HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-21 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:VIRGINIA WARHEIT
SENIOR PLANNER
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JULY 21, 2003 CMR:365:03
SUBJECT:SOUTH OF FOREST AREA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
PHASE 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the City Council review the proposed policies for the South of Forest
Area 2 Coordinated Area Plan recommended by the staff and the Planning and
Transportation Commission (P&TC), as presented in items #1 through #7 in the staff
report, modify the proposed policies as appropriate and approve.
BACKGROUND
Public Process
The SOFA 2 CAP is the culmination of a planning process that began in 1997.
Originally, the planning area comprised the 18 blocks bounded approximately by Alma
Street, Addison Avenue, Forest Avenue, and Kipling and Cowper Streets. The area was
subsequently divided into two phases, and Phase I was approved in March 2000. Phase 2
includes the nine blocks approximately bounded by Forest Avenue, Addison Avenue,
Alma Street, and Ramona Street. A Working Group of residents, developers, and other
interested parties had been appointed to advise the Council on SOFA 1, and this group
with some modification, continued to work on SOFA 2.
On April 17 and 18, 2002, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) reviewed the proposed SOFA 2 CAP, which consisted of the
Working Group ~ecommendations and some alternative standards recommended by staff.
Comments were forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Commission for further
CMR:365:03 Page 1 of 19
review. The P&TC reviewed the CAP in meetings on May 8 and 16, June 5 and 31,
August 7 and 211 and September 5, 2002, developing a version of the plan that adopted
some of the staff-recommended alternatives while maintaining the majority of the
Working Group plan. The CAP recommended by the P&TC to the Council differs from
the Working Group recommendation in several respects, including floor area ratios, the
option to approve Planned Community Zone projects, height limits in certain areas, and
ground floor office restrictions.
On October 7, 2002, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the
recommendations. At that meeting, it directed staff to respond to comments and
questions regarding the plans. The Council also requested additional, focused review by
the ARB and HRB on specific issues. This review was held at an HRB meeting on
January 15, 2003 and an ARB meeting on January 16, 2003. Both boards commented on
the massing model developed to evaluate different density options, and procedures for
review of projects in SOFA 2 by the HRB and ARB. In addition, the HRB commented
on the staff-recommended modifications to the historic preservation provisions.
Comments from both Boards are summarized in Enclosures F & G in the Memorandum
to City Council, July 21, 2003.
On February 4, 2003, the P&TC reviewed the massing model of SOFA 2 and the
additional information provided by staff in response to Council questions. At that
meeting, the Commission made three recommendations related to lot mergers, historic
preservation, and the creation of a joint ARB/HRB review board in SOFA 2. The
Commission also requested that staff return with additional recommendations for
resolving any issues raised by stakeholder groups such as the SOFA 2 property owners
and the Working Group. A summary of the P&TC recommendations is provided in
Enclosure E in Memorandum to City Council, July 21, 2003.
On April 21, 2003, Council directed staff to return with a completed SOFA 2 CAP prior
to August 2003. Since then, staff has held two outreach meetings, one with the SOFA 2
property owners and one with the Working Group, on May 22 and May 29 respectively.
On June 25, 2003, the P&TC reviewed staff’s suggestions for modifications to the
proposed CAP to address the concerns raised at these meetings. The Commission, by
motion, agreed with some of staff’s suggestions, modified others, and did not reach
consensus on the remaining ones. The Commission’s actions are noted throughout the
body of this report. Verbatim minutes of the P&TC review are provided in Enclosure C
in the Memorandum to City Council, July 21, 2003.
Existing Conditions
The nine-block area comprising SOFA 2 includes seventy parcels with a wide variety of
building and lot characteristics. Most of the properties do not comply with the existing
CMR:365:03 Page 2 of 19
underlying CD-S zoning in some way, most commonly by having more commercial
development and less parking than required. The CD-S zoning allows a maximum
commercial FAR of .4:1 and a maximum residential FAR of 0.6:1, which may be
combined for mixed use projects. Following is a summary of the existing conditions.
In accordance with the Grandfathered Uses and Grandfathered Facilities provisions of the
CD district (subsections 18.49.040(b) and (c)), owners of non-complying, or
"grandfathered" facilities in SOFA 2 currently have the ability to remodel, improve, and
replace their buildings, so long as they do not increase the size of the building or shift the
building footprint. The only exception is that buildings eligible for the Historic and
Seismic bonus floor area program are not precluded from using this bonus on site. All
non-complying commercial facilities in SOFA 2 are buildings that exceed 0.4:1 FAR. Of
the approximately 60 buildings on 70 parcels in SOFA 2, there are 50 grandfathered
buildings exceeding 0.4 FAR.
All SOFA 2 commercial buildings currently can develop up to 5,000 square feet of office.
