adding more previously unplanned houses to pour into the already crowded street there would
make our neighborhood traffic even worse.
In summary, we think making a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to 525 San Antonio Avenue to
higher density housing is not good for our community. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Marlene Kawahata followed by Neharma Treves.
Ms. Marlene Kawahata, Palo Alto: I live on Calcaterra Place. I would like everyone to stand up
who is here, not everyone is going to talk, but there are a lot of people who took time out of their
busy day to come. Could we all stand up and show you how many people are actually here, all
objecting to this rezoning. So make a note of that.
I as I said object to the rezoning. It is going to tremendously impact the San Antonio Road. We
have lived here since 1993 and I have seen a big increase in traffic already. With these 900-plus
new units coming in a very close area around San Antonio there is going to be a tremendous
effect. What is in it for Palo Alto to increase this density on this piece of property? Do we get
anything out it? Is it of any use to us at all?
Another thing I want to say is I object to them having a private road. I know the Charleston
condo units on Charleston and El Camino there is a problem with the neighbors parking on that
property. I am sure that will affect Ferne. There will be people in that complex that will be
parking on Ferne and causing lots of problems with those private roads.
When people ask me what part of Palo Alto I live in I say I live in the Wal-Mart size of Palo Alto
because that is how I think we are treated. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Neharma Treves followed by Linda Lingane.
Ms. Neharma Treves, Palo Alto: I live on Ferne Avenue and it abuts the daycare center. Before
I moved we had rented a house at 381 Parkside in Greenmeadow. We fell in love with the
neighborhood and we decided to purchase a house, which we did in 1987. That year we
continued to remodel it and we enjoyed it very much. Since then we enjoyed not only the house
but also the neighborhood that was associated with low-density housing area, and outstanding
neighbors. I would like also to say that we enjoyed the children in the daycare whose voices we
hear during the daytime until five o’clock. By then everything calms down and quiet like in a
park surrounds us. We would like to keep it that way. Everybody who supports me please stand
up. Thank you, and thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Linda Lingane followed by Lisa Steinback.
Ms. Linda Lingane, Palo Alto: Thank you. First of all I would like to thank the Commissioners
for taking the time to listen to us all.
I would like to have you takeaway two words from my presentation, and that is right balance. I
want to make a distinction actually between what SummerHill was talking about about a
transition because they are right in terms of numbers that it would be a transition, what they are
presenting. But I want to make a different point. I would like to have the audience as well as
you just take an experiment to make a point, very briefly. To let go of anything in your hands,
please. Let go of everything in your hands. Then to clench your two hands into a very tight fist,
and please do that. Please try. Just experiment with it. Clenching your hands into a very tight
fist and then let go. When you let go look at your hands, notice what your hands look like. Now
if you could clench your hands a little bit less than before, and the reason I am asking you to do
this is so you can feel the difference. Let go. Then do the opposite, spread your hands very wide
and let go. You can feel what the point I am trying to make is that human beings are beings of
balance. They want their hands to be in balance. It is when you stretch too far, you clench too
tightly it is unstable. You can’t keep it that way. You want to come back to balance. Other
examples might be you don’t want food to be too salty or you don’t want it to not have enough
salt. You don’t want favorite tools to be too high or too low, you want them right there in
balance.
The stability is the thing that I wanted to point that I think is behind all these neighbors. The R-1
zoning that is there now is stable. I have been there 30 years and a number of people around me
have been at their homes for a very long time. So the lot size is almost proven because of that
stability to be the right balance. It is the right size.
Stability means that we are attached to our homes. We take pride in them and all of us do. We
are willing to invest ourselves in the homes. It is not just a place to live it is our place to live.
We want to be there for a long time. That sense of ownership spills over into the neighborhood.
I called a number of people yesterday in my area, a number of us are here and some of us could
not come, but we are a few blocks away. We still felt so concerned. When I called maybe 20
people every one was concerned. So right balance please. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Lisa Steinback followed by Penny Ellson.
Ms. Lisa Steinback, Palo Alto: Good evening I live on Creekside Drive, speaking for
Greenmeadow Community Association. The following position statement was approved by
Greenmeadow Community Association last evening with 63 residents present, 60 voted in favor
and three against. Greenmeadow Community Association supports Staff’s recommendation to
deny the applicant’s request for a zone change from R-1 (8000) to RM-15 low-density
multifamily Village Residential, and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Village
Residential land use designation. Staff’s recommendation is consistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan, and with the recently updated Zoning Ordinance, and with direction that
Council has provided regarding the Housing Element Update.
Further, we do not support any alternate zoning change to this site that might increase density of
the project. The developer is not entitled to this increase based on the current zoning and
Comprehensive Plan. Housing and number of square feet built in South Palo Alto during the
term of the current Comprehensive Plan is already more than twice the number of units that were
projected in the Comprehensive Plan EIR and Housing Element. Number of square feet
developed in South Palo Alto overall already exceeds the volume projected in the
Comprehensive Plan. Approval of this project will exacerbate a critical problem of unplanned
housing development, and already is affecting South Palo Alto schools, playing fields, space
availability, and transportation systems.
The purpose of zoning is to provide predictability of land us for planning purposes and to protect
the rights of nearby property owners. Not simply for direct impacts on adjacent properties like
privacy, use, and noise concerns, but also for long-term city planning purposes. For
development of community services and infrastructure that support education, recreation,
transportation, etc. Repeated unpredictable up zoning of smaller sites of the request of
developers on South Palo Alto has created an aggregate growth scenario that was not planned
for. Over the last ten years this has undermined resident’s trust in the City’s commitment to the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning. More important, it has undermined the usefulness of those
policy documents for planning purposes, particularly with regard to transportation, playing field
space, and school enrollment. We ask you to demonstrate with your decision today that the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance mean something that we can rely on. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. I would like to remind members of the audience that we prefer to have
an environment where people are free to speak their minds, and we ask that people neither
applaud nor boo so that all positions can be hear, and people can feel comfortable stating those
positions. Thank you. Penny Ellson followed by Wendy Kandasamy.
Ms. Penny Ellson, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live on El Capitan Place and I am here for
Greenmeadow Civic Affairs Committee. I want to first of all thank Staff and the applicant for
taking time to meet with us and help us understand what is being proposed here.
Within the lifetime of this Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan the City of Mountain View has built
and/or approved a number of massive TOD projects on South Palo Alto’s border. The Crossings
359 units, you will see up here. The San Antonio Circles project 118 units where built within the
half-mile radius of the train station. In addition, in the last five years Mountain View has
approved a Final EIR for the Mayfield Mall, former Hewlett Packard site that permits up to 530
units, which has not yet been built. They are also processing a Draft EIR for the San Antonio
Shopping Center, which would permit an additional 100,000 square feet of retail/office space
and 350 new apartments. Much of this development was achieved through Mountain View
Precise Plan Amendments, and therefore was not accounted for in the current City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan EIR Impacts Analysis.
These projects will certainly impact San Antonio Road at Alma, Middlefield, and Charleston
intersections. The traffic study for the Mayfield Mall EIR subtracts trips for that site’s current
use, which have not been on the road in more than a decade. So the actual automobile impacts of
the massive Mayfield Mall project really are unknown. Neither project projects significant auto
impacts at the San Antonio-Middlefield intersection. We are skeptical.
Each of these projects relied heavily on access to the train station to justify higher density. This
is worrisome because South Palo Alto has experienced, since the train station has opened,
repeated reductions in train service to this train station. This is usually associated with the
addition of Bullet Trains, which bypass San Antonio station. The recent proposal by Caltrain to
close the station raises serious questions about the long-term viability of that station. So we are
concerned. We are also concerned about the lack of funding solutions for a long-term station
there.
In addition, the VTA 35 and 32 bus lines serve this area because they are designed to serve the
train station. So it is not really clear even if we will have the bus service once the train station
goes, if it does. So even with the train station it is stretch to characterize 525 San Antonio as
having good transit access. It outside the half-mile radius from the station on a high-volume
arterial truck route, as you have heard. The pedestrian route to the train station crosses an
expressway at grade, not a pedestrian friendly environment. The traffic study for 525 San
Antonio – I am going to have to stop here.
