Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout425-page-mill-ID-3253 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3253) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 12/3/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 423-451 Page Mill Road Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of an Ordinance Rezoning a 0.6-acre Site from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Service Commercial (CS), Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential to Service Commercial, and Approval of the Negative Declaration for the Properties located at 423-451 Page Mill Road. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the Negative Declaration, adopt an Ordinance rezoning a 0.6-acre site from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Service Commercial (CS), and adopt a Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential to Service Commercial. Executive Summary The rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation amendment will allow the rezoning of the property from Single Family to Service Commercial. Currently, the properties have four single family residences that front on Page Mill Road and have commercial neighbors to the north and south. Page Mill Road is a busy arterial roadway that is not conducive to single family uses. The homes have been used as rentals with little incentive for investment as single- family homes due to their location on the busy roadway. The requested rezoning would permit commercial uses alone or multifamily residential uses in conjunction with commercial uses to replace the existing one story homes. The rezoning application has been reviewed by the P&TC twice and there has been little public comment on the proposal. The Commission has recommended that the City Council approve the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation amendment. Background City of Palo Alto Page 2 Planning and Transportation Commission Review The request for Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) on August 29, 2012. At the hearing, there were no public speakers for the item. There were also no written comments from the public. The P&TC was concerned that the public was not adequately noticed about the project and may not be aware of the proposed zone change request. The P&TC voted 6-0-1 to continue the item to October 3, 2012. As part of the P&TCs motion to continue the item, the applicant was asked to conduct public outreach to ensure the public is aware of the proposal and explain why the CS zoning is being requested rather than the CN zoning, in order to get some sense of what could potentially be built under the proposed zoning designation. The P&TC also requested that staff revise the zoning comparison table to add in the R-1 zoning and add in floor area calculations compared to the standards in the zoning code. On October 3, 2012 the item returned to the P&TC after the applicant had conducted additional public outreach. The applicant had two separate community outreach meetings. The details of those meetings are covered in the discussion section below. There were three members of the public that spoke at the second Commission hearing. The issues expressed by the public speakers were not specific to the appropriateness of the proposed rezoning, but rather were related to concerns over the future disturbance of the contaminated ground water below the site as well as traffic and parking issues related to a different development review proposal at 395 Page Mill Road. The Commission voiced concerns about not having been given to opportunity to review draft plans for what may be developed on the property if the rezoning were to be approved, but was ultimately supportive of rezoning the property. Commissioner Tanaka moved, seconded by Commissioner Tuma, to approve the staff recommendation with no additional conditions or changes. They voted 6-0-1 to recommend that the City Council approve the rezone request. The P&TC staff reports from both public hearings and the verbatim minutes from the August 29, 2012 public hearing are attached to this report (Attachments G, H, I). The October 3, 2012 hearing was held in the Council Conference room and a vast majority of the recorded hearing was inaudible. Most of the time the microphones did not pick up any sound and as a result the minutes were significantly incomplete. There are, therefore, no verbatim minutes provided for the October 3, 2012 hearing. Existing Conditions The project comprises four parcels identified as 423, 433, 441, and 451 Page Mill Road. The total site area of the four properties combined is approximately 26,932 square feet. There are currently four, single-story, single-family residences, one on each of the four parcels. Adjacent uses to the northeast include the Kelly Moore Paint Store at 411 Page Mill Road, (a GM zoned parcel) and the AOL office development at 395 Page Mill Road (an ROLM zoned parcel, pending a proposal for a Planned Community zone change by the Jay Paul Company). Adjacent uses to City of Palo Alto Page 3 the southwest include an animal hospital at 461 Page Mill Road, (a CN zoned property) and the AT&T retail store on the corner at 2805 El Camino Real (a CS zoned property). To the southeast, or the rear of the site, are single family residences with the exception of a grandfathered art studio at 440 Pepper Avenue. Across Page Mill Road to the northwest are multifamily residential PC developments. Project Description The proposal is to rezone the four properties from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Service Commercial (CS) as well as a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Designation amendment from Single Family Residential to Service Commercial. If the rezoning and land use designation amendment of the properties is approved, it is anticipated that the four properties would be combined and a mixed use development would be proposed for the site. The CS zoning would allow commercial development as well as residential development, provided thatany residential units are provided in combination with commercial uses as a mixed use development. The floor area ratio (FAR) limit for commercial development in the CS zone district is 0.4:1 FAR which would be 10,773 square feet on this site. To encourage mixed use with residential development, the code allows an additional 0.6:1 FAR or 16,159 square feet for the residential use component. The maximum allowable FAR for a mixed use project would be 26,932 square feet (a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 1:1). Provided below is a table showing the possible floor area ratio (FAR) for a mixed use development. Allowable Mixed Use Development in CS Zone Floor area Ratio Square feet Commercial 0.4:1 10,773 Residential 0.6:1 16,159 Total 1:1 26,932 Discussion Traffic and Parking A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted to review any potential impacts that may possibly result from the proposed future development of the site if it were to be rezoned to CS. Under the CS zoning, a mixed use development of commercial and residential uses could be permitted. The TIA analyzed a hypothetical mixed use project with office, retail, eating and City of Palo Alto Page 4 drinking, and eight residential units. The analysis determined that the hypothetical project would not result in a significant impact to the studied intersections or the nearby residential streets. Soil Contamination The project site is located within the California Olive Emerson (COE) Study area which is known to have contaminated ground water from offsite dumping of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Based on this location, measures will likely need to be implemented for any future development of the property to prevent vapor migration into any future structures. Submittal of a Phase II Environmental Analysis would be required for any proposed development on the site, and specific measures would likely be needed to ensure building occupants of any development proposal are protected from vapor intrusion and appropriate construction safety precautions are followed. The soil adjacent to the existing residential structures on the site may also be impacted from exterior lead paint weathering and pesticide use for termite control, typically associated with older wood frame structures. Off Site Impacts Potential offsite impacts could result from rezoning to CS because that zone allows for greater FAR (1:1), height (35 feet), and commercial uses than the current R-1 zoning. The property is located on a high traffic arterial with commercial uses on either side but abutting the property to the rear are single family residences. Any future development of the site would need to be respectful of these sensitive uses. The Municipal Code has built in measures to help address potential issues with this kind of adjacency such as reduced height limits, daylight plane limitations, and limited hours of operation for certain types of commercial businesses. In addition, public hearings would be required for any development of the site under the proposed zone. CS-zone mixed use projects having five or more residential units are subject to Planning and Transportation Commission review and Architectural Review Board review (ARB), as well as City Council action through the Site and Design review process. Mixed use projects having four or less residential units would be subject to the Architectural Review Board review and Planning Director action only. Public Outreach The applicant conducted a public outreach effort to ensure that the public has been adequately informed about the project. The applicant provided a letter to owners of all properties within 600 feet of the project site that are south of Page Mill Road and East of El Camino Real. The letter explained the zone change request and invited the residents to a pizza night open house. A postcard was also placed in the envelope with the letter asking recipients to mail it back if City of Palo Alto Page 5 they had no objection to the proposal. In addition to the mailer, the owner went door to door to properties on both sides of Pepper Avenue on the same block as the project site including Page Mill Road, Ash Street, and El Camino Real. The applicant reported to staff that of the 26 doors knocked on, 14 people answered. Of the 14 people the applicant spoke to directly, only two residents (of Pepper Avenue) voiced concerns. These concerns were related to increased traffic and parking on Pepper Avenue. Four people were supportive of the project and other residents only had questions. The first neighborhood meeting was held on September 20, 2012. The meeting was held at 430 Pepper Avenue, conveniently located in the neighborhood close to the project site. Only two residents from one property on Pepper Avenue responded and attended the outreach meeting. The hour and half discussion included the history of Pepper Avenue, its residents and the surrounding neighborhood. The owner spoke about his background and his vision of a three story mixed use building for the site. The earlier failed hotel proposal and the hearing process were also discussed. According to the applicant, two residents were not concerned about the rezoning but rather a future building. They voiced the following concerns: • Increased parking in their neighborhood. The applicant explained that this concern could be addressed if and when a development is proposed by complying with the City’s parking requirements. • Questioned what the allowed height is in the CS zone. They were informed the height limit adjacent to single family residential is 35 feet. • Disturbance of the contaminated ground water. The applicant recognized this concern and indicated that it could be addressed if and when a development is proposed by building only one level below grade. • Intention for the 430 Pepper Avenue site since the past hotel project application included a proposal to use it as access. The applicant explained that they intend to keep the 430 Pepper site, which is not part of this rezone application, as currently zoned (R-1). The applicant indicated that he intends to sell it as a separate single family residential parcel. A second neighborhood meeting date was requested by the Pepper Avenue neighbors as a more convenient date for those interested in attending. The meeting was held on Tuesday September 25, 2012. Nine people indicated they would come to the meeting but only six people attended. The six people represented four separate Pepper Avenue addresses. The following concerns were discussed: City of Palo Alto Page 6 • Increase in traffic - It was noted that the intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real is already congested and that they did not want to see it getting any worse. They explained that it is difficult getting out of Pepper Avenue on to El Camino Real. • Density - The neighbors expressed concerns over the height and size of a future building and how it would feel from their properties. They commented that they would like any new building to be as close to Page Mill Road as possible. • Increased parking in the neighborhood - There was concern that new development may result in increased parking demand on Pepper Avenue and requested that the applicant assist the neighbors to work with the City to initiate a permit parking program. • Ash and Page Mill intersection - The neighbors commented that this intersection is fast and dangerous and that the cars parked on Page Mill Road impede views for cars trying to exit from Ash Street onto Page Mill Road. There was interest to remove the on street parking in that location. • Privacy - the neighbors do not want people looking down into their yards. • Disturbance of the contaminated ground water - The neighbors were concerned about the disturbance of the contaminated ground water. Three neighbors spoke at the October 3, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, but their concerns related more directly to the proposal at 395 Page Mill Road, rather than the subject rezoning. Service Commercial (CS) Comparison to Neighborhood Commercial (CN) The applicant believes the CS zoning designation is more appropriate than the CN zoning designation for this site because the subject property is located on a busy arterial street (Page Mill Road). The street has a high volume of fast moving traffic. The stated purpose for the CS zoning is to create and maintain areas accommodating city wide and regional services that may be inappropriate for neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, whereas the stated purpose of the CN zoning designation is to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas. Neighborhood shopping areas are typically more pedestrian oriented and are intended to serve the immediate neighborhood. This section of Page Mill Road would seem more appropriate for city wide uses than neighborhood uses. The busy street does not provide a desirable pedestrian friendly environment for neighborhood shopping and is more appropriate to auto oriented access. The applicant has also stated the desire to redevelop the site with mixed residential and commercial uses. The CS zoning allows for double the housing density (18 units) than the CN zoning (9 units). The CS zoning also allows for a greater residential FAR (2,694 more square feet) than the CN zoning. Timeline City of Palo Alto Page 7 Application Submittal: 01/31/2012 Phase I Environmental Submittal: 05/23/2012 Traffic Analysis Submittal: 06/15/2012 Revised Traffic Analysis Submittal: 07/27/2012 CEQA Document Circulated: 08/23/2012 P&TC Hearing: 08/29/2012 Completion of 30 day CEQA circulation period 09/24/2012 Second P&TC Hearing: 10/03/2012 City Council Hearing: 12/03/2012 Resource Impact The proposed increase in commercial floor area would yield, on a one-time basis, Development Impact Fees of $18.44/sq. ft. and $4.908/sq. ft. for housing and community facilities, respectively, if a commercial only development were proposed. Property values for the site will increase over the present residential use. Specific project impacts will be studied and addressed if and when a development application is submitted for a new building. Policy Implications The project is located within the Cal-Ventura area with frontage on Page Mill Road and its proximity to the California Avenue multimodal transit station. Policy L-31 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of the Cal-Ventura area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse land uses and two- to three-story buildings. To recommend approval of a zone change, the Council must find that the public interest will be served by rezoning the area being considered for reclassification. The rezoning request is accompanied by a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The four properties are currently designated for Single Family Residential use, consistent with the current Single Family Residential zoning designation. In order for the land use designation to remain consistent with the new zoning, it must also be changed to Service Commercial. While the project site is located within walking distance of the California Avenue Cal Train station, the site was not included in the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) area boundary. A commercial land use designation is appropriate for the subject property and is consistent with the commercial uses on each corner of the block and the adjacent pet hospital. The property fronts on Page Mill Road which is a high traffic, major arterial roadway with adjacent City of Palo Alto Page 8 commercial uses. Single family residences are not typically encouraged in such locations. Please see the Comprehensive Plan Policy compliance table (Attachment E) prepared by staff. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration have been prepared and were circulated for public comment on August 23, 2012 (Attachment E). The environmental issues identified in the CEQA review are related to offsite contamination of the groundwater that runs beneath the project site. Volatile Organic compounds (VOCs), primarily Trichloroethylene (TCE), are present in the groundwater and any future development of the site would likely require mitigations such as a vapor barrier and active ventilation for any new structures containing a subterranean garage and residential component, as well as special handling and disposal of any soil and ground water removed from the site. However, because this is only a rezone and no physical development is being proposed that may affect the environment, no mitigation measures are proposed or required. If and when a development application is submitted, environmental review of that project will be required. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution Amending Comprehensive Plan (PDF)  Attachment B: Ordinance Rezoning 423-451 Page Mill Road (PDF)  Attachment C: Site Location Map (PDF)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (PDF)  Attachment E: Comprehensive Plan Policies Table (PDF)  Attachment F: Applicant's Letter (PDF)  Attachment G: Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report of August 29, 2012 (w/o attachments) (PDF)  Attachment H: P&TC Excerpt Verbatim Minutes for August 29, 2012 (DOC)  Attachment I: Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report of October 3, 2012 (w/o attachments) (PDF)  Attachment J: Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration (PDF)  Attachment K: Project Site Plans (hardcopies to Councilmembers and Libraries only) (TXT) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Attachment H 1 2 Excerpt Minutes of August 29, 2012 3 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 423-451 Page Mill Road 12 13 Chair Martinez: Thanks Curtis. Well, yes, we are resuming our hearing and we are going to go to the 14 next item on our agenda and that’s a request for rezoning of 423 to 451 Page Mill Road, and we’ll 15 begin with the Staff report. 16 17 Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Yes, thank you. Good evening Chair Martinez and Commissioners. The 18 application before you this evening is a request to rezone a .6 acre site from Single Family Residential 19 (R-1) to Service Commercial (CS). The application also includes a request to amend the 20 Comprehensive Plan and land use designation from Single Family Residential to Service Commercial 21 such that the proposed zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The site is currently 22 consists of four single family parcels with a single story, single family residence on each lot. The 23 project site has commercial uses to the north and south with single family residential properties 24 directly behind to the east, and multifamily Planned Community’s (PC) across Page Mill Road to the 25 west. If the proposed zoning is successful it’s anticipated that a mixed use project would be proposed 26 for the site. 27 28 When the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) boundary was originally established 29 the City had decided not to include the subject property due to the fact that it was zoned R-1. It was 30 decided at that time that R-1 properties would not be included within the boundary. In 2008 a rezone 31 application was filed to include the subject properties within the PTOD with the proposal for 32 developing a five story hotel on the property. The PTOD zoning would have allowed a building up to 33 50 feet tall. 34 35 On October 15, 2008, the Planning Commission had considered both the PTOD boundary change to 36 broaden the PTOD area and a rezoning of the site to PTOD. The Planning Commission voted to 37 initiate the broadening of the PTOD boundary but to put off the discussion of the specific zoning of the 38 Page Mill Road site until a future meeting so that Staff could examine appropriate alternative zoning 39 for the site and come back with a recommendation. Then the Applicant for the rezoning hotel proposal 40 was withdrawn due to the negative feedback and neighbor concerns. Those concerns included traffic, 41 parking, noise, height, mass, scale, obstruction of views, loss of privacy, blocking of sunlight, safety, 42 and concerns over groundwater. 43 44 While the City has typically not supported the up zoning of single family residential properties to 45 higher density zoning designations, the proposal would be appropriate here. The up zoning of this 46 location would not have the same impact as it might in other locations in the City. The CS zoning is 47 appropriate for this site due to the adjacency of commercial uses. The fact that the site is located on a 48 busy arterial roadway and the fact that the site is located within 2,000 feet of a multi-modal transit 49 center. The CS zoning supports and encourages mixed use development while providing limitations to 50 City of Palo Alto Page 2 protect adjacent residential uses. The PTOD zone would have allowed up to 50 feet in height for a 1 hotel whereas the CS zone district would provide greater limitations on height. The height limit for the 2 CS district is 35 feet, when adjacent to single family residential uses with the requirement for a 3 minimum 10 foot rear yard setback and daylight plane to ensure any commercial or mixed use project 4 is more sensitive to residential uses. There are also limitations on business hours and uses to prevent 5 disturbance of the adjacent residential neighborhood. 6 7 The proposal to rezone the property is also supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Policy L31 8 encourages the development of the Cal-Ventura Area as a well-designed mixed use district. It is also 9 compliant with other Comprehensive Plan policies as outlined in Attachment D of the Staff report. At 10 places you have copies of the draft ordinance and resolution that would be forwarded to the City 11 Council upon a favorable recommendation from the Commission. 12 13 Also at places are responses to questions from Commissioner Alcheck. He had asked if ground floor 14 offices are prohibited in the CS zones, and if so would the ground floor be occupied by retail uses. The 15 answer is yes, ground floor offices are prohibited in the CS zone, but there are a number of uses that 16 would be permitted on the ground floor and retail is one of them. There’s a complete list of permitted 17 and conditionally permitted uses for the CS zone provided in Attachment C of the Staff report. 18 19 Commissioner Alcheck also asked if there was another zoning designation that would allow both office 20 and residential development and allow for ground floor office. The answer is yes, there are other zone 21 districts that would allow mixed use and allow office uses on the ground floor, those being the PTOD, 22 PC, ROLM, and RP zone districts. The PTOD would allow greater overall Floor Area Ratio (FAR), 23 but would allow less commercial square footage. The PC would require public benefits to accompany 24 any proposal. The ROLM would require conditional use permit for residential development, and the 25 RP designations are usually applied to properties within the research park. 26 27 Also at places, you have a table comparing the PTOD, CS, and CN zone districts. Also provided for 28 your review and recommendation are the initial study and draft negative declaration. The issue 29 identified in the environmental review is the contamination of the ground water below the site from 30 offsite sources. Due to the presence of VOC’s, primarily TCE in the groundwater, future mitigations 31 would likely be required such as requirement for vapor barrios and active ventilation systems to 32 prevent toxic fumes from migrating up into any building proposed for this site, particularly for a 33 residential use. It should be noted that any future mixed use project that has five or more residential 34 units would be subject to site and design review. 35 36 Staff has recommended that the Planning Commission, Planning and Transportation Commission 37 recommend approval of the requested zoning change and Comprehensive Plan land use designation 38 amendment. The applicant, John Northway is here to make a brief presentation. Staff and the 39 Applicant are available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. 