This applies even if the building exceeds 0.4:1 FAR, that is, an existing 4,000 square foot
building on a 5,000 square foot parcel may be used entirely for office. Metroscan data
shows that 34 of the 60 buildings in SOFA 2 are smaller than 5,000 square feet, and 19 of
these are in office use. Seven of these small buildings are automotive uses and would be
able to convert entirely to office if the Retail Protection Ordinance (Ordinance #4730),
which restricts conversions to office use on the ground floor, were not in effect.
Existing office use exceeding 5000 square feet may continue and may be replaced with
other office uses, unless the office use is discontinued for twelve months or replaced by a
non-office use. Approximately twelve buildings have grandfathered office use exceeding
5000 square feet.
The 27 buildings larger than 5000 square feet in SOFA 2 contain a wide range of uses.
¯Three are unused,
¯Five are in general business service use,
¯Eight are entirely in office use,
¯Four are entirely in retail or personal service use,
¯One is in automotive use,
¯Six contain a mix of uses on a single site or in a single building. Uses are varied, and
include commercial recreation, retail, warehouse, and office.
Vacant sites
There are only three sites in SOFA 2 that are completely vacant: a portion of the 800
High Street site (not including the Creamery buildings), the 901 High Street site, and the
City substation site on Alma Street, which isn’t currently vacant but may be vacated in
CMR:365:03 Page 3 of 19
the future. Though there are other sites in SOFA 2 that potentially may redevelop, these
three have the clearest development potential.
Parking
Of the 60 buildings in SOFA 2, 53 have less parking than would be required by Chapter
18.83, as determined by a count from a recent aerial photo combined with a staff walking
survey. This is because most parcels in the area were developed before the current
parking regulations were developed. Under Title 18, underparked buildings are not
required to provide additional parking so long as the use of the building does not change
in a way that would increase the current parking deficit. One side effect of this policy is
that underparked buildings in office use cannot switch to retail use, because retail has a
more intense parking requirement.
DISCUSSION
This section presents staff-recommended policy proposals that aim to resolve various
recommendations of the Working Group and the P&TC, as well as concerns expressed by
SOFA 2 property owners. The objective in developing the proposals was to minimize
changes to the existing CD-S zone and recognize the great variety of building and site
conditions in the area, while at the same time advancing the intentions of the P&TC and
Working Group recommendations and the goals for the area identified in the SOFA
Policy Framework, the Vision Statement for SOFA 2, and in the Comprehensive Plan.
Some of the proposals are the same as recommendations of the P&TC or the Working
Group, while others are new.
Regulation of the amount and location of office use. No change from existing CD-S
zoning is proposed with regard to the amount of allowed office space, including existing
grandfathered office space exceeding 5000 square feet. With regard to the location of
office space, it is recommended that the citywide Retail Protection Ordinance not apply
in SOFA. There would be no restrictions on office location except in street-facing
ground floor space on the Homer/Emerson corridor. A new Ground Floor Dependent
Office use category would be created that would include office uses that benefit from a
street presence. Only Ground Floor Dependent Office uses would be allowed to locate in
street facing ground floor space on the Homer/Emerson Corridor.
Retail incentives. A new uniform parking rate of 1 space per 250 square feet would apply
to all commercial uses, except eating and drinking establishments over 1500 square feet,
which would need to comply with the existing, more restrictive parking regulations.
This would enable retail type uses to move into spaces previously occupied by less
parking- intensive uses, such as office. In new or remodeled commercial buildings, the
building facades would be designed in a way that facilitates future conversion to retail
USe.
CMR:365:03 Page 4 of 19
Housing incentives. Several types of development incentives beyond those allowed
under, existing CD-S zoning would be available to be used exclusively for housing: an
increase in the base FAR from .6 for housing to 1.15 and 1.5 in RT-35 and RT-50
respectively; transfer of development fights (TDR) for historic and seismic bonuses; a
new Bonus Floor Area program that can be used only for housing; and the Planned
Community Zone, which would be available only for affordable housing and some types
of rental housing and social service uses. Exceptions to parking requirements would be
available to facilitate adding housing units to existing buildings and to accommodate
more units in new housing projects. Density limits would be eliminated to encourage
more small units that are appropriate to a transit-oriented development area. The
requirement of a maximum individual unit size would be replaced with a project average
unit size not to exceed 1250 square feet, to encourage a greater range of unit sizes and
more housing units. Non-complying commercial structures would be allowed to expand
for the purpose of adding housing units to the existing building. See Attachment E .for
map of proposed zone districts.
Changes to the PC Zone and Creation of a New Bonus Floor Area Program. The
Planned Community Zone (PC) would be available only for 100% affordable housing
and!or some types of rental housing or social service uses. A new Bonus Floor Area
program would be developed for market-rate housing projects. It would provide bonus
FAR up to 1.5 and 2.0 in RT-35 and RT-50 respectively for projects that include certain
specified quantifiable benefits. The additional FAR would be granted through a
Conditional Use Permit.