Chair Tuma: Wendy Kandasamy followed by Shirley Eaton.
Ms. Wendy Kandasamy, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. The traffic study for 525
San Antonio indicates that the project will yield no negative auto traffic impacts in the proposed
project when compared to the current use would actually reduce trips. While this is true, we
think the comparison is inappropriate. T
he study compares the project to a grandfathered, nonprofit use, which is no longer permitted,
which provided a significant public benefit that is in very short supply, affordable local childcare
and preschool services. The community accepted the very significant traffic impacts and
inconveniences of the previous project because the benefits the facility provided were so
important to the community. The same cannot be said of the proposed project. We believe that
the project should not be compared to the previous use, but to the use for which the site is zoned.
In that comparison the project would increase transportation impacts.
Further, we ask the Commission to consider projected combined impacts on San Antonio
aggregate approved Mountain View projects, recognizing that the San Antonio-Middlefield
intersection is already stressed and that the approved Mayfield EIR by subtracting trips that may
not have been on San Antonio Road for a decade fails to measure the actual auto impacts that the
Mayfield project will have on this intersection. Further, it should consider the potential impacts
of the San Antonio Shopping Center growth. That EIR is underway.
The exit from the project via San Antonio Avenue to San Antonio Road already is dangerous to
navigate. It will be more so as these other massive projects move forward. This is an important
consideration.
The site plan presented by the developer includes a gate to the Greendell campus, which the
developer presents as access to Cubberley. This would be an improper characterization of the
connectivity provided by this gate. PAUSD policy limits this use. It says visits during school
hours should be first arranged with the teacher and principal or a designee. To ensure the safety
of students and staff and avoid potential disruptions all visitors shall register immediately upon
entering any school building or grounds when school is in session. Further, any change to
campus access like this gate would have to go through a facility review by PAUSD and cannot
be assumed to be acceptable. Even if approved, it could not be assumed to be permanent
because future plans for the Greendell site are unknown. A review of several years of public
district documents regarding enrollment growth and facilities planning reveals that the site
requires major renovation and has been identified as one of two top choices for a future
elementary school site. Further, a review of such gates – thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Shirley Eaton followed by Martha Sbarbori
Ms. Shirley Eaton, Palo Alto: My husband and I have lived Shasta Drive since 1974. I was
Penny’s predecessor as co-chairman of the Civic Affairs Committee and was therefore
responsible for a good many of the events that you learned about in the history of Greenmeadow
including the single-story overlay, and the conversion of Cubberley High School to Cubberley
Community Center.
To continue with the Greenmeadow point. Further, any change in campus access like this gate
would have to go through a facility review by PAUSD and cannot be assured to be acceptable.
Even if approved, it could not be assumed to be permanent because future plans for the
Greendell site are unknown. A review of several years of public district documents regarding
enrollment growth and facilities planning reveals that the site requires major renovation and has
been identified as one of two top choices for a future elementary school site. Further, a review of
such gates at other elementary school campuses during off hours indicates that many PAUSD
sites lock their gates after school hours. A gate that connects to property owned and controlled
by another body should not be construed as providing connectivity to a City of Palo Alto
Community Center as that gate could, and probably would be closed and locked at most times of
day except school commute times.
The developer has argued that the location on San Antonio Road cannot justify this evaluation
that a single-family development would require. However, families are having single-family
homes right next door in the Greendell neighborhood with some proximity to San Antonio and
they are doing extensive remodeling on top of purchase price at market rates. We think this is
evidence that the market does support single-family valuation at this location. The City has no
obligation to support a developer speculative bid that may depend on up zoning. So therefore we
ask that you keep the current zoning and do not upgrade it. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Martha Sbarbori followed by Lanie Wheeler.
Ms. Martha Sbarbori, Palo Alto: I live on Ben Lomond Drive, Greenmeadow Neighborhood. I
have lived there since December of 1976, which puts me at over 34 years.
Aggregate housing growth. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulations of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project including but not limited to the General Plan,
Specific Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning Ordinance adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect, report cites less than significant impact. We respectfully
disagree. The requested up zoning will more than double the zoned use of the project. Taken by
itself this might not have created a negative impact, however this project must be viewed in
aggregate with all the other projects that have been approved above and beyond growth that was
assumed in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element and EIR in recent years.
A cursory review of the number of units in South Palo Alto in the Housing Element reveals that
through multiple Individual Review Processes that also did not consider aggregates multiple
projects were approved that were not studied in the EIR. When we look at these newly built
projects in aggregate we see that the housing built in South Palo Alto during the term of the
present Comprehensive Plan is already more than twice the projected number of units and square
footage.
In essence, through repeated decisions to approve up zoning of small projects without looking at
aggregates the City has seriously undermined the long-term planning process that should be
rooted in Comprehensive Plan policies. This makes it impossible to plan thoughtfully for long-
term impacts on schools, transportation, parks, playing fields, libraries, etc. To say that the
impact of this project is less than significant is misleading when viewed in this context.
The traffic study associated with this project looks at specific, very localized impacts of this
project comparing them to the current use of the site. This kind of project review has created an
enormous disconnect between the long-term planning process that the Comprehensive Plan is
supposed to provide and type of review that is used for project approval. The aggregate result
has been unplanned overdevelopment.
We respectfully ask you to support the Staff’s recommendation. Further, we do not support any
alternate zoning change that may increase density of the project. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Lanie Wheeler? I don’t see her. Okay, we will pass her over for now.
Susie Siegel followed by Elizabeth Alexis.
Ms. Susie Siegel, Palo Alto: I live on Ferne Avenue in Palo Alto. I am mother of a second
grader at Fairmeadow Elementary. I am a concerned parent about the rezoning to higher density
housing that was currently allowed, as it will increase enrollment in our Palo Alto public schools
that are already out of space. What I wanted to do was highlight four impacts of the increased
enrollment especially on the elementary schools.
In the March 8 Board Meeting Minutes of the Palo Alto School District it notes that there were
strains on district resources, inability to go to their neighborhood schools, the children there.
Also that class size reduction programs were at risk, and that there were some emotional, social,
and physical health concerns. So currently there are strains on the district resources so more
students further strain this. There is little excess capacity. Right now the district has planned for
construction of additional classroom capacity at Ohlone, Fairmeadow, and Duveneck elementary
schools, which total about ten classrooms. It also states in the Board Meetings that from 2009 to
2011 282 new students have enrolled in the Palo Alto School District, so this expansion is
keeping to that growth. They also state that the medium growth is forecasted about 199 new
students for next year, and that the high growth is forecasted at 399 new students for next year.
In terms of parents really wanting to see their students or their children go to their neighborhood
school, last year there was about 100 students that went to overflow schools. So there is this
inability to be able to have your child go to their neighborhood school. There was a research that
was done by the Lapkoff & Gobalet demographic research that stated – and they have been kind
of looking at the Palo Alto School District statistics for quite some time. They show that the
kindergarteners and first graders are surprisingly high, the enrollments, and it continues to grow
in the south cluster.
So since I am running out of time I just wanted to mention that there is the class size reduction
program right now that keeps the K-3rd grade at about 20 students. Right now they are averaging
about 21 moving to 22. They wanted to extend that reduction program into the high schools to
try to keep the classes for special subjects at 20 and it looks like with the increase in the number
of families that may or may not happen.
Lastly, they had taken a survey of the students in terms of emotional, and social, and physical
health and found that as of March 2010 that 31 percent of the students said that they did not have
anyone at the school campus that they considered a mentor. Not a teacher, administrator,
counselor, coach, staff, or other volunteer. That was in section 1.1 of page 2. So we need to help
support these 31 percent before we add more. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Elizabeth Alexis followed by Sandra Rickard.
Ms. Elizabeth Alexis, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. While I am with Greenmeadow
these comments are my own. I would associate myself with those that were made earlier but this
I would like to add.
There were two comments simply about the way the analysis is done. One is on the traffic
impacts, which compares the proposed use to the current school. Unfortunately the current
school is closing in two months. They have announced this. They have told their students to
find a new home. It is really a sad thing for our community. However, in two months there will
be zero trips generated by that space. So I think it is fair enough to look at what would be under
the existing zoning to compare it, but using the current school is probably not a reasonable
method.