40 41 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Is the Applicant ready to speak? I think 15 minutes, is that right? Ok, 42 you’re, have 15 minutes for your presentation. 43 44 John Northway, Stoecker and Northway Architects: It won’t take that long. John Northway, Stoecker 45 and Northway Architects, 1000 Elwell Court, Palo Alto. For the sake of time and also because we feel 46 the Staff report is very complete and did a very good analysis of, of the request for the zone change, it 47 also includes our letter of application which goes through essentially the same things that the Staff 48 report goes through, I’m not going to do a long presentation. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 In answering Michael’s question about the, which zone we looked at, we looked at actually all the 2 zones that Russ talked about. And we felt the CS was the best zone to use for the business plan that is 3 being developed and also the fact that retail on the ground floor is not a problem. That would be more 4 than likely, that would be incorporated into a future project which is still to be designed. And we’re 5 available to answer questions. Norm Schwab who is the new owner of the property is also here and 6 he’s happy to answer any of your questions also. But basically we completely concur with the Staff 7 report and its findings and we hope you do too. Thanks. 8 9 Chair Martinez: Thanks. Any questions for the Applicant? Commissioner Tuma. 10 11 Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I have two questions. One is I noticed that it was mentioned in here that 12 the new owner, have they purchased the property or is it an option to purchase, what’s the status? 13 14 Mr. Northway: It’s been purchased. 15 16 Commissioner Tuma: And, also was purchased is 430 Pepper. Is that right? 17 18 Mr. Northway: Yes. That’s correct. 19 20 Commissioner Tuma: And the, there was something in here that said the intent was for that to remain 21 as a single family home. 22 23 Mr. Northway: That is correct. 24 25 Commissioner Tuma: What’s the reason behind purchasing 430 Pepper? It raised a flag with me 26 because I didn’t quite understand why that would be part of this. Is this the same owner or? 27 28 Mr. Northway: Oh. Yeah, it was all, it was my understanding and Norm just confirmed. It was all, all 29 those parcels were owned by one owner, so all of those parcels were put up to sale. 30 31 Commissioner Tuma: So there’s absolutely no intent whatsoever to incorporate that parcel into any 32 project that would be built here? 33 34 Mr. Northway: No. We actually did some, we did some studies obviously before we applied for the 35 zone change and we just felt that the residential street was very important and that it really wouldn’t 36 have been appropriate to use it as access to the Page Mill properties. We just thought it was not a, it 37 was neither a wise nor prudent thing to do. 38 39 Commissioner Tuma: Completely agree. Ok, more of a purchase of convenience. The second 40 question I have is, is the Applicant prepared to share with us at this point, you said that you’re working 41 on a business plan. Is there a vision for what might go here? 42 43 Mr. Northway: I think it really will be, it will be as the Staff report says, it will be a multiuse type of 44 building. It hasn’t been taken too far yet because you don’t want to spend a lot of money designing a 45 building until you know you got a zone that it’ll fit into. 46 47 Commissioner Tuma: Ok. Thank you. 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Martinez: Before you go John, Commissioner Keller. 1 2 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I notice that this property was the four parcels are smack dab 3 between a GM zone on the corner of Ash and a CN zone towards El Camino, and then there’s CS 4 along El Camino. And I’m wondering what your thoughts are about being consistent with the existing 5 CN zoning and having these parcels be, just extend the CN zone all the way to reach GM versus 6 having an island of CN located between, sandwiched between two CS’s. I’m wondering what your 7 thoughts are about that? 8 9 Mr. Northway: Basically the CN zone would not work from a business plan standpoint. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: And I’m wondering if you could elaborate please? 12 13 Mr. Northway: Well the CN zone is far more restrictive as to the amount of office space and things like 14 that that can be used and it really doesn’t, it wouldn’t really, it wouldn’t work for, for the business 15 plan. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: So, the, what I’m hearing you say, is that the CN zone would not allow the 18 degree of office space that you’re planning to have in terms of the CS zone? 19 20 Mr. Northway: Yes. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: So, what in terms of a project that you’re contemplating if we do a CS zone, 23 what are you contemplating in terms of the mix of, of FAR of retail, the FAR of office, and the FAR of 24 residential? Do you have an idea, rough number? 25 26 Mr. Northway: We really haven’t gotten that specific yet. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Alright, thank you. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Other commissioners? Do you have in your business plan identified the retail that 31 you’re targeting? 32 33 Mr. Northway: I’m sorry; I didn’t hear what you said. 34 35 Chair Martinez: The, the kind of, the retail that you’re targeting. Have you identified that? 36 37 Mr. Northway: We have not. 38 39 Chair Martinez: Ok, fine. 40 41 Mr. Northway: Again, we can only go so far until we know that we even have a zone that’s correct to 42 be working in. So it’s, we need to know that the zone is in place. I’d say there’s a very good 43 possibility that it’s going to be under the subject as the Staff report says, to the site and design, so 44 Architectural Review Board (ARB), you, and the Council will see the final building design. 45 46 Chair Martinez: Ok fine. Thank you. Questions for Staff? Commissioner Tanaka. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Commissioner Tanaka: So have the neighbors been informed on the other side, on Pepper? Has, did 1 postcards go out and was there a neighborhood meeting? 2 3 Mr. Reich: There was a 600 foot radius notice mailing advertising this hearing. 4 5 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, but no one’s actually talked to any of the people on Pepper? 6 7 Mr. Reich: We haven’t heard from any community members. 8 9 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. And I know it’s here but maybe you could help me with the math. So, 10 when you go from a R-1 zone to a CS zone, obviously it’s an up zoning in terms of FAR, in terms of 11 mass and height. Can you guys tell me like, comparing FAR between residential and the CS what 12 would that be? What is the ratio? How, how much of an increase is this? 13 14 Mr. Reich: The R-1 residential allows 45 percent of the site to be developed if it’s 5,000 square feet. If 15 it’s larger than that you get an additional 30 percent of the remainder. 16 17 Commissioner Tanaka: I know that. I guess if, can you, the size, obviously the mental math without a 18 calculator up here. Do you guys know, can you tell me what, you know it’s X number of feet before, 19 X number of feet after with the CS zone. 20 21 Mr. Reich: So the site is 26,932 square feet, and under the CS zone it allows 1:1 FAR so the allowable 22 total FAR would be the 26,963 or 932, excuse me. 23 24 Commissioner Tanaka: And then the single family total FAR would be what? 25 26 Mr. Reich: I’d have to calculate them individually. Of the first 5,000 for each parcel. 27 28 Commissioner Tuma: It would be, it would be approximately 10,000 because you can put about a 29 2,400 square foot house on a 6,000 square foot lot. 30 31 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. So this is like a, so it’s going from 10K square feet allowed to 26K square 32 feet allowed. Roughly. Ok. So it’s a 2.6 increase in the square footage. Ok. In general what’s the 33 when there’s like a big up zoning like this, what is the, and this is not PC so there’s no public benefit. 34 Generally is there any sort of, you know, with the PC we actually get some sort of public benefit by 35 giving the owner this kind of up zoning in return. In this case it’s kind of a, you’ve just been up zoning 36 for the benefit of the property owner and there’d be no benefit for the City, correct? No public benefit. 37 38 Curtis Williams, Planning Director: There’s not a, a negotiated public benefit associated with a straight 39 zoning change. The zoning change is the intent of the zoning change is a determination that it’s 40 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that it, you know, furthers the goals of zoning and your 41 plan. So that may, you know, that there’s that there’s some inherent sort of, the zoning would be better 42 than what’s there now, and not necessarily just for the property owner, but that there’s an inherent 43 benefit for the community in recognizing that change. 44 45 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure, I just was thinking about just two things, you know, the neighbors on the 46 other side on Pepper. It doesn’t seem like there’s been much dialog yet and I’m also thinking about 47 what they’re going to think when something that could be built there that’s going to be 2X, 2.6X the 48 size of what could currently be zoned there. So those are some of the things that are going on in my 49 City of Palo Alto Page 6 mind maybe we could have more of a discussion about how that, how that works out. Although in 1 general it seems like this is, if you look at Page Mill, seems to make sense. But, I wonder about those 2 two issues. Thanks. 3 4 Mr. Williams: If I could just also add, I’m just going back to the hearing when it was proposed to be a 5 hotel. I do recall and I don’t want to speak for the neighbors, but some of you were on the 6 Commission at that time that you know the 50 foot height was a big deal. There were discussions then 7 about either, as I recall and maybe this isn’t the neighborhood consensus but some of the residents 8 were talking about you know we recognize this is, these are single family homes on Page Mill and that 9 probably wasn’t our expectation that that those would stay like that. That a mixed use or a multifamily 10 product would be something better to look at than a hotel and certainly the 50 foot height was 11 objectionable so I think that’s some of the perspective we had from that previous discussion. 12 13 Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioner Alcheck. 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck: Is there, can you guys, is there another, this, when I reviewed this proposal it 16 seemed unique to me. I was wondering if there is another site in this City that is, that you would 17 consider similar to this one where there are residential lots that are sort of sandwiched between 18 commercial lots in such a, and on an expressway. Kind of on a, you know, it sort of seemed unique to 19 me. They sort of seem really isolated and un-residential, if you will. And I’m sort of wondering if 20 there are any other sites in our City that present that sort of that orientation where they’re in one block 21 you have kind of isolated units? 22 23 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yeah, I think we have something and perhaps in the reverse 24 where, you know, along El Camino there’s quite a few properties that are CS and CN that are on the 25 major thoroughfare of El Camino and then right behind it you have some single families, so it’s kind of 26 more typical to see, you know, what they’re proposing as the case. A commercially zoned parcel along 27 the arterial or major roadway and then R-1 or RM-15 or what have you on the inboard side of that. 28 Yeah, I can’t think of another situation in town where there’s an R-1, you know, I guess there are 29 single family homes on Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway, but there’s not really a lot of 30 commercial along there. 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: Not in between like two commercial (interrupted) 33 34 Ms. French: It’s just sandwiching like that, like this thing. 35 36 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: So I have a few additional questions. I have a few questions of Staff. So, firstly 39 with respect to the question of office space in terms of the CS zoning, you have a rough idea of how 40 much the commercial could be and how much of the commercial could be office? 41 42 Ms. French: Per the table at places it’s .4 maximum FAR for commercial. Yes. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: I mean for the square footage, so if you have an idea. I’m trying to figure out in 45 terms of the office what’s the limitation on office? 46 47 Ms. French: Yeah, it’s 10,772 square feet for commercial. 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Reich: It’s .4 of the 26,932. 1 2 Commissioner Keller: And how about the office? 3 4 Ms. French: That’s the total commercial maximum floor area, including whatever type of commercial. 5 So the office in this case would have to be at the second floor level. The first floor could be retail or 6 something non-office. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Well does the limitation of this regulation of 18.16.050 according to this, and 9 I’m wondering what that does. What that enables in terms of office space. 10 11 Mr. Reich: It limits the office to 5,000 square feet for the site provided there’s no conditional use 12 permit for additional office square footage beyond that. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: So, what I’m wondering is when you say “the site,” does that mean that they get 15 up to 5,000 per each of the four parcels? Or does that mean that they get up to 5,000 for the entire four 16 parcel site? 17 18 Mr. Reich: My understanding is the site would be combined into one site. And so 5,000 square feet 19 would be the limit. I would defer to the City Attorney to confirm that, because they’d have to be 20 developed individually to be able to take advantage of the individual outlets per site I would think. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: So is there a lot line merger? A, is there a merger of the multiple lots as part of 23 this rezoning? 24 25 Ms. French: Not at this time, they would have to apply for the merger of the four lots. As an 26 application along with either the ARB if it was not going to be a mixed use project with five or more 27 units or with a site and design review application if it was five or more residential units along with that 28 retail or commercial. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Is it legal to condition the, the rezoning to CS on merging the lots into one lot? 31 32 Melissa Tronquet, Sr. Deputy City Attorney: You can’t condition the rezone you would be; you’re 33 rezoning the individual parcels. You can’t force a property owner to merge lots through a rezoning 34 application. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: And they can’t merge lots before, because there’s a limitation on merging R-1 37 lots, if I remember correctly, you can’t create R-1, and you can’t merge R-1 lots over a certain size. 38 39 Ms. Tronquet: Over a certain size, that’s right. I don’t know how it applies to this specific site, but that 40 generally that’s correct there’s a limitation on total lot size in certain zones so… 41 42 Mr. Reich: Commissioner Keller I’d also like to point out that with a .4 FAR for commercial if you 43 look at the size of the lots individually the commercial allowance for each site individually would be 44 2,693 square feet. So they couldn’t put 5,000 square feet of office on each parcel. The maximum they 45 could do is 2,693. 46 47 Commissioner Keller: But would it be possible to have all of the .4 be office as opposed to retail? Was 48 that (interrupted) 49 City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 Mr. Reich: That too would not be possible because the CS zoning doesn’t allow it on the ground floor. 2 3 Ms. French: Yes, it is possible if you had the first floor as structured parking and the second floor as 4 office. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: Ok. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Michael. 9 10 Vice-Chair Michael: So, from the, from the Staff report and what we’ve heard from the Applicant this 11 proposed change in zoning seems to be appropriate to the, the location. The idea of shifting to mixed 12 use with a height limitation of up to 35 feet seems consistent with what’s in that, in that neighborhood 13 with the, the other, other buildings and across the street. 14 15 Also, one of the, I guess the question I have is, as we worked on the Housing Element recently and 16 maybe related to that there was a meeting yesterday of the Council Committee regarding the Housing 17 Mandate, which was responsive to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) proposed 18 allocation to Palo Alto of the need for 2,179 new housing units in the period 2014 to 2022. It looks 19 like this project is one of those projects that will help us get there. And it, and also it’s, is it within the 20 California Avenue Concept Plan, or is this part of what we’ve already discussed in terms of potential 21 increased density proximate to transit and so forth? Or is this just a unique circumstance that’s before 22 us? 23 24 Mr. Williams: Well this is, I mean I do think this is a unique site. I mean, it’s just as Commissioner 25 Alcheck said, having these single family lots sitting between, you know, on a major commercial 26 thoroughfare is an unusual situation and it is proximate to transit. With California Avenue Plan I, I 27 believe will ultimately recommend something of a more intense nature on these parcels. I couldn’t say 28 right now that that would specifically be commercial service zoning, but it more than likely would be a 29 mixed use or residential. So, you know, it’s got some range to it. 30 31 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 32 33 Commissioner Tuma: Procedural question for Staff. It seems to me that in the past when we’ve had 34 applications for rezoning the first hearing is to initiate the rezoning and then that’s followed up by a 35 recommendation to do the rezoning. The way that this Staff report reads, is you’re asking for a 36 recommendation to rezone. Are we getting ahead of ourselves here? 37 38 Ms. Tronquet: We actually looked at that pretty closely and did a closer reading of the code and there’s 39 nothing in the code related to rezoning that requires the initiation. So, you, you know you typically do, 40 do an initiation for PC’s and there is an initiation process for PC developments, but not rezones. 41 42 43 Commissioner Tuma: But, no, no, no, no. I know we do them for PC’s, but we’ve done it for, to the 44 best of my recollection for every rezoning since I’ve been on the Commission. We have an initiation 45 process, we go through a recommendation for initiation, we then come back for the recommendation 46 on the rezoning. So yes we do it for PC’s, but unless I’m, and I, plenty of stuff I don’t remember 47 correctly, but maybe… I mean if we’re going to make a conscious decision to deviate from what we’ve 48 City of Palo Alto Page 9 done in the past then let’s make that conscious decision. But am I misremembering our procedures 1 that we’ve done for the last seven or eight, or six or seven years? 2 3 Ms. French: My recollection is as yours is. We started with that as our, as our report and it kind of 4 morphed. You know it is an Applicant initiated initiation. So they’ve initiated it, Staff is not initiating 5 it. We have had other situations where Staff initiated it and we called that initiation because it was our 6 idea, we were paying for it. This is an Applicant initiated, so they’ve initiated it. I mean if you want to 7 look at it that way I guess. 8 9 Ms. Tronquet: But we did review the process and the code for Applicant initiated rezones and there is 10 nothing that talks about initiation. So, you know, you’re welcome to do that as a discretionary matter, 11 but it’s not legally required by the City code. 12 13 Commissioner Tuma: But it has been our practice historically. Ok. I just want to get clarity on that 14 because I was, I thought maybe there was something that was missing. 15 16 Ms. Tronquet: I think what Staff told me is we have very infrequently have Applicant initiated rezones. 17 So I don’t know that there’s much of a history for this, this type of application. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Ok, are you done Commissioner? 20 21 Commissioner Tuma: In terms of questions, yeah. I’ve got comments, but… 22 23 Chair Martinez: I’ve got a couple questions. How does this score on our, our Regional Housing Needs 24 Allocation (RHNA) allocation? Do we lose four if say they could build a maximum of eight units? 25 26 Mr. Williams: Well we, you know it’s real unclear how they handle loss of units but I think we would 27 have to account for it some way, shape, or form and I think that the overall bigger picture is that 28 California Avenue area is going to increase housing units while this may be an isolated area where 29 there are a few that are lost then it’s made up for somewhere else. But yes, we’d need to account for it 30 in some way. Now it’s not designated in our Housing Element as four for, for, as a housing 31 opportunity site because it’s R-1 zoned. So again, kind of an anomaly but that was one of the criteria 32 that Council had set out for the housing opportunity sites we thought not to rezone R-1 sites for higher 33 density housing. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Thanks Curtis. And say we go ahead with this rezoning how does and this is sort of 36 related to Commissioner Alcheck’s question. How does, how do we then look at the R-1 residential 37 units behind it on Pepper? Because now they’re impacted by a CS zoned kind of relationship to R-1. 38 Do we look at that? Does that soften the sort of overarching idea we have about the sanctity of R-1 39 zoning, or is it a different scenario all together? 40 41 Ms. French: You know certainly a change of circumstance with the, you know, let’s say mixed use 42 building with residential, you know, multifamily residential and commercial below. Again, it’s you 43 know, with the edge condition there the building that would be designed would have to be sensitive to 44 the edge condition. But then yes, when the, you know with the residential homeowners on Pepper 45 wanted to come in with an application to up zone I guess, that would, you know, I mean there would 46 be a change condition there. You know if it is, it is you know, has the underlying single family 47 residential Comp Plan designation, so they would still have to go through this same process if they 48 wanted to up zone and change the land use designation. I mean that’s a, that’s an intact neighborhood 49 City of Palo Alto Page 10 I would say. I would say this site is not a neighborhood because it, it’s a one sided, you know one side 1 of the street and the arterial there doesn’t kind of make it feel like a neighborhood. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Ok, I accept that. Amy since you’ve got the mike what are the next steps? What 4 happens after this? 5 6 Ms. French: Well should you choose to accept your mission, which is a record of land use action and 7 ordinance rezoning, ordinance and resolution, sorry, for the Comp Plan change and the rezoning to 8 recommend it to Council, that’s where it would go next. The, you know, the neighborhood outreach 9 that could happen could happen between now and then if, if that was something that there was some 10 interest and Staff coming up with some of that. We haven’t reached out to the neighbors ourselves. 11 12 Chair Martinez: But under our proposed concessions, if this were eight units or less of mixed use, it 13 wouldn’t come back to the Commission, would it? 14 15 Ms. French: Four units or less would not come back. That would go to the Architectural Review 16 Board. 17 18 Chair Martinez: That’s current, that’s current, but we’re discussing changing. 19 20 Ms. French: Oh, your discussion of, it depends on how soon you’re interested in coming back with a 21 proposal. You might ask the applicant what their plans are. 22 23 Chair Martinez: No. That’s ok. Ok, we’re going to open the Public Hearing. Do we have any speaker 24 cards for this? Vice-Chair? No. Ok, so we will close the Public Hearing at this time and go forth with 25 comments from the Commission. Commissioner Tuma. 26 27 Commissioner Tuma: So, I drive by this, these sites all the time. Seems like I take my kids to the 28 AT&T store too often and so right there, or we’re going to the Kelly More. So this is fairly close to 29 where I live and those single family homes in there have never really made much sense to me. And so, 30 I’m generally supportive of the idea of that changing to something else. However, I’m fairly 31 uncomfortable with the procedure and the lack, and particularly the lack of engagement with the 32 neighbors. And we’ve had a project in this area before. The neighbors, once they found out about it 33 were very engaged, which leads me to believe that their, they don’t know. I just, I believe that. And 34 so I’m sure that we’ve complied with the letter of the law, done the mailings, but I’d like to see, I’d 35 like to see some actual outreach, some discussions happening before we would make a 36 recommendation. 37 38 I’m also very sympathetic to the owner and their representative here, Mr. Northway making the 39 comments of you know, gee, we don’t want to go spend a bunch of money till we kind of sorta know 40 maybe what we have here. And that’s why I think the initiation process is the right process, where we 41 would initiate the zone change, I think depending on what the comments of other Commissioners are, 42 if it’s fairly obvious that we initiate it and are supportive of something along these lines that gives the 43 Applicant an opportunity to develop their concept a little bit more. 44 45 I am concerned about losing four housing sites. I know that maybe is a drop in the bucket in some 46 ways against the ABAG numbers but for example if the Applicant came back and they said, you know 47 we intend to have eight housing units or some number that addresses that issue, I’d be a little bit more 48 comfortable with that. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 So, as it sits right now I’m not terribly comfortable with us just moving forward with a 2 recommendation to rezone without really having even the slightest idea of what would go here and 3 more importantly, without the, the neighborhood being engaged in the, in the discussion and this 4 feeling like a fait accompli. I know that that could go on after our recommendation, but that doesn’t 5 seem right to me. We ought to make a recommendation based on input and interaction with the 6 community. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Can I ask Melissa a question about that. Can we do that? Can we vote for an 9 initiation when it doesn’t sort of appear on the books as something that we can do? It sounds like a 10 good idea, but can we do that? 11 12 Mr. Williams: Yeah, I don’t, I don’t think you need to consider it an initiation, I think you just have the 13 authority as a Commission on a zoning review to say you’d rather have more neighborhood and have 14 the Applicant have neighborhood meeting and hear from the neighborhood or any other information 15 that you would like to have before you make your decision. That’s discretionary and your court at this 16 point. You don’t have to call it an initiation. 17 18 Chair Martinez: And when the neighbors objected to the hotel, were there actual hotel proposal with 19 drawings? 20 21 Mr. Williams: Yes, there was a very specific set of plans for the hotel. And they had a series of 22 meetings with the neighbors before that came to the Commission. 23 24 Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioner Keller. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: So, let me make a couple of observations first. If you look at our agenda the 27 agenda lists this as initiation of rezoning even though the Staff report says that is recommended 28 approval of the rezone. So, based on the agenda, I’m wondering whether we even have scope to 29 approve the rezone. So in that regard not only do I agree with Commissioner Tuma, I think that it 30 seems that our agenda indicates that that’s the process we’re supposed to follow anyway. 31 32 In addition, one of the things is that if I were one of the neighbors and I got a postcard saying that 33 some parcels on Page Mill road were being rezoned from R-1 to CS, I might not know what that 34 means. And I might not have any clue about what could be built there, what might be built there. So, 35 I’m in full agreement with Commissioner Tuma that this should be an initiation and should come back 36 to us with several things. First of all it should come back to us with the neighbors giving feedback on 37 the, on how the rezoning would impact them and their understanding of that. 38 39 Secondly, although I don’t think it’s binding, I’m going to suggest that the Applicant actually give 40 some ideas of the concept of what they’re proposing to build so that the adjacent neighbors have an 41 idea of what’s going to happen there. And I realize I’m not going to be binding and you can 42 essentially do what you want but the neighbors are essentially don’t know what what’s being done they 43 can know what might be done. But obviously you have some sort of concept in mind because you’re, 44 you have enough of a concept in mind that you objected to CN zoning and wanted CS zoning. And 45 said that what your concept was wouldn’t fit under CN zoning. And that seems to me that there’s a 46 concept that you could actually fairly inexpensively do some sketches or descriptions so that the 47 neighbors would have an idea what that was. And I would strongly recommend that those drawing, 48 simple drawings be done, shown to neighbors and when it comes back for approval for this body, 49 City of Palo Alto Page 12 before this body that, that the neighbors actually understand what they’re getting next to them. Thank 1 you. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck. 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: So I concur with Commissioner Tuma and Commissioner Keller about their 6 concerns about whether the public has had an opportunity to kind of speak about this. I think setting 7 that aside for a minute I think the, I’m curious a little bit about the underlying concern about that 8 concern. Which is the following, it appears to me that if they didn’t if the Applicant didn’t pursue a 9 mixed use project, which implies residential, then they would lose out on a major benefit to this 10 rezone. Assuming they didn’t pursue a mixed use project they would be limited to .4 commercial, 11 which would imply essential the least amount of developable space if they had kept it R-1. I mean, it 12 just, it strikes me as highly unprofitable to not pursue a residential component to this project judging 13 that, judging by the fact that the zone wouldn’t allow them to have such a significant residential 14 components. 15 16 So the concern about losing residential on this site seems like a non-issue. I mean, unless this wasn’t, 17 this was like a nonprofit project, maybe. But it seems like a non-issue. I sort of imagine that no 18 project would not consider a residential component, so I’m not worried about losing the R-1, you 19 know, the residential component. And if anything I wonder if, and correct me if I’m wrong, the 20 residential, if it was kept R-1 would be .4 floor area, right? .45. Here we’re anticipating .6? So we’re 21 sort of anticipating essentially a higher density residential in an area that’s within walking distance to 22 public rail and yeah. So I sort of, I really do think, I’m surprised that there isn’t, you know, a neighbor 23 here to be perfectly honest considering what everybody told me to expect about this experience. But, 24 but that being said I’m not really worried about losing residential. If anything I think we’re going to 25 gain some. 26 27 And my other kind of comment with respect to what Commissioner Martinez brought up which is that 28 we’re sort of changing the scope of the neighborhood for the parcels on Pepper. It seems as if, if 29 Pepper is sort of already impacted by commercial zones so there’s essentially what is it, eight 30 properties on Pepper? So 50 percent of them back up already to commercial. And so I sort of wonder 31 if, if, if, you know, I’m not as concerned about that. You know, so, I wonder what options because I’m 32 not familiar with this process as much. I wonder what options if we did, if we really were interested in 33 greater public comment, what are the options there? I mean aside, they could do a neighborhood 34 meeting as one of them. Is it, and then also is there, is there any reason why we would suspect that the 35 neighbors weren’t given enough time or they didn’t, I mean is there any… how long is the typical 36 distribution of mailers put out? 37 38 Ms. French: Well, you know I’m just confirming cause the project Russ said that you know he 39 received his, we always send notices to ourselves to make sure the mail’s working and all that. So you 40 know, they were sent out and cause we received one back ourselves. To ourselves. So we know they 41 were sent out 12, yeah, at least 12 days, 12 to 14 days ahead of this meeting. And then there might 42 have been even earlier notice because separate notice for the environmental document, because of the 43 20 day review period. Or is it 30 day? 30 day. Yep, yeah, mine have been in the paper, in the 44 newspaper for the environmental notice and documents. 45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: Well, yeah. Again I concur with Commissioner Keller and Commissioner 47 Tuma about kind of the lack of presence here. I’m surprised, you know, to a certain extent I’m 48 surprised that maybe there isn’t a representative for the other commercial properties. Because I would 49 City of Palo Alto Page 13 think that you know the presence of ground floor retail would be something that would appeal to them. 1 It would increase maybe foot traffic in an area where there’s not much. So, I, I’m sort of surprised by 2 that. At the same time I don’t know if I share the concerns about loss of residential or loss of, well 3 that’s really it actually. Loss, you know, it seems like we’re going to gain here in terms of residential. 4 5 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: So I’m actually with Commissioner Alcheck here as well. I don’t think there’s 8 going to be a loss of residential. Otherwise you’d be losing much of the bonus of what’s going on 9 here. I do also support the idea of having more neighborhood outreach. I think that’s going to be very 10 critical to avoid problems down the road. And so I actually would like to see that before next meeting 11 on this topic. 12 13 Also like Commissioner Keller’s idea about having more clarity of the proposed project because right 14 now if you look at the CS and CN they’re very slightly different. We’re talking about .6 versus .5 and 15 they’re very, 1 versus .9, we’re almost splitting hairs here, so there’s got to be something in mind 16 otherwise what’s wrong with the CN? Unless it’s a hotel, which kind of brings up another question, 17 which is, what should go there? Should it be a hotel? I mean a hotel’s something the City would 18 benefit from a hotel tax. And so I think that’s something that we should also think about or perhaps 19 the developer could think about. Is, there has to be something in mind about what’s going to be here. 20 21 But I think also back to Commissioner Keller’s point which is, I mean, I think everyone in this room 22 probably understands what is a CS, what is an R-1, and what’s the ramifications. But I bet you most 23 people in the City don’t know what that is. And so some sort of visualization or explanation about, ok, 24 look, instead of a single family house that can only be 20 feet high you’re going to have a something 25 that’s going to be 35 feet high and instead of lot lines or the setback being X number of feet it’s going 26 to be this many feet. I mean I think it has to be pretty, for most residents, it’s going to have to be 27 pretty clear as to what’s, what the impact is. 28 29 Ms. French: If I might, I might be out of order her but since you were on that topic of what is the 30 difference between CN and CS, should note that, you know, with a mixed use project the same 35 foot 31 height limit would be in place for a mixed use project in the CN as the CS. So that was something that 32 Russ had been researching just right before we came down. So there is no height difference if you’re 33 doing a mixed use project. 34 35 Commissioner Tanaka: It says here. It says 35 feet. 36 37 Ms. French: It says 35 feet? Ok. [people talking in background without microphone] Right, but then. 38 39 Mr. Reich: 25 is the limit for commercial only. The 35 feet would be allowed for mixed use in the CN. 40 And I apologize for it not being on your sheets but I came across that after I already put it at places. 41 42 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, great. Thank you. 43 44 Mr. Northway: Excuse me; may I say one thing before you finalize things? 45 46 Chair Martinez: Actually you’re going to have a chance to make your closing argument. Vice-Chair 47 Michael. 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Vice-Chair Michael: So I think we’re building towards a pretty strong consensus and I concur with the 1 remarks of all of my colleagues. I just wanted to add that on the one hand if we were to do something 2 that would speed up the Palo Alto process and do something in one meeting that might otherwise take 3 multiple meetings that might not be a bad step. However, I’m not sure this is the moment to sort of 4 make that leap. We’ve, we’ve recently seen sort of a project or proposal for a preschool on Channing 5 where the outreach to the neighbors didn’t, didn’t really happen and when the neighbors were fully 6 cognizant of what was proposed they, they appeared before us and we heard their concerns. And we 7 just had, I ran into one of the neighbors yesterday who said their concerns still had not been resolved 8 and that outreach was still not happening and I think one of the learning’s from that was that by doing 9 the outreach up front that should promote a more successful project. And so the, you know, the 10 compliance with the technical delivery of a mailer may be different from actually inviting people to 11 attend a meeting. Just being more sociable or knocking on doors and getting the word out in the ways 12 that go sort of above and beyond the letter of the law. 13 14 But also I think Commissioner Keller’s comment about the, the explicit language that we have on our 15 agenda this evening of the word “initiation,” and our sensitivities towards Brown Act compliance that 16 we should tonight conceive of what we’re doing as an initiation and I, I think that all the other points 17 have been duly noted. 