The second thing is that repeatedly the documentation talks about that our R-1 (8000) could be
seven units or 14 units or something per acre. Well, it doesn’t work quite that way because it
depends on the exact shape of the lot and the access to the lot, and so on. in this case we can see
that the previous map was probably a pretty good idea of how many houses under the current
zoning you could fit onto that lot, which is ten, which works out to be somewhere between three
and four houses per acre. So I would just encourage you to use the actual parameters of the lot
rather than some generic numbers.
My final point is that I personally believe there are places where we can add housing and we
should be adding housing. This is actually a really bad place for people to live. You want as few
people living there as possible. There are two reasons for this. One, and this was mentioned by
one speaker, but the primary egress from this neighborhood is a shot straight into traffic on San
Antonio Road. It is extraordinarily dangerous. I know that the Planning Department has worked
with the neighborhoods to see if there is anything they can do and nobody has been able to come
up with anything. I would even suspect at some point it becomes closed.
The second thing is that I am listed as a contact for the Greenmeadow Neighborhood and there is
an additional cul-de-sac sort of similar to this one next to it and around the corner. I get calls
from people in the neighborhood who live there saying am I part of Greenmeadow? I am like,
no. They are like, who do I belong to? The answer is no one. So these small inlet lots unless
you do aggressive things to make them look just like the adjoining neighborhood like Greendell
are going to be another island. We should not do that to people. Thank you very much.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Our last speaker is Sandra Rickard.
Ms. Sandra Milne Rickard, Palo Alto: I live on Ferne on the first cul-de-sac off the San Antonio
frontage road. I use that as a major egress when I am going many places. The other end of our
neighborhood or development area is Alma, which is fine but these places are land bound or
bound by their configuration.
San Antonio access road has no egress from past the daycare center towards the Middlefield
corner, or at the other end not quite to Alma but there is access getting up to San Antonio Road.
So it is a long stretch of no egress along the one perimeter.
When I go out, and I do frequently, and I have gotten quite bold so that I can handle it. Many of
my friends won’t handle it who come to visit me. They will not use the egress to San Antonio
Road to get to their homes in South Palo Alto or North Palo Alto past Oregon, because they get
flummoxed, it is too much impact. I want you to understand the physical nature.
You go to the corner past the daycare center and you go to the opening that allows you to cross
into San Antonio Road. Now you can turn right, but people rarely do, to go towards El Camino.
That is not such a problem. But to get out of my neighborhood I have to cross those two lanes
and go to a waiting place big enough for one car. You wait for the traffic light cycle, and you
see the traffic coming up behind you, and it moves very quickly unless it is parking lot time
because the traffic impact is so thick and then it moves very slowly. But there is a paint job on
San Antonio that crosses the two left hand lanes, the two right hand lanes, etc. and cars don’t
obey it. So getting out is a trick. Adding the 23 homes coming out into that area, we line up
along the closed border. You line up to get out. It is doable now. I don’t understand the traffic
study. It has nothing to do with life. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. With that I will close the public comment and bring it back to the
Commission. The applicant has up to three minutes for any closing comments that they would
like to make.
Ms. Kamangar: Thank you. Let me just take on a few of the topics that were mentioned here to
try to address some of them here. Regarding Caltrain everybody is aware that there is a potential
closure list and the San Antonio Caltrain station is on that list. It is not with certainty that that
will happen and nothing will take away the infrastructure that is already there, and that will
remain there. An additional thing that we should be aware of is that as part of the Mayfield
development project they will be constructing an underground pedestrian access from the
Mayfield side of the tracks, under, and onto the Caltrain side, which will provide for definitely
improved and safer pedestrian access. So I think that is a significant improvement and should be
kept in mind as well.
Regarding schools there is no doubt that the school district has capacity challenges, but at the
same time this project with its six student generation is beyond what is allowed by the current
zoning can hardly be called a significant impact in the context of a school district that has an
enrollment of 12,000 students.
I did also want to mention I did have discussions with the school districts, Dr. Kevin Skelly in
particular, about the pedestrian path. I pointed out that it would be done in a similar fashion, no
gate, as is currently at the 90-degree angle in Ferne Drive. If you have been in that community
you can nicely walk from Ferne Avenue to Cubberley to Greendell and beyond. That is a
wonderful feature in a community to connect neighborhoods as opposed to close them off.
Certainly, when I talked to him he was all for that. So if there is a process he was all up for that.
I would also like to acknowledge property owner’s tremendous contributions to the community
with the 35 years of his service as a daycare provider to the community. He has done a
wonderful service to also the families he has by giving them more than a year notice of the
closure.
Lastly, I would say that we don’t think that ten homes using the R-1 zoning is the appropriate use
on this site either, as was indicated by another speaker. The market is extremely efficient. So
when the ten-lot subdivision was approved back in 2002 first of all there was a lot of discussion
about shouldn’t we consider this site for slightly higher density given its location? Ultimately
they had to vote on the project that was before them and they approved it, but clearly the market
has spoken since those houses were never built. I don’t believe the City is interested in adding
ten more houses on San Antonio in the $2.0 million-plus type of price range. I don’t see your
goals in alignment with that.
So in closing I would just say that I believe that we provided a proposal that is in keeping with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element, provides for some moderate increase in
density, and does so in a way that is respectful and light in impacts to the neighbors. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioners, now is our opportunity for combined questions and
comments. We will do a first go around, possibly the only go around, at five minutes apiece.
We will start off with Commissioner Fineberg.
Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with a couple of questions for Staff on the road
width. In the Staff Report on page 4 and 5 it talks about the original development with 26 homes
having a road width of 32 feet, which would be consistent with the new Palo Alto Private Streets
Ordinance. Then it talks about the revised development plan with 23 homes having a private
street of 26-foot width, widening to 32 feet at the end. It doesn’t comment about whether the 26-
foot width is consistent with the new Private Street Ordinance. Is it?
Ms. French: It has not been analyzed. It was such a recent submittal.
Mr. Williams: The provision is if there is parking on the sides of that. In this case they have
added the aprons for each unit. It also has what could theoretically be two off-street spaces in
the aprons that it could be 26. That requires Council approval and Commission approval of the
Subdivision Map.
Commissioner Fineberg: So if there are aprons it is not consistent?
Mr. Williams: The problem with the previous project was that wasn’t anywhere else to park. It
was basically 26 feet and no place to park at or off-street other than the garages, which came
right up to the street. In this case they have pushed that back. The way the language reads is if
there is parking provided on the side of the street either in like turnouts or in this case aprons
then it can be 26 feet. Otherwise if there aren’t then the 32 feet would be required so that you
could have enough width to allow parking on at least one side of the street.
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so let me clarify. If there are aprons then 26 feet is consistent.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Fineberg: Does the current proposal as it stands include aprons for all? I thought
I read it was only some.
Mr. Williams: I thought it was all of them.
Ms. French: The original proposal has some. The 23-lot concept has all with aprons.
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. I am going to take on the difficult task of talking
about school impacts in the moment I have left. When a developer pays an impact fee the
maximum allowed by the state is considered to fully mitigate that impact. Even though because
we are basic aid it is only half of what the calculated maximum requirement is. So it doesn’t
fully mitigate it but we must consider it as fully mitigated. That said, and I understand in my
deliberation I cannot by law consider impact on the schools if the impact fees are paid, however I
have questions about the cumulative impacts on the schools in our Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
The school district has added ten or 15 maybe more trailers in the last few, two or three, years.
They are currently building ten classrooms. They have gone on record that they are going to
need I think the number was something astounding like 50 classrooms in the next five years.
The acquisition of trailers and building that has already happened is in excess of one school, and
40 would be two elementary schools. So at what point do we get to the place where cumulative
impacts matter?
I would differ with the applicant’s numbers. I don’t understand how they calculated. The
numbers I have seen from Lapkoff & Gobalet are single-family homes yield one kid. So if we
are building 23 homes that is a minimum of 23 kids. Every year their numbers go up. So I don’t
see how if we are having 23 more children, we are building a classroom on top of we have
already crossed the threshold that we are building two schools worth of classrooms with four
more schools coming, how can we not consider cumulative impacts?
Ms. Silver: Commissioner Fineberg, I think you need to analyze the cumulative impacts just as
you analyze the project impacts. State law imposes a limit on how to mitigate whether it is
project impacts or cumulative impacts. The state legislation very clearly says that the only way
you can mitigate those impacts is through the payment of impact fees.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka.
Commissioner Tanaka: I also have a few questions for Staff. The first question is I realize that
we can’t take schools into account, but what about this was a daycare service, an affordable
daycare service. Is that an impact that we can take into account? It is not technically a public
school, it is a private daycare. So I was wondering if that was an impact. A lot of the speakers
mentioned the loss of that and how it provided a good service to the city for many years.
Ms. Silver: For CEQA purposes are you asking?
Commissioner Tanaka: Correct.
Ms. Silver: That is not typically. As I understand it this daycare use is going to end regardless
of the project. So the use and the prospective displacement if any of the daycare center is really
a separate process. It is not related to this so you really can’t consider that as part of this project.
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Was there outreach done to the Byron Street neighbors? I heard
a lot of speakers from the other parts of the surrounding neighborhoods, but I was wondering
about Byron Street. It is an adjacent cul-de-sac.
Mr. Williams: That is where the apartments are, right? I believe they did have meetings with
them but you would have to ask the applicant specifically. I guess they did.
Commissioner Tanaka: Then I was wondering about the private roads. I know that the FAR was
not calculated, but I was wondering are the private roads included in the lot size when
calculating the FAR for these houses.
Ms. French: It is subtracted so the net lot size is what the FAR is based on.
Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, those are my questions for now. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: My first question, since the daycare use is going away, in term of the
impact do we compare it with the current use or the currently zoned use?
Ms. Silver: For CEQA purposes this is a baseline issue. The law regarding baseline is
constantly evolving. As of today the baseline law is that you look at the current use on the
ground in use at the time that the environmental document is prepared and compare it to the
future use.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. In terms of since the neighborhood school, which I
understand is Fairmeadow, is impacted in enrollment and therefore this increase in housing will
mean that there will be an increase in overflow students. Is the transportation impact of the
increase of overflow students, and those students having to attend different schools than their
neighborhood school, is that a transportation impact that it should be considered, and was it
considered?
Ms. Silver: I think that would be a fair issue to evaluate in the environmental document.
However, since we are only dealing with six additional students and it is speculative at this point
where the overflow transportation pattern would be I don’t think that that particular issue was
analyzed in this document.
Commissioner Keller: I think that it is actually probably if you take 23 houses compared to ten
houses, because you can’t fit the amount of houses when you have a street network in there. So
therefore it is reasonable to consider the baseline ten houses, you have 13 additional students at
least. So six students is not an appropriate number.
Do you know how many Caltrain stations an hour go rush hour through this point in either
direction? Okay, well from the Caltrain schedule that is on my old Palm Trio that I still use it
says that there is one per hour, at least there was when I downloaded the schedule. So there is
one per hour in each direction. Out of so many trains there is one per hour on an hourly basis
and that is not very many. Even if it remains open that is not a major profession of Caltrain
service compared to California Avenue and downtown. I believe that that is why when we were
considering transit-oriented we did not consider the San Antonio station as being transit-oriented.
Is that correct?
Mr. Williams: It might have had something to do with that, but I think it more had to do with the
fact that we really don’t have development that is in proximity to that. It is mostly Mountain
View’s development.
Commissioner Keller: With respect to the underpass, I understood that the EIR process for the
San Antonio, the Mayfield redevelopment actually didn’t mandate that they have an underpass
under Central Expressway, but they are supposed to consider it. I don’t think it was actually
required. Do you know whether that is actually required as part of the development?
Mr. Williams: I thought it was. I am sorry we don’t have our Transportation Staff here tonight.
Commissioner Keller: I remember going to one of those hearings when it was approved on the
Mountain View side, and something to the effect that they were considering it and they will see
if they can make it feasible, but they were not guaranteeing it is what I recall.
Mr. Williams: I am sure Penny could answer that.
Commissioner Keller: Okay. The other issue is in terms of are we allowed to or should we
consider the market value or the salability of R-1 (8000) foot home versus the marketability or
salability of the proposed increased density homes?
Mr. Williams: No that is not before the Commission.
MOTION
Commissioner Keller: Great, thank you. Then I will make a motion to move Staff
recommendation.
SECOND
Commissioner Fineberg: Second.
Chair Tuma: Okay, so that is a motion by Commissioner Keller to approve the Staff
recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Keller, do you wish to
speak to your motion?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I think that this is not a good location for higher density housing. I
think that the proper zoning is appropriate. It is not within half a mile or in fact 2,000 feet,
which is less than half a mile, which is the way the Comprehensive Plan quote that was given by
the applicant read. A half a mile would be, if my math is right, 2,640 feet as opposed to the
2,000 that is indicated in the quote from the Comprehensive Plan.
In terms of this, with San Antonio having one train per hour it is not really a place where there is
going to be a lot of transit use. I would suspect that there is a fair likelihood that if the San
Antonio train station closes that that is not going to lead to an increase in bus traffic in serving
Palo Alto. In any event, it seems to be ratcheting in one direction with the only exception that I
have seen in the many years that I have been seeing transit stuff going on in Palo Alto is when
the VTA increased service for the 88 bus for the L and M routes for Gunn High School. That is
basically the only increase I have ever seen in VTA bus service for Palo Alto.
I think that in terms of the expectations that were made for people living in this area, the increase
in housing, and in terms of the cumulative dramatic increases in South Palo Alto that this is not
really a good place for more higher density housing. That is why we are looking at situations
like near transit, California Avenue. To the extent that Caltrain continues to live and they figure
out some way of funding it that is much more likely to be a place for transit. There are also a lot
more amenities. It is not a pleasant walk from San Antonio Road to Piazza’s shopping center,
which is identified as the shopping center for people to get groceries. Walking along Middlefield
past the gas station, trying to navigate your way through the crazy intersections there doesn’t
seem to be a very pleasant place. It is not very walkable. There are not many other amenities. I
suppose one could go to the Crossroads Market across the way. There are a few tiny stores like
that. But this is not really a very effective place for higher density housing.
I will close by mentioning that there was a talk called Winds of Change that I attended a few
years ago. At first I was sort of thinking about well, what are these winds of change? I was sort
of skeptical about this idea. I think it was Don Weden that gave the talk. One thing I thought
interesting about the talk that Don Weden said, is if you want to build higher density housing you
should put it in a place near transit, concentrate it together where there is a critical mass and we
can provide the services, and not hide it all over town in various places. In fact, we have done
the opposite of that especially in South Palo Alto. We have hid it all over town. We have put it
on East Meadow Circle. We have put it on West Bayshore. We have put in different places
where there were no amenities nearby, where there are no services nearby, and here is another
one adding to that mix. I think that we shouldn’t be doing that. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg, would you like to speak to your second?
Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. I would like to support Staff’s recommendation to not proceed
with the zoning change or the Comprehensive Plan designation change of the land use. As far as
the Comprehensive Plan designation of Village Residential I have said this on other projects, and
I believe that Palo Alto has not flushed out what Village Residential should look like. In most
communities Village Residential is an absolutely wonderful cluster of smaller tightly packed
homes that allow for the development of amenities on the properties. Things like large
significantly usable park space not a tot-lot that is a jungle gym. It includes interior walkways.
It includes facilities that would be let’s say shared parking so that there could be a justification
for reduction in a large lot that is not adjacent to the homes. It includes a site that is near a
vibrant village center, near significant public transit where people can really take trains to work,
not pretend that there is a train more than half a mile away that no one will use. So I don’t think
that our Village Residential is flushed out well enough, that it provides the benefits that one
would want from Village Residential.
As far as it being walkable, it is not a walkable neighborhood. The streets are busy. I will echo
the comments that other people have said. I don’t believe that our Mitigated Negative
Declaration has considered the cumulative impacts of the schools. I understand that they can be
mitigated legally to be considered less than significant, but even acknowledging the fact that
before mitigation they are significant is step that we must take in our environmental analysis.