18 19 Chair Martinez: I apologize, John if you want to speak now you’ll have three minutes of closing 20 remarks. 21 22 Mr. Northway: What I’d like to talk about is actually the process. We’ve been in this process since the 23 31st of January. A lot of money has been spent on traffic reports, environmental reports, and soils 24 reports. We have no problem reaching out to neighbors I think those of you who know me I’ve spent a 25 good portion of my life reaching out to neighbors on any project we’ve designed. The problem you’re 26 putting us into is that it would be much more effective to reach out to the neighbors with a specific 27 design. I can almost guarantee you that we will be back before this body, the ARB, and the City 28 Council with that specific design. I don’t know how much more information we can give anybody 29 than what is in this Staff report because we have to generate the information in order to show it to 30 anybody. 31 32 If you’re going to make us go to neighbors before you’re willing to make a decision on this zone 33 change, give us a date specific when you will at least consider and vote up and down. I would really 34 ask you to not impose the neighborhood outreach just for the zone change. It’s going to be, you’ve 35 seen it with yourselves; you’ve raised a bunch of questions tonight that we can’t answer. And we can’t 36 answer them for the neighbors either. You can tell them it’ll be the CS zone, all the restrictions that 37 are in it, all the protections for projects that are designed next to the neighborhood. 38 39 So I would ask you quite frankly, do your job. You know you’ve got the information. The 40 neighborhood outreach will happen. It will be part of when there is a specific building design. This 41 neighborhood is not going to be bypassed. If you don’t like the building that’s designed under this 42 zoning you can deny it. But by delaying this it just, it is the Palo Alto process. I’m sorry I’ve been in 43 it. I’ve been guilty too. But this is the Palo Alto process. You’re going to drag it out. At least give us 44 a date specific. Maybe in two weeks where you’ll hear it again, but I would urge you not to go down 45 the course you’re going. Thank you. 46 47 Chair Martinez: Ok, I feel the architect’s pain having been in that situation. And I, I’m a little bit 48 perturbed that we, you know, we’re very clear when we’re doing a CUP or PC or something, what the 49 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Applicant is supposed to bring. And we don’t ask for a representation of what the project will look 1 like in this step of the way. So I feel somewhat torn that we’re now saying well, you didn’t comply 2 with what you should’ve known we might’ve asked for. And I think we need to look at it as a body if 3 we’re going to have this process for rezoning that we put some requirement for an architectural 4 drawing, I was really surprised when I opened up that big sheet and it was just a bunch of photographs. 5 I expected more. There’s sort of we all wish we had before us to make this decision easier. 6 7 But at the same time I see what the Applicant is saying. And I don’t feel comfortable asking them 8 because there’s an error in our process to go back and come back to us before we can start the process 9 with them. I just think it’s really a representation of the worst of what we could do. Commissioners? 10 Commissioner Tuma. 11 12 Commissioner Tuma: Couple of things. One is to address the comment from Commissioner Alcheck 13 and Commissioner Tanaka about what, what we’re pretty sure might be developed here. And I will go 14 back to what was generously, or what was referred to as the JJ&F project, which was a project that 15 wound up being a proposal essentially for ground floor retail and an office above. They could’ve put 16 housing there, but they chose not to because their goal was to hang onto the entire project themselves 17 and never to sell any portions of it. So, what to one person may be kind of an obvious path as to what 18 a developer might or might not do, I think we need to be careful about guessing what direction they 19 may go. So depending on what the goals are of a particular developer, we may or may not come up 20 with a certain result. That’s sort of a side comment, or just something to think about as we move 21 forward. 22 23 The biggest problem that I have quite frankly is that I don’t feel that the Applicant has done anything 24 to reach out to the neighbors of any significance to make sure that they had those conversations and we 25 could be accused of the Palo Alto Process and how we’re dragging this thing out, but everybody who 26 comes in front of this body and the Council knows that you better talk to the neighbors first. And I 27 understand that with a rezone we don’t necessarily know exactly what that’s going to be, but I think 28 you need to tell them that. I think you need to have the conversation and they need to know that 29 something’s happening in their neighborhood that’s going to affect them. 30 31 Ok, and I know that, that this particular Applicant has been in front of us before, knows the City 32 process and I, I don’t really take to being accused that we’re dragging this thing out. I think that if the 33 feet were, if the process was done whether it was some outreach and those neighbors whose houses a 34 building of this size is going to be built were told that a process was starting and you sat down with 35 them and discussed it with them, I would feel fairly differently tonight. Ok. But I don’t feel like this is 36 our dragging our feet. 37 38 That said, I’m perfectly happy to make this a short turnaround. I in no way want to delay this for 39 delay’s sake, but I think it’s imperative that the neighborhood, from day one, particularly those four 40 neighbors that abut this property that they are informed about what’s going on. To the extent that we 41 don’t know, we don’t know. You don’t know. I get that. I totally understand that, but they need to 42 know that something’s going on that could very likely result in something very different from what 43 their status quo is. And I think that’s, to me that’s the gating issue here. And to me that is what makes 44 me most uncomfortable about moving forward. 45 46 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Commissioner Keller. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Commissioner Keller: So if you look at page 4 of Attachment C it actually says page 4, but it’s actually 1 the second page. It describes the office use difference between CN and CS, and they both have CUP 2 for medical office. They both have permitted professional and general business office. The difference 3 is that CN does not allow administrative office services and CS allows administrative office services. 4 And as was pointed out by Staff, there’s no requirement there be any retail. They could have podium 5 parking on the first level rather than digging down and considering that there’s some hazardous 6 material down there that might be an easier thing to do than, than dig a garage underneath that’s very 7 expensive. So you have podium parking, office, and that could be the project. We don’t know, and the 8 neighbors don’t know what’s it going to be. 9 10 So I agree that our process is faulty in that we’re not requiring some sense of the project. but I’m not 11 suggesting that you have detail architectural drawings sufficient for a building permit, or even an ARB 12 review. I’m just suggesting a sketch, which should be easy to do to describe what’s going on so when 13 you do an outreach to the neighbor, to the neighbors you can say, “This is what we’re building. We’re 14 going to build a three story building with podium parking, offices on the second floor, and housing on 15 the third floor.” If that’s what you’re going to build. Or you’re going to build something with 16 underground parking and retail on the first floor and housing on the second floor. I don’t really care. 17 You know, whatever you build, it matters to the neighbors what you’re going to build. And without 18 being forthcoming as to what you’re going to build they don’t know what they’re going to get. And 19 therefore it’s hard for them to basically give informed input as to whether the rezoning is good or bad 20 for them. They just know it as a big question mark and they might not even understand what the 21 implications of what can be built with CS. 22 23 One of the things that some communities do and we don’t is when some communities when you build 24 a project on a site instead of putting a little sign saying some project is being done on this site, contacts 25 so and so Staff member. There’s actually a drawing, or maybe a message that says this building will 26 be so many square feet and so much. There’s actually a little bit more information than simply that 27 there’s a project going on. And so maybe we should think a little bit more about the nature of our 28 notices to actually not simply give the legal description of its being rezoned from CS, from R-1 to CN 29 or CS, but actually that that allows for 35 foot building if it’s mixed use, things like that so they 30 actually understand what that rezoning is. Because otherwise, you know, I know lots of people get 31 these postcards they have no idea what to do with it because they don’t know what they mean. So, 32 thank you. 33 34 Chair Martinez: Ok Commissioners we beat this one up. I’d like to see an idea, Motion, what we’re 35 going to do. Commissioner Tanaka first. 36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: Before I make a Motion I just actually had a couple of comments. Actually 38 questions for Staff. So first one is in response to the developer’s comments. I actually, I like the Chair 39 Martinez I actually understand your point of view and I see that you’re trying to invest in Palo Alto 40 and that’s great and we want to encourage that. In general, you know, this seems to be on a very, very 41 busy expressway and it’s probably more compatible than single family residence. Then on the other 42 hand I share a lot of the concerns about neighborhood outreach because it’s going to be a significant 43 change. 44 45 So first I want to ask the Staff, I mean I was just looking at the rear yard setback requirements and it 46 says it’s now 10 feet with CS zone. What is it with single family residence? 47 48 Ms. French: 20 feet. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 Commissioner Tanaka: 20 feet. Ok, so it’s going to be half the setback so conceivably their going to 2 have a building that’s going to be half the distance away. So there are a lot of impacts like that which I 3 don’t know is captured by the letters CS and R-1. And the other thing I wanted to check is, you know; 4 let’s say hypothetically we did approve this thing the CS zoning up zoning tonight. If they complied 5 with the CS zoning would it actually go back to the Planning Commission or just go to ARB. If they 6 just did the CS zoning exactly and they didn’t try to go for a PC or go outside to get a variance on that? 7 8 Ms. French: It would come to the Planning Commission in the event of a mixed use project with five 9 or more residential units as a part of that project. Otherwise it would go to the Architectural Review 10 Board with a compliant project. 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok so it doesn’t necessarily, it wouldn’t necessarily have to go back to us. It’s 13 only if it’s, if it was a mixed use. 14 15 Ms. French: With five or more residential units. 16 17 Commissioner Tanaka: With five or more units. Ok. 18 19 Ms. French: Yes. 20 21 MOTION 22 23 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I see. So, I guess then I think what developer said that it would come 24 back to us, but that’s not necessarily the case. It’s more only in that condition? Ok. Ok, great. So I, 25 like I said I do think this is more compatible to Page Mill and so I do want to make the Motion that we 26 initiate and I wanted to leave this kind of open so people can make Friendly Amendments and we can 27 try to craft something that seems to work. So I’m going to start off by just saying that we should 28 initiate the process for the rezoning and that I think we should also as kind of the first Amendment 29 have neighborhood outreach. 30 31 SECOND 32 33 Chair Martinez: We have a Motion by Commissioner Tanaka and seconded by Commissioner Keller. 34 Do you want to speak to your Motion? 35 36 Commissioner Tanaka: I already did, thank you. 37 38 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 39 40 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 41 42 Commissioner Keller: First of all I think that this site, it does make sense for this site to be up zoned to 43 some extent, but I’m still having trouble understanding whether to be CN or CS. And so I’m going to 44 suggest a Friendly Amendment that the when it comes back to us it could be rezoned as CN and it 45 could be rezoned as CS, and I’d like the Applicant to explain why it should be one versus the other 46 because I’m not, I don’t understand that. And so I’d really like some clarity of that so is that a 47 Friendly Amendment? Is it accepted that this be initiate rezoning and when it comes back to us we 48 have an explanation of whether it should be CN or CS? 49 City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 Chair Martinez: Before, does that fly Melissa? Can we ask for that kind of rezoning to be considered 2 where it’s… 3 4 Ms. Tronquet: You can ask for that, what I’m reviewing in the code is whether it needs to be re-5 noticed, but that, that’s part of the rezoning process is that you can consider what zones are 6 appropriate. It just may affect the process if we’re looking at different types of zones. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioner Tanaka you wanted to speak to that? 9 10 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, I was actually going to ask the City Attorney the same question. But 11 maybe can we just ask, I wanted to hear other peoples, other Commissioner’s comments about that? 12 13 Chair Martinez: Ok, first I’m going to go to Commissioner Alcheck who’s been waiting patiently. 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck: So, I sort of there’s so many things that I agree with. I think that, you know, 16 Commissioner Michael’s comment about the merits of making this process, you know, speedy and 17 your comments about not requiring an Applicant to do something that we didn’t request that Applicant 18 to do ahead of time. I also appreciate the comment about, you know, the public sort of lack of 19 presence here and that concern. 20 21 But, and maybe you can tell me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t think we’re really considering a project. 22 I sort of thing we’re considering a zone and the only, I think we, I think as, as a group we’re always 23 sort of concerned about the impact of up zoning and also reducing the potential for residential in the 24 community. And it seems to me, correct me if I’m wrong, but that the only major difference between 25 CN and CS is that in CN there would be less potential residential. Aside from that, any proposed 26 project would be identical. So if they have a CN zone and this was their project, or if they had a CS 27 zone and this was their project, the only difference would be that in the CS zone the project would 28 have greater residential. 29 30 And if that’s the case, if that’s the case, I guess, I guess my concern is if we open up this process 31 because we’re concerned about what the project’s going to look like, are we not addressing the, are we 32 failing to address the issue of what we think the zone here should be? And it sort of seems to me that 33 all of us agree that these four single family residential lots are really kind of, not out of, I don’t want to 34 say out of place, but it’s just such an odd place for them to exist and if they presented a project that 35 we… I guess my question to you is if you didn’t like the project, are you suggesting you’d prefer R-1? 36 Because if that is the case, then I would, I would say alright then I guess we should review the project, 37 but I think they’re going to have the opportunity to present a project. And I also think maybe the 38 public will have the opportunity to go to City Council, I mean once this gets pushed up they’ll be more 39 public opportunity and I’m just sort of worried that we’re kind of getting off the main decision. 40 41 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: So, so a couple things. First of all to me the Palo Alto Process breaks down not 44 when there are additional meetings up front to clarify the scope of a project. The Palo Alto Process 45 breaks down when years and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on designing a project 46 and it’s stopped at the 11th hour. So I’d much rather spend the time up front to get it right and make 47 sure that the people understand what they’re getting, and then when the developer spends money on 48 flushing out the design and doing all of that there’s more confidence that will proceeds to, to fruition. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 19 And to me, I’d rather say no upfront than say no on the 11th hour and that’s been my personal 1 philosophy about the Palo Alto Process. And I think if we, if we’re willing to say no a lot earlier we 2 get, we get projects that, that could be, could be changed earlier to be better projects rather than saying 3 no at the end when too much has been spent. 4 5 The second thing is that the Applicant said CN wouldn’t work. Now first of all there’s two 6 differences, one difference I observed with CN is several differences. One is the difference between .6 7 FAR and .5 FAR for residential. Another difference is whether or not you’re allowed to have 8 administrative office services. But another difference is whether or not you’re allowed to have a hotel. 9 And the issue is, I’m not opposed to a hotel. I’m not in favor of a hotel, but the issue is that if there’s a 10 difference between CN and CS and the two adjacent parcels are CN, and a developer actually has 11 something in mind for which they want CS as opposed to CN. It seems strange to me that that’s not 12 going to be disclosed to give us the criteria to make the decision as to whether to do CN or CS. 13 14 And, you know, from my point of view, you know, I’m happy to go with CS if that’s justified, but so 15 far I haven’t seen other than they want it, why CS is justified as opposed to CN. What’s the difference 16 in projects their going to end up proposing between CS and CN, and I’d like clarity on that. Because 17 the interesting thing is it makes sense from a zoning point of view if you had the adjacent parcels be 18 CN to just continue to CN along. And then you have more continuous zoning. Otherwise you wind up 19 with, you know, polyglot of different zones next to each other CS, and that seems to be kind of strange. 20 So that was my first reason for it and then I was surprised when the answer was it makes a difference. 21 Well, if it makes a difference because you have a plan in mind, then share that plan. So that’s, that’s 22 my reasoning behind that. 23 24 So, because we don’t have a procedure that basically says that they have to come up with a plan, a 25 sketch or whatever we can’t require a sketch, but what we can require is justification why it should be 26 CS or CN. And I’m hoping is that for that justification they’ll explain the project that they want to do 27 with sufficient detail. Not very much, some sketch or pliant concept so that neighbors understand it 28 and that we can make the appropriate choice as to whether it’s CN or CS. Thank you. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 31 32 Commissioner Tuma: I think, you know I’m sympathetic to both I’m sure what the Applicant is 33 thinking as well as what Mr. Alcheck said a couple of minutes ago which is we’re not here to approve 34 or not approve a project. And my real heartburn is over, as I said before, over the, my senses that the 35 neighborhood really doesn’t know that something’s afoot here. And so, if you were to come back with 36 some or even to have meetings within the neighborhood and they were to understand what the range of 37 possibilities might be, what this might look like. You obviously while you don’t know exactly what 38 you want to build, there must be some ideas. There must be some concepts. You wouldn’t go outright 39 and buy property. There’s a difference between buying property and having an option. The last 40 person who was in front of us had an option. They tested the waters on their, on their hotel concept 41 and it wasn’t going to work. But you go as far as to buy a piece of property, or several pieces of 42 property, assemble them, you got to do something. 43 44 So I wouldn’t expect certainly at this point to have full blown plans or details to the point of, you 45 know, where you would need on project approval, but to give the neighborhood a real heads up as to 46 what the possibilities might be here, engage in the discussion. I think what you’re hearing tonight 47 from everybody up here is the idea of replacing these four sort of odd single family homes sitting out 48 by themselves with something that, you know, is a, is an investment in Palo Alto and an investment in 49 City of Palo Alto Page 20 something that, that, you know, adds value to the City is something that we’re supportive of. I mean 1 that’s what I’m hearing anyway. It’s just that the neighborhood hasn’t been involved yet and really 2 there’s not even a concept that’s been talked about. And so yes, we will all go through the process. 3 Maybe the Planning Commission will be involved, maybe we won’t depending on what you guys 4 propose, but there will be a public process that will involve the ARB, will involve City Council about a 5 final project. And we’re not asking for, I’m not asking for a final project or even, you know a 6 definitive project. But you have to give the neighborhood some idea of what the range of possibilities 7 might be here. And I think that that makes for a good process. 8 9 And so, in terms of the proposed Friendly Amendment that’s on the table. You know I think the 10 developer is coming to us and saying that they have a, a particular zoning that they would like. And if 11 they want to propose it as a single zone, change it to a single type of zone then that, that’s their 12 prerogative. If we decide that that doesn’t fly could they in the alternative ask for CN? Sure. Of 13 course, why not? But for us to proscribe in advance what they should be asking for for their 14 development seems a bit heavy handed. There’s nothing that stops them from coming back with an 15 application that says CS or in the alternative CN, but to me, you know, it’s their project and we should 16 listen to what their desires are and what they want to build and how they want to invest in Palo Alto. 17 And we shouldn’t be sort of pushing it on them in terms of what we think the zoning should be. It’s 18 different than where the City has initiated zone changes of various descriptions where it’s been done in 19 partnership with the private party. And so, you know, I’m comfortable just leaving it as initiating what 20 they’ve asked for and then we come back at the next meeting with the, with the, you know, full 21 disclosure to the public and we see where we go from there. 22 23 Chair Martinez: Ok. So are you proposing a Substitute Motion Commissioner? 24 25 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 26 27 Commissioner Tuma: No, I’m commenting on the request for the Friendly Amendment. I think the 28 Maker of the Motion had left it open wanting to hear on input on whether the Friendly Amendment 29 was appropriate or not. I’m comfortable with the underlying Motion. I would also be comfortable and 30 maybe I will add it as a Friendly Amendment that the matter comes back to us as soon as practicable, 31 but from the perspective of the Applicant as well as our, our calendar. And you know, I mean I, I’d be 32 willing to go with a date certain, but I don’t want to box the developer into having to have these 33 outreach meetings and they can’t get ahold of the people. If their preference is to have a date certain 34 and it works on our calendar, I’m fine with that as well. 35 36 My intent here is not to slow this down whatsoever, but rather to have those meetings. And so as 37 quickly as that could happen and they’re prepared to come back to us I’d be prepared to hear it. So 38 whether that’s a date certain, or as soon as practicable, you know, I’m actually wouldn’t mind hearing 39 from the developer on their preference on that. 40 41 Mr. Northway: Our preference would be to have a date certain. We would also request someone said 42 to make sure we talk to the four properties that are immediately behind. That’s no problem. What we 43 need right now since you’re kind of adding to the process, is clarity. And we’d like to know do you 44 want us to contact the people that were sent postcards? Just be clear. It’s fine; we’ll do what you 45 want. We would like a date certain because these things have a way of drifting and drifting. 46 47 And Arthur the difference that is the most critical between CN and CS is the CN height limit is 25 the 48 CS height limit is 35. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 Commissioner Tuma: Let me ask you before you step away, what, what sort of time frame do you, I 2 mean assuming that let’s say we’re going to go with everybody who would get notice we’d like for you 3 to knock on the door, ring the doorbell, whatever. Try to outreach them. And then to the extent that 4 you’re willing to come back with some sort of idea whether it’s a sketch or even just some numbers or 5 what have you. What sort of time frame do you need to do the work that you need to do? 6 7 Mr. Northway: We could be back in two weeks. 8 9 Commissioner Tuma: Ok, and (interrupted) 10 11 Chair Martinez: Well that solves that, I don’t think we have room on the calendar. 12 13 Commissioner Tuma: That was my next question to Staff. What are we looking at by way of our 14 calendar? 