I am sorry on this project that we don’t have a LEED-ND checklist, because it would go towards
informing us of whether this project according to an objective, measurable set of criteria is a
good neighborhood. It would not allow a neighborhood for housing. It would not allow for this
kind of subjective statement of it is a great neighborhood, you can walk to things, or there is
transit nearby. It tells you how to measure it, and then you measure it, and you get a response.
So unfortunately we don’t have the benefit whether that would vote it up or down I don’t know,
but it would have been helpful to have it to inform us.
I don’t believe the analysis has correctly handled the baselines for the yield of students
generated. I believe also there is issue in the environmental analysis with baselines for traffic,
the underlying zoning versus the current use. So I am wholly supportive of Staff’
recommendation and do not find in Attachment A we have the Draft Record of City of Palo Alto
Denial of 525 San Antonio, and by reference I would confer with findings that the findings are
not present. It is not supported in the zoning or the land use that is noted, for brevity I will
simply refer to page 2 and 3 of the Record of Land Use Action.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a couple of questions for Staff still and then one for the applicant. If
I understand correctly R-1 daycare is a permitted use within the R-1 zone. So it is a legally
existing permitted use.
Ms. French: Daycare is a conditionally permitted use in an R-1 zone. This particular daycare
predates the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So in that case would it be a legally existing nonconforming?
Ms. French: Yes, legal nonconforming, but they would just have to come in for a use permit to
make it legal conforming.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So that is the reason why the underlying zoning supports the traffic analysis
and the ….
Ms. French: Yes, and because again per Cara it is a snapshot of time when the use was and
continues to be active until a certain date.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. If a school use, let’s say a public school were to take over the site
there again that is something that we have no basis upon which to rule, but yet schools are
permitted in the R-1 zone, particularly because we want to be able to have students in the
neighborhood walk to schools versus having them outside the R-1 zone, or outside
neighborhoods because then they would have to possibly get trucked or carpooled.
Ms. French: So private educational facility K-8 educational material would also require a
Conditional Use Permit.
Vice-Chair Lippert: That was my next question. Private schools generally…
\
Ms. French: If it is a public school then typically those are zoned Public Facility, PF.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Lastly, I have a question for the applicant if one of you wouldn’t
mind taking the mike. It has to do with your below market rate units. Recently we have had this
housing bubble and the bubble has burst. Certain developments have moved forward. It is true
that the market rate housing really pays for the below market rate housing, but if the market rate
housing doesn’t sell what happens to the below market rate housing?
Ms. Kamangar: Well, if a project is conditioned to build the units typically the builder would
build them. I am not sure what your line of questioning is, but I guess I do know that on another
project recently here in Palo Alto we did something that was slightly more creative in the way
that it enabled the fees emanating from a development project enabled the ability for another
affordable housing project with many, many more units to be built in this city.
Vice-Chair Lippert: You are getting close to where my line of questioning here, which is that if
those housing units did not sell then would the developer – how would it become an in lieu fee?
How would that happen?
Ms. Kamangar: I am not sure if I follow your line of questioning really. If it is a condition of
approval then that is normally how it happens unless there are some other circumstances.
Vice-Chair Lippert: My experience has been that in lieu fees do not really cover the cost of
construction. So in this case, an entity like Palo Alto Housing Corp would be really managing
those properties if they were rental units. They could not build units for what it would cost to
build those houses. Whereas, if they were built as a condition of the project then they would be
there and they would be providing below market rate housing.
Ms. Kamangar: Right. If you are asking us whether we would be in a position to either build the
units or pay fees, we would be happy to do either, but our current proposal was based on building
the affordable units as part of the project.
Vice-Chair Lippert: That troubles me quite a bit, and that is one of the reasons why I am
inclined to support the current motion and deny the project. Below market rate housing is a very
important component of all the housing that we build in the city. By potentially losing those
below market rate units because of the market rate units not selling I couldn’t see this moving
forward the way it is currently configured.
I did look at some other options here but that is not currently what is on the table. So I would be
inclined to vote along with my colleagues in denying the project.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez.
Commissioner Martinez: first I have a question of Staff. The daycare center has been there for
37 years, we have heard tonight. I know this predates all of us, but what is the thinking in sort of
maintaining the R-1 zoning? Was it that this public benefit could continue in perpetuity? That it
was sort of in a protected realm by being in this R-1 zoning? I sort of feel what has happened is
the opposite. I looked at the Comprehensive Plan on page L-12 to see if there were an
appropriate zoning classification and it kind of falls into Major Institutional with nonprofit uses
and stuff like that. That doesn’t sound right either. Is there sort of a strategy in the R-1 planning
that has existed all these years?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Commissioner Martinez. There isn’t really a strategy here as far as
trying to retain the daycare use. I think trying to retain the R-1 use allows the possibility for that,
or it allows R-1 single-family on larger lots that are clearly compatible with the existing,
particularly the Eichler, neighborhood and allows semi-institutional uses that are like daycare,
facilities that may be of service to the area without intensifying the residential component of it
and the various impacts they have. In this case I would differ with many of the speakers in terms
of the level of the impacts, but we believe that in terms of the consistency with Council direction
and where we do intensify that maintaining the R-1 zoning is appropriate for this location.
Commissioner Martinez: It has setup kind of a target for this site for developers. We have heard
that there have been over a half dozen that wanted to do higher density multifamily housing on
this site. So it didn’t really do sort of what I would have expected it to do, and that is sort of
really preserve probably one of the greatest community benefits that we need at this point in time
and that is for preschool and daycare. On the contrary it has sort of made it easier for it to go
away by it being R-1.
My point of view is that R-1 is probably the absolutely worst zoning for this site because that is
not the kind of housing we need to build in the 21st Century in Palo Alto. We don’t need bigger,
energy-using, sprawling houses and we particularly don’t need them in this neighborhood. I
always say planning is not black or white, it is kind of gray, and we are kind of in this gray area
where we do have these Eichler homes on one side but then we have school district property on
the back, and we have higher density apartments on the side, and a busy, busy street to the south.
It doesn’t feel like an R-1 zone. I am really sort of struggling in supporting the recommendation
that is on the floor tonight because it doesn’t sit well as an R-1 site. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: First of all I would like to praise the applicant. I think their behavior in
the way in which they have proceeded to pursue their project and their outreach to the
neighborhood proactively not only with the neighborhood but with the other neighbors, as well
as the imagination that they have used to pursue development schemes is really model behavior
for our community. We don’t often get applicants that are willing to do that homework. I think
they deserve a lot of praise and a lot of credit for the work that they have done there.
I also think that they have used the Village Residential zone exactly as that zone was written to
be and intended to be in that it is squeezed between and creates the opportunity to buffer to
dissimilar zones. It also adds something that the city really, really needs which is housing,
especially smaller housing that is more affordable. It is rare that we have the opportunity of an
application in front of us that actually has the potential to reduce parking and traffic impacts. All
of those things are very good and highly valued in this community.
San Antonio is a high-volume transit corridor and it is a very difficult street from a planning
standpoint for our city. It is not a good place for R-1 to be adjacent to of any sort, and yet it
exists there, as do any number of other uses. You can find almost every zone in the city along
that street. One of the primary concepts of zoning is to try and put together like zones. On one
side you have R-1 so keeping it R-1 makes sense. On the other side you have the RM-15 so
changing it to RM-15 makes sense.
However, my struggle here is that the Council has made it very clear that the R-1 zone is not to
be changed to higher density. I have been a very strong proponent of that policy, in large part
because I believe the R-1 zone is the heart of our community. It is the one thing that should not
be changed. Further, the way that the Village Residential zone was initially written was to
change zones other than R-1. So to despite some of the obvious issues that would compel me to
otherwise support this I find it very difficult to make findings different than what the Staff has.
It is imaginable to me that there could be a project that presents an opportunity so compelling
that the issues of policy and definition should be superceded and that the Commission should
create a recommendation to Council to make that sort of a change. I think the one thing that is
missing in this project that would make it that compelling for me personally is for it to be either
one, within an existing PTOD district or clearly meet the definition of a transit-oriented district,
or that it be significantly closer to a multimodal station so that the argument could be made
clearly and not border on the gray. So despite the obvious benefits that a project such as this
would have for our community, and especially the opportunity to bring smaller, more affordable
housing I will end up supporting the motion as it has been stated.
Chair Tuma: Thank you. I have a question for Staff. My understanding is that this site despite it
being zoned R-1 is not on the Housing Inventory.
Ms. French: That is correct it is not on the Housing Inventory.
Chair Tuma: Why is that?
Mr. Williams: Generally because the Housing Inventory is for sites where we want to develop
multiple-family housing. So it is usually at least RM-15 and more likely RM-30 sites that we
would be pointing towards, and would be substantial housing sites.
Chair Tuma: Okay, great. I have a comment to make about the traffic analysis. I understand
what CEQA requires, but I think in a circumstance like this it makes sense to also analyze it
against the underlying zoning, because otherwise we are sort of denying reality in the sense that
we know that this use is going away. So to compare it against the existing use while maybe
mandated by CEQA I think in addition it would make sense to compare it to underlying zoning
looking forward. It give us a better look at the picture and a better understanding of what the
potential real impacts are in a situation where we know it is going away. If this application were
coming three months from now there would be nothing there. So then what would we compare it
against? Director.
Mr. Williams: I don’t disagree that it would be helpful to look at that scenario also. I do want to
point out that not rezoning it, leaving it as the zoning is now, maintains the opportunity for either
someone to take over the building as a daycare or for another daycare to move into that location.
So it does not necessarily mean it is going away. We have a lot of inquiries about where are sites
that daycares can go, and we are having more and more trouble finding those in the city. So
there is some possibility that if this site is not rezoned now and if ten single-family lots do not
look like a viable proposal then daycare may ultimately be one option.
Chair Tuma: I remember a couple of years ago we looked at a series of properties, as I recall
primarily in South Palo Alto, but I know from time to time we look at properties and consider
rezoning them. To you knowledge have we ever looked at rezoning this particular property in
any way at our initiation as opposed to by an applicant or the owner?
Mr. Williams: Not to my knowledge. The ones that we have looked at have generally been ones
that are commercial, have commercial uses on them, or retail type uses on them that are zoned
residentially, and rezoning them to preserve the commercial use.
Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. So I am generally of the mind that as a city we have a certain not
only obligation but also there is a certain reality of forces that we can’t control that will cause
some level of growth in this town, as it will everywhere. As a result we have an obligation to
provide some fair share of housing. I don’t agree with the fair share that ABAG has assigned us,
I think it is too much, but we have to look for good, solid, creative opportunities to build housing
in the right locations.
I do go back to the Joint Meeting that we had with Council in May of 2010 and then having
attended the subsequent meetings and discussions that they had regarding where should that
housing go, what type of housing should it be, and what policies should govern how we move
forward. I was then and continue to be fully supportive of the policies that the Council set forth
at that time including not rezoning R-1 to more dense housing. So to me in many ways while I
could go on about other reasons that this is sort of a good or bad place to be that is enough of an
analysis. This is not appropriate under the current guidelines and circumstances from Council.
I would agree with Commissioner Garber that there could be circumstances very compelling
where you could rezone an R-1 district. This is not in my view anywhere close to that sort of set
of compelling circumstances. So for me it is actually fairly easy to support the Staff’s
recommendation based on that policy alone.
I do agree with many of the comments that were made earlier this evening regarding impacts.
Yes this .58 as opposed to half a mile away from fixed rail. I used to own a home right around
the corner from here years ago, so there is no conflict. It is not a pedestrian friendly corridor
along this stretch of San Antonio, particularly the frontage road there. It is not a great place to
go to and from transit. I will agree with the one speaker who spoke about dodging out from there
onto San Antonio in the eastbound. It is dicey.
So while I am generally supportive of housing of the right types in the right places this is not a
project that I can support.
So that completes our initial round. I do have lights for a second round. I will remind people
that it is now 8:20. There is another item so if we want to go through briefly on second rounds
but it sounds to me as if the outcome here is somewhat certain given the comments that everyone
has made. Commissioner Fineberg.
Commissioner Fineberg: I hesitated to bring this up before because when I was speaking I was
speaking in support of the motion. So now I am going to talk about the one item that gives me a
little bit of heartburn about the motion and this project.
We are charged with the responsibility of relying on the codes, the Comprehensive Plan, and a
body of regulation to make our decisions. At our last meeting, and again at this meeting tonight I
am observing guidelines and recommendations that Council has made during Study Sessions
about the identification and handling of potential sites for inclusion on our Housing Element sort
of mutating, and I choose that word carefully, but from directions for Staff for how to evaluate
sites into now those directions for how to evaluate sites for inclusion on the Housing Element are
now being used as policies to support last week and then this week deny approval of a project.
Whether I agree with the conclusion of that, I believe that it is dangerous for us to use
recommended analysis for future Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan Updates as policy
for project level decisions in the present. It is not the role of the Planning Commission nor Staff
to bring policy back dated on current projects until Council has voted and acted on it. I think we
are going down a bit of a dangerous path there. That was one item that in this project it gives me
heartburn.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair.
Chair Tuma: Yes.
Mr. Williams: If I could just clarify one thing. When the Council provided this direction and the
direction last week that was not a Study Session and it was voted on. That and this motion, this
one particularly was a unanimous vote. It was scheduled not to be a Study Session so they could
provide that specific direction. Now it is not adopted into a Comprehensive Plan or a Zoning
Ordinance or that kind of thing so there is some validity in what you say, but it was not a Study
Session where we were just assimilating various comments from the Council. It was actually put
up as a vote. One item that we would not intensify R-1 and R-2 zoned properties, and they voted
on that and then they went to the next one. So there was a series of about eight or ten items that
the Council took action on to vote as sort of the policy at this time.
Chair Tuma: Thanks for that clarification. Vice-Chair Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: First of all I want to thank the members of the public for coming here this
evening. I know you have taken time from your busy schedules to come and speak as opposed to
this project. I also want to thank the applicant. I think that your proposal is very compelling,
very seductive in some ways, and I would love to be able to get behind it. I find myself agreeing
with the comments of my colleagues up here so I am going to vote in denying the project.
I do want to entertain one other little piece of comment, and it is really food for thought. We
were challenged by the public here to be creative. So I would like to share my creativity, which
is that I feel as though while the underlying zoning is R-1 there are portions of the site that
perhaps could entertain higher density, could go to the RM-15 zone, or could support the Village
Residential concept although it is not the majority of the site. What I see is there is an
opportunity since this is two sites that the A & D Protocol Transportation Inc. site might very
well be able to support RM-15 as a transition. An important component of this project is the
below market rate units and the Palo Alto Housing Corp really supports and tries to promote
smaller units, that they be rental units, and that perhaps that could act as the transition here
although it is not part of tonight’s recommendation for denial. So that is just something that I am
throwing out there in terms of something to think about and perhaps if this were to come back at
some point in the future maybe that is some way to think about it. But, as far as I am concerned I
am going to go with my colleagues in terms of denying this project tonight.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Tanaka.
Commissioner Tanaka: I just have a brief comment. I also support my fellow Commissioner on
the thought about whether this should have been kept as R-1. I also see that in Palo Alto there is
a tremendous need for daycare, let alone affordable daycare and preschools. As a parent myself I
know how difficult it is. One statistic is that in 2007 there were actually more people born in the
United States than were ever born before, even at the height of the baby boom. There are a lot of
young children and we do need that use. So I would like to see that use protected however this
project turns out in the future.
I think one of the speakers mentioned San Antonio not being idea for residential. I think that is
very true because it is not a great walkable area. It is a very busy street. So perhaps the current
use is actually the right use. So I am supporting the motion that is currently on the table. Also,
because it is the Council’s direction. Thank you.
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez and then I think we are ready to vote.
Commissioner Martinez: I would like to encourage the applicant to kind of push forward with
their proposal because I would like the Council to hear that gray area that just because we say we
want to preserve single-family that doesn’t mean that every parcel that is zoned single-family
right now makes sense that way. I think you make a great argument for why this is a mixed
residential zone. This is not California Avenue perhaps, but we want housing near commercial.