15 16 Ms. French: The next meeting is the meeting of the 12th, and then we have the meeting of the 19th, the 17 meeting after that is the meeting of the 10th of October. On your agendas are listed what is anticipated 18 to come up on the 12th, what’s been advertised I believe at this point. As of this week it’s going to 19 appear in the paper for the 12th. We have not yet advertised the items for the September 19th meeting. 20 21 Mr. Williams: Yes, I would add with all due respect to Mr. Northway that the 12th is considerably too 22 soon to anticipate that you could get adequate notice to neighbors, get the neighbors together, and get 23 some information back to us to provide to you, you know, several days ahead of your meeting. So, I 24 don’t know if the 19th, the 19th is a busy, is already a full agenda. I know one of the items on that 25 agenda is coming off and can be postponed, but maybe we can shoot for that and see if that works or 26 have a special meeting on October 3rd to try to move it up at least a week from the October 10th agenda. 27 28 Chair Martinez: What do we have scheduled on October 10th? 29 30 Mr. Williams: Right now just the Governance Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 31 32 Chair Martinez: Well he’s asked for a date certain. Why don’t we offer that day? 33 34 Mr. Northway: I won’t be in town on October the 10th. 35 36 Chair Martinez: Ok. 37 38 Mr. Williams: So another option, one of the, pardon? Well another option is, because of Yom Kippur 39 we’ve, you know, moved up the 26th to the 19th so, I don’t know if there’s a possibility that we could 40 fit something in on October 3rd as a special meeting. Either in lieu of the 10th, or because there’s three 41 weeks in between, so that makes kind of a big gap between meetings. 42 43 Commissioner Tuma: You said that there was likely something from the 19th going to bump. Would it 44 be potentially then ready on the 3rd? 45 46 Mr. Williams: Possibly. We could check on that. I think we’re going to have to send out notice in any 47 event of this, so we can see, we can suggest a date of the 3rd, and if that doesn’t work it’ll be the 10th. 48 Oh no, the 10th you’re not here, I’m sorry. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 Chair Martinez: So the plan is to move things from the 10th to the 3rd? 2 3 Mr. Williams: I think there’s no doubt that we can have something else on the 3rd. Either the 4 Governance item moves up to that, or if this other density bonus ordinance is the one that isn’t going to 5 happen on the 19th, it may be that it could go on the 3rd then. So if you’re ok with us trying that at 6 least, I don’t know if any of you know right now whether the 3rd is a problem? 7 8 Commissioner ? (Not shown on tape): This is November, right? 9 10 Chair Martinez: October. 11 12 Mr. Williams: October. 13 14 Chair Martinez: Ok, well let’s, let’s shoot for October 3rd then. 15 16 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 17 18 Commissioner Tuma: Ok, so I’ll offer a Friendly Amendment then that the, that we continue the matter 19 to a date certain of October the 3rd. 20 21 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka do you accept that? 22 23 Commissioner Tanaka: Actually no. I think we had a Friendly Amendment from Commissioner 24 Keller. 25 26 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 27 28 Commissioner Keller: I was going to suggest that it be a date certain of October 3rd or as soon as 29 practical thereafter if it turns out that October 3rd doesn’t work because we don’t have a quorum of 30 Commissioners. And that would I think satisfy the requirements because if we had a special meeting 31 it’s not clear whether we can do that so that’s my suggestion. 32 33 Commissioner Tuma: Fine by me. 34 35 Chair Martinez: That’s fine. 36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: I’m good. 38 39 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 40 41 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. And in terms of the 25 foot I understand that mixed use can be 35 42 foot, that was confirmed by Staff. So I’m not sure if that changes the equation for, for the Applicant. 43 Let me suggest, rather than saying it should come back as CS or CN that it should come back, that it’s 44 fine for it to come back as CS but one of the things we request is an explanation on why it should be 45 CS as opposed to CN and we can evaluate it based on that. In other words the Applicant should 46 answer the question. Why CS rather than CN? Is that acceptable as a Friendly Amendment? 47 48 Commissioner Tanaka: Sounds good. Thank you. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck did you (interrupted) 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: No, I was just going to say kind of on the footsteps of, I think it would make 6 sense for all, it would help us I think if this table had a little bit more information because the table that 7 they prepared to kind of compare, it sort of seems like we’re all a little confused. You know, with 8 what they can do and can’t do. And I think we all initially thought the 25 foot was the height limit and 9 it sounds like maybe in the CN they can’t. Anyway, so that would be a good idea. 10 11 Chair Martinez: So can someone restate the Amendment and the Friendly Amendment, or the Motion 12 and the Friendly Amendment? 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: Can I ask Staff to do that? Have you guys been taking good notes? To state 15 the Amendment and the Friendly Amendment so far for us? 16 17 Ms. French: Yes. So the Motion obviously is to continue it to initiate the rezone to CS with return on 18 October 3rd or as soon as thereafter as practicable. To discuss the specifics there, to allow for 19 neighborhood outreach and with the presentation back on October 3rd or thereafter to include a you 20 know, further discussion or explanation by the Applicant as to why CN is not something they’re 21 requesting and with some supplemental, I guess, expand on the table. You know, you might let us 22 know what else you’d like to see on that table other than that, you know, more of the development 23 standards or more about the uses or is there something in particular you would like to see, you can let 24 us know. 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: yeah for me in particular I guess it would be great to have the existing zoning, 27 so single family actually have the square footage of everything so we know like, ok CS does this, CN 28 does this, single family is this, and you know extending to the rear yard setbacks, I think that’s going to 29 be really critical to people living next to it. The height, the heights we know you can have a, in fact 30 this maybe was something we should give to the, to the neighbors. Right? Something that they can 31 see. 32 33 Chair Martinez: So the Motion is to come back with an explanation of why the specific zone, zoning 34 has been requested rezoning, a sketch of what is being proposed, outreach to the four neighbors in 35 particular, and Commissioner Tuma? 36 37 Commissioner Tuma: I don’t think we were asking for a specific sketch. Because they, I think, at least 38 my thought was that it would be some idea. I don’t know, I said specifically whether it’s a sketch or 39 just some, you know, idea of what it might be. 40 41 Chair Martinez: Is that… Commissioner Keller, you framed that. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: I wasn’t requiring it be, I didn’t make an Amendment that said it should be a 44 sketch but perhaps we should do that as some specificity of what’s being proposed which could be in 45 the form of a sketch. Ok. Is that acceptable to the Maker? 46 47 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Commissioner Tanaka: Well, I don’t think we should require the developer to sketch out the project. I 1 think they could tell us what it could be, but I don’t, do you think it makes sense to actually have 2 (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Martinez: The idea was to be able to explain to the neighbors. 5 6 Commissioner Tanaka: Oh yeah, yeah. I agree with that. I thought, sketch I thought you meant like 7 drawings, architectural drawings. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: No, I’m not requesting architectural drawings and I’m not even requiring 10 architectural drawings are even sketched. I’m saying that the full arm of how they explain to 11 neighbors could be in the form of a sketch. And think of it as sort of more like a thumbnail sketch as 12 opposed to a full architectural drawing. 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: Can I ask the developer what they think about that idea? Is it feasible? 15 16 Mr. Northway: I think I’ve expressed what I think about it. I detest doing drawings of things that 17 haven’t been studied. Basically what we can show the neighbors is the building envelope that is 18 proscribed by the CS zone, and that is the building envelope that the building will be placed inside of. 19 And that’s really where we are right now and we can do a cross section that is allowed under the CS 20 zone and we can do a block diagram of what’s allowed under the CS zone, and that’s really the extent 21 we can do right now. 22 23 Again, I would like some specificity about, I think that’s not a word, but anyway, I’d like to know how 24 many neighbors and specifically the locations. Because we’ll go around and knock on doors, we’ll get 25 it done. it’s just I don’t want to knock on six doors and then come back and find out that you wanted 26 us to knock on eight doors. So just be specific, you can tell the Staff we’ll work directly with them. 27 Just give us the specifics and we’ll do it. 28 29 Chair Martinez: I would suggest you knock on all the doors around the block, including Kelly-Moore 30 and AT&T. Just take that block, and then it’s pretty clear. 31 32 Commissioner Tuma: Can I just ask a question of Staff on that? 33 34 Mr. Northway: So that would be, that’s fine. So basically the block that is El Camino on one side, 35 Pepper on one side, Page Mill on the other side, and I don’t remember the street that Kelly-Moore is 36 on, but yeah. Fine. 37 38 Chair Martinez: Good. Commissioner Tuma you were going to (interrupted) 39 40 Commissioner Tuma: A question of Staff. Is that any different than those that would receive the 41 mailing? 42 43 Mr. Williams: Yeah, that’s broader. I would certainly suggest covering both sides of Pepper. 44 45 Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I mean to me it would be those that would receive the mailing. At least 46 knock on the door, leave them a note, give them an opportunity say you’ve got a meeting set up for 47 such and such date. But I, I, personally I would say those that are required to be mailed to. It’s a 600 48 foot radius. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 25 1 Chair Martinez: Ok. That’s not what we were talking about earlier and the Applicant asked for, what 2 was the word you used? Specificity? So fine. So, Maker of the Motion? 3 4 Commissioner Tanaka: So, so what I interpreted and I think you also heard the Applicant so I think 5 Commissioner Keller you’re proposing the sketch in terms of not an architectural drawing, but just 6 basically what are the boundaries of the, of the project? 7 8 Commissioner Keller: I’m not being specific as to what the sketch will be and whether a sketch is 9 required, just some, just more description of what could be built or what is proposed to be built and I 10 think we have some still uncertainty as to exactly who should be noticed and I understood 11 Commissioner Tuma as indicating that the people whose door should be knocked on should be those 12 within the 600 foot radius. Is that what Commissioner Tuma is suggesting? 13 14 Commissioner Tuma: To me that seems safe. The required legal notice. In this particular area it’s not 15 a huge number of doors given the layout of the lots and that sort of thing so that doesn’t seem 16 unreasonable to me. 17 18 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Can I suggest that it be all those parcels within a 600 foot radius that are located 21 south of Page Mill Road and east of El Camino? I don’t think it necessary to do the parcels that are 22 north of El Camino, sorry west of El Camino or north of Page Mill road if that happens to be within 23 600 feet. 24 25 Mr. Northway: The ones west of El Camino are essentially parks I think. I mean (interrupted) 26 27 Commissioner Tuma: That’s, that’s fine. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Yeah. You can’t knock on the door of a parking garage. That’s why I’m 30 specifically excluding that. 31 32 Commissioner Tanaka: I also agree that, that boundary sounds good. It you want, if you want to make 33 that as another Friendly Amendment that’s, that’s fine. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 36 37 VOTE 38 39 Chair Martinez: Anything else? Can we vote on the Motion? Ready to vote? All those in favor of the 40 Motion say aye (Aye). Those opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you for 41 coming tonight. 42 43 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Commissioner Panelli absent) 44 45 46 6660 Note Only. Page 1