We want it near bus lines. We want to walk to transit, and we want it near parks and schools.
This is a project very much like that and I would like the Council to hear that we can have these
proclamations that state we want to preserve our single-family tradition, but on the other hand
there are these areas on the edges that don’t really make that much sense that way. Maybe as
Vice-Chair Lippert said there are some things to improve the Village Residential aspect of your
project, but the idea of smaller houses for an underserved population, BMR units, a non R-1 kind
of use here makes a lot of sense to me. I think I may be the one dissenting vote here. Thank
you.
MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Martinez opposed)
Chair Tuma: Okay with that the motion on the floor is to move Staff’s recommendation. If there
are no other additional comments, all those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) All those
opposed. (nay) The motion passes six to one, with Commissioner Martinez voting no.
Ci ty of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441 FAX (650) 329-2154
www,cityofpaloalto.org
rlleN: 38SATTACHMENT E
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources
Code 21 that the· will not have a . effect on the environment. ~
1125109
Request by Katia Kamangar of SummerHill Homes, applicant, on behalf of A&D Protocol Transportations Inc., property
owner, for a request for a Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Village Residential land use
designation and RM-15 zoning to a 2.65 acre developed site currently designated as Single Family Residential and zoned
R-J (8,000) but used as a preschool/daycare center. The developed project in concept would include the demolition of the
existing preschool/daycare center buildings and construction of 26 single family detached homes. The specific
development plans and 26-lot subdivision map may be subject to further environmental review following rezoning and
land use designation amendment. .
~===
Notice is hereby given that a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B.
866, this document will be available for review and comment during a minimnm 20-day inspection period.
Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are invited
and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific
environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. Oral comments
may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the
Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding
this project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact Jason Nortz at (650) 617-3137
(1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
1 05/12/10
Special Meeting
May 12, 2010
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met with the Planning &
Transportation Commission on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:04
p.m.
Present: Council Members Burt, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid,
Shepherd
Planning & Transportation Commission Members Fineberg,
Garber, Keller, Lippert, Tanaka, Tuma
Absent: Council Members Espinosa, Yeh
Planning & Transportation Commission Member Martinez
STUDY SESSION
1. Joint City Council/Planning & Transportation Commission Review of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update.
A brief presentation was given by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, Curtis Williams who described the four main issues needing
further direction from the City Council prior to Staff and the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC) moving forward with preparation of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. These included: 1) Criteria for
preparation of the Housing Element Housing Sites Inventory; 2) 2020
growth projections; 3) The extent of revisions to the Vision, policies and
programs of the Comprehensive Plan; and 4) Additional work items outside
the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment work plan scope. Each of the
P&TC Commissioners gave a short four minute presentation describing their
main concerns regarding the four key issues. After the Commissioners’
presentation’s, the Council asked individual Commissioner’s questions in
order to further understand their positions on the four topics. The discussion
primarily focused on the Housing Element and preparation of the Housing
2 05/12/2010
Sites Inventory. The criteria for site identification generated the most
discussion and included the following observations:
Explore mixed-use development in commercial areas
Explore increasing the 50 foot height restriction under limited
circumstances
Employ a “bottoms up” approach that defines the parameters for
accommodating housing
Explore increasing densities for existing multifamily residential sites
Locate high densities near transit stations
Explore use of Transfer of Development Rights for increasing housing
production
Encourage small, high density units
Mayor Burt left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
At the conclusion of the Study Session, the Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC) members left the Dias.
Candice Gonzales, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, encouraged the completion
of the Housing Element prior to the project being out of compliance. The
Housing Corporation and Staff had been working together for more than a
year and requested Council to direct Staff on the final phase. She noted
being out of compliance limited the State funding available for affordable
housing and infrastructure.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, noted over the past fifteen years the City had
been eliminating retail establishments, hotels and restaurants in an effort to
create space for more housing. By eliminating the above mentioned
establishments the City was eliminating the walkable neighborhoods. He
requested to discontinue the loss of commercial space.
Mayor Burt returned to the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ACTION
2. City Council Direction Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Housing Element Update.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to not
consider R-1, R-2, and RMD sites in the housing site criteria.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
3 05/12/2010
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to
not allow rezoning of commercial to residential, but allow mixed use with no
decrease of retail sites throughout the city.
Council Member Scharff spoke about the importance in protecting the
economic viability of the City.
Council Member Price asked whether the Motion would preclude any serious
examination of the Fry’s Electronic site.
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated the
Fry’s site was not presently in play for the Housing Element since their lease
expired in 2013.
Chief Planning & Transportation Officer, Julie Caporgno stated the Fry’s site
was zoned for residential uses, although it was currently being used for
commercial.
Council Member Holman asked whether the intention of the Motion was not
to increase the building envelope but to consider a multitude of mixed uses
that would include housing.
Council Member Scharff stated his Motion had a broader direction in order to
not limit the Council on future decisions of larger mixed uses.
Council Member Holman stated larger projects were subject to a Planned
Community (PC) Zoning.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
Council Member Holman requested to retain the fifty foot height limit on
buildings.
Council Member Price stated she supported the allowance of exploration of
exceptions within a quarter mile of transit. She stated there needed to be
flexibility within the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX
to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to consider
that the height is generally not to exceed 50 feet.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to
4 05/12/2010
consider that the height is generally not to exceed fifty feet, and Staff is to
perhaps explore and return with exceptions within 1/4 mile of fixed rail
transit stations.
Council Member Scharff stated there needed to be flexibility to look at the
fifty foot height limit in the area of the fixed rail stations, which was a
limited area.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on whether the exception was
within a quarter mile of transit or transit stations.
Council Member Scharff stated transit stations.
Council Member Klein stated he did not support the Motion.
Council Member Scharff stated the intent of the Motion was for Staff to
explore the options and return to Council for a decision on which direction
would best suit the City.
Council Member Klein stated Staff came to Council for guidance and the
Motion was without guidance.
Mayor Burt clarified asking Staff and the Planning & Transportation
Commission (P&TC) to evaluate a process was guidance. He noted
historically the fifty foot height limit was of concern for the community.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to delete the word “perhaps”, and change
“explore” to “evaluate”, and include the wording “limited exceptions” after
explore.
Council Member Holman stated she did not support the Motion. She stated
once an exception was allowed there tended to be increasing slow progress
towards extended exceptions. Compatibility was imperative moving forward.
Council Member Shepherd suggested expanding the study to include the
High Speed Rail (HSR).
Council Member Price stated she supported the Motion with the incorporated
language.
Council Member Klein stated if the Motion was adopted, the City was
undercutting the use of the bottom-up argument on the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers.
5 05/12/2010
Mayor Burt clarified there was no vote for altering the height limit, only to
allow the consideration of altering the limit. He stated it would be
inappropriate to not consider any height limitation in an effort to protect the
R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods.
Council Member Holman stated she wanted to avoid over building using the
allowed exception without consideration for the community goal.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-2 Holman, Klein no, Espinosa, Yeh
absent
Mayor Burt stated the focus needed to be modifying the language of which
portions of El Camino Real would be appropriate for housing sites.
Council Member Scharff stated he did not feel El Camino Real was the type
of transit route that made sense for housing. He clarified the bus transit
route was not adequate enough to be considered, although areas
incorporated with fixed rail would be sufficient. He asked Staff for
clarification on the variance between the quarter mile and the half mile
distance.
Mr. Williams stated the Comprehensive Plan currently had a designation of
Transit Oriented Residential which was 2,000 feet from a transit station. He
clarified the number was modified to fit the circumstances with California
Avenue Pedestrian Transportation Oriented Development (PTOD).
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to
focus on sites within 1/2 mile of transit stations.
Council Member Scharff stated transit oriented development was an
important direction.
Council Member Schmid stated the transit stations; fixed rail, Caltrain, and
possibly High Speed Rail (HSR), granted a higher level of opportunity for
housing development than that of El Camino Real.
Council Member Shepherd stated concern with whether the transit systems
would continue their present routes in the future. She suggested starting the
outreach process and connecting it to the developments making headway to
see if the City could reach an agreement with the developers to secure
transit pathways.
Council Member Price suggested the focus be on the area of El Camino Real
that was sufficiently served by transit and not the distance of a quarter or
half mile. She stated she did not support the Motion.
6 05/12/2010
Mayor Burt stated the current El Camino Real bus route system had the
heaviest usage in Santa Clara County.
Council Member Holman stated she supported the Motion.
Council Member Schmid stated the sites were not indiscriminant and there
were other criteria that were important for identifying sites that were
accessible as walkable options appropriate for the neighborhoods.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to have Staff and Planning & Transportation
Commission evaluate sites within ¼ mile of El Camino Real if well served by
transit or likely to be well served.
Council Member Scharff stated he had concerns with the El Camino Real bus
system. The purpose of having housing near transit systems was to
eliminate vehicle travel. He asked for clarification on where the El Camino
bus system went in order for him to determine the viability of building
housing near the bus system.
Mayor Burt stated there were projections by Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) on the trip ratio and destinations.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Schmid no, Espinosa, Yeh absent
Mayor Burt stated Staff was asking direction on: 1) Should the City of Palo
Alto draft a Housing Element with a primary goal of providing adequate sites
to accommodate all of the City’s RHNA allocations, or 2) Should the City use
a “bottoms-up” approach to define what kind and amount of housing can
best be accommodated, consistent with the principles of locating housing in
areas close to support services and transit, regardless of whether it
ultimately complies with the RHNA allocation.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to use
a “bottoms-up” approach to define what kind and amount of housing can
best be accommodated.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
Mayor Burt stated Staff was asking direction on: 3) What criteria should be
used to identify sites to include in the housing inventory, e.g., housing type,
size, location, existing zoning proximity to transit and pedestrian-oriented
areas.
7 05/12/2010
Council Member Scharff stated in meeting the Housing Element goal from a
“bottom-up” perspective, areas that needed to be looked at were up zoning
parcels of existing areas such as apartments, going from RM-15 to RM-40.
Council Member Schmid stated identification of sites needed to include key
criteria of what the denser housing sites would have; accessibility of
neighbors, walkable options and compatible access to schools.
Mayor Burt stated an alternative to directing Staff was not to provide an
action for all of the recommendations. Council could provide Staff with a
sense of their proposed directions, and Staff could return to Council with
specific alternatives.
Council Member Price stated the potential for mixed-use developments
within a housing site should be considered.
Council Member Holman stated a smaller unit size had less impact on
schools. She was interested in whether there were community benefits in
the up zoning.
Mayor Burt stated if there were areas like California Avenue or downtown
with existing zoning he would be interested in the concept of overlay zones
and of smaller units with a higher number of units per acre; not necessarily
subsidized housing. He asked, with an added overlay, would it have a higher
Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
Council Member Price asked for clarification on whether the comment was to
consider the implementation of overlays at different sites. She asked
whether Staff’s intention was in the size of the site or the size of the unit.
Mr. Williams stated the direction requested by Staff was for unit sizes not
parcel sizes.
Mayor Burt stated for Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) and
RHNA a 600 square foot unit counted the same as a 6,000 square foot
home.
Council Member Scharff stated smaller units were practical and more feasible
for a community. He asked whether the concept of an overlay would be
counted towards the RHNA numbers.
Mr. Williams stated if the project was in an overlay without constrictions
then it could be counted towards the RHNA numbers.
8 05/12/2010
Ms. Caporgno stated if there were an overlay zone with options of the
underlying land use designation to be used and the project were in the
overlay then it would be necessary to implement the overlay.
Council Member Scharff stated Council’s responsibility was to ensure proper
zoning.
Ms. Caporgno clarified if the site was placed in the housing inventory; there
was an implied commitment that this site was going to be developed in a
certain manner.
Mayor Burt asked for clarification on placing a site in the housing inventory.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Shepherd to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission that
the criteria for sites should provide such things as access to services,
accessibility to neighbors, compatibility to neighborhood, close to jobs and
schools, accessible to transit.
Council Member Schmid stated with the creation of a list of criteria we would
be able to check-off the developments that had the most likelihood of being
built.
Mayor Burt asked whether all of the criteria mentioned would be required or
the list would be the pallet.
Council Member Schmid stated the list of criteria would be a pallet to choose
from.
Council Member Shepherd stated there needed to be a nexus between the
services and the developments. Specific criteria of what types of services
would be available was imperative.
Council Member Price asked whether the potential for mixed-use was still a
part of the discussion.
Mayor Burt stated the Motion on the floor was in regards to criteria for
development. The discussion of mixed-use was a part of a discussion
however not specific to the vote.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add the wording to the Motion: the potential
for mixed use development be a criteria for identifying sites.
9 05/12/2010
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change the wording in the Motion “that the
criteria for sites” to “that among the primary criteria for sites.”
Mayor Burt asked whether the term incentives in the Motion was meant as a
preference for these sites intended for development.
Council Member Schmid stated the intent was one of guidance for there to
be a list of services available for the intended residents as an incentive of a
site that would be developed. Staff would be able to sort through the list of
primary criteria in an effort to assist in the choices of sites to develop.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
XXX to continue the remainder of this Agenda Item to a date uncertain.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct
Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission that higher density,
small unit overlays be evaluated particularly in our two Transit Oriented
Districts.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
Council Member Shepherd was concerned that there were 26 days left before
the Alternatives Analysis comments were due.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member
XXXX to direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to add to
the existing work program; 1) High Speed Rail land use scenarios, and 2)
University Avenue/Downtown Area Concept Plan.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, Council Member Schmid to
direct Staff and the Planning & Transportation Commission to: 1) identify
existing sites zoned for housing or mixed use in proximity to transit and
services, 2) explore working with Stanford to reassign up to 600 units from
the County to the City for housing sites allowed under Stanford’s Community
Plan and General Use Permit, in conjunction with or following the
Development Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center
expansion, 3) explore potential housing inventory sites using LEED-ND
(LEED for Neighborhood Development) criteria as primary evaluation tool,
particularly near transit and services (El Camino Real, Stanford, and
10 05/12/2010
University Ave., and 4) emphasize smaller size units and minimize housing
impacts on schools and other public facilities.
Council Member Price asked for clarification on the LEED-ND criteria as it
related to the Housing Element.
Mr. Williams stated the LEED-ND criteria included virtually all of the
evaluations of whether the site and the surrounding area created walkability
that was accessible to public spaces and services.
Council Member Scharff stated he wanted to support the Motion although
there needed to be focus on senior housing.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to
include units for seniors.
Mayor Burt stated the presentation listed an emphasis on smaller units.
Units for seniors minimized the housing impacts on schools and other public
facilities.
Council Member Schmid supported the Amendment.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Scharff to continue the remainder of this Agenda Item to a date uncertain.
Council Member Schmid asked what was being specifically extended within
the Housing Element and will there be further discussion at a later date.
Mr. Williams stated the Housing Element would be returning to Council for
discussion.
Council Member Schmid asked whether there would be site information
provided at the continued meeting.
Mayor Burt stated the continued meeting would be to discuss the items in
the CMR that were on the Council agenda for this evening.
Council Member Holman requested to add a topic for discussion to be heard
tonight under the Housing Element.
11 05/12/2010
Mayor Burt reiterated that the Housing Element was being continued for
further discussion for the items which had not yet been discussed at this
evenings meeting.
Council Member Shepherd asked when the discussion of the strategic
planning for the corridor study would be occurring.
Mayor Burt clarified the discussion was currently addressing the
Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Element although the question asked
was on the Alternatives Analysis for the corridor study.
Council Member Scharff requested discussing the construction of affordable
units this evening. He felt the issue needed minimal further discussion and
could be resolved without waiting.
Council Member Price stated she understood the difference between the
Alternatives Analysis and corridor study in short-term and long-term. She
noted the item was time sensitive and there needed to be a clear
understanding of when there would be discussion.
Mayor Burt explained the opportunity to discuss all items not covered during
this evenings meeting would be at the upcoming special Council meeting
before the end of June.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Espinosa, Yeh absent
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.