Historic and Seismic Bonuses and Transfer of Development Rights. For Historic and
Seismic FAR bonuses used on site, the existing program would ~?emain unchanged. The
TDR program for transferred bonuses would remain unchanged except that TDRs used in
SOFA 2 could only be used for housing, TDRs could not be transferred into SOFA 2
from outside the area in most cases, and the parking requirement for the transferred floor
area would be discretionary, with exceptions granted through a Conditional Use Permit.
These policy proposals are discussed in detail under the following seven topic areas. A
summary of all the recommendations is presented in Attachment A.
1. Parking
For commercial uses in SOFA 2, a new uniform parking rate would apply. The new
uniform rate would encourage retail uses by allowing them to locate in buildings that are
occupied by less parking intensive uses, such as office. The uniform commercial parking
requirement would be as follows:
CMR:365:03 Page 5 of 19
a. All allowed commercial uses (except eating and drinking): 1 space per 250 square
feet. (PTC recommended approval)
b. Eating and Drinking: uniform rate (1 space per 250 square feet) for first 1500 square
feet. All area over 1500 square feet as required by PAMC Sect. 18.83. (PTC
recommended approval)
c. Exemption for Housing Units added to Existing Buildings: When new housing unit(s)
are added to an existing building on a parcel that is too small to provide additional
parking, an exemption to the vehicle parking requirement for the new housing units may
be granted with an approved TDM program through a Conditional Use Permit. To
address concerns raised by the P&TC, there would be an exception for up to two housing
units with a combined unit size not exceeding 2500 square feet. Until a Residential
Parking Permit Program is in place, a parking exemption may be granted with a CUP,
and no TDM program would be required. At such time as a Residential Parking Permit
Program is in place, up to two housing units with a combined unit size not exceeding
2500 square feet will be exempt from parking requirements.
This policy is recommended by staff to address sites where a few housing units could be
added to existing buildings but where there is no room on the site to meet parking
requirements. However, the PTC was unable to arrive at a majority agreement on this
item. The Commission members had two main concerns. First, the additional unparked
housing units might lead to worse spillover parking in the adjacent residential
neighborhoods. Second, requiring a TDM program and Conditional Use Permit may be a
disincentive for smaller properties to add housing. Alternatives discussed by the
Commissioners included limiting the parking exemptions to sites north of Homer Avenue
that are closer to the Downtown parking garages; limiting the sizes of units eligible for
the parking exemption; making the exemptions available only after the Downtown
Residential Permit Parking Program is in place; and accepting the parking exemption
policy as proposed by staff except not require a TDM program for two or fewer units.
Staff felt a combination of the alternatives raised by the Commission would be the most
effective way to address the two concerns of spillover parking and minimizing process.
With regard to parking for new residential development, parking requirements would be
as recommended in the P&TC Plan, allowing reductions from current vehicle parking
requirements when car share, eco-passes, or other TDM program elements are provided,
and for affordable housing and senior housing.
2. Office Uses
Both the PTC and the Working Group recommended additional limitations on the size of
office uses and also on where office uses could be located. For the specific
CMI~:365:03 Page 6 of 19
recommendations of the PTC and the Working Group, see Enclosure D in the
Memorandum to City Council, July 21, 2003. Reasons for proposing additional limits on
office use are:
¯Concerns that office may drive out non-office when the office market is strong
.¯Office uses replacing other uses and thus reducing the eclectic character of the
area
¯Ground floor office uses eroding the retail node on Emerson and Homer
¯New construction of office space instead of new housing or new retail space
¯Higher number of employees of office uses, thus adding to the jobs/housing
imbalance
Many SOFA 2 property owners have raised objections to these additional limits on office
uses. Because of the great variety of size and types of existing buildings, property
owners maintain that maximum flexibility is needed to make the best use of each
property. Some of the problems that they see as a result of more restrictions on office use
are:
¯Some existing buildings are best suited to office use and would be less marketable
to other uses, reducing the value of the building
¯Some office uses that are now conforming would become nonconforming,
possibly resulting in problems with lenders
¯Reducing the size of allowed office use would leave some small buildings with
remaining space, which would be too small for a second use.
¯Lack of parking in the area makes some buildings undesirable for retail use
¯There is not sufficient pedestrian traffic in most of the area to support retail use
The following proposals for regulating office space in SOFA 2 retain the existing CD-S
zoning with regard to the amount of allowed office space, including existing
grandfathered office space over 5000 square feet. With regard to location of office use,
Citywide Retail Protection Ordinance #4730 would not apply in SOFA 2. Instead,
ground floor office uses would be regulated only for street-facing ground floor space on
the Homer/Emerson corridor (Homer Avenue from Alma to Ramona and Emerson
between Forest and Channing). The Homer/Emerson retail corridor is recommended to
extend south only as far as Channing. Emerson Street between Channing and Addison
includes several residential properties and is a transition to the exclusively residential
neighborhood south of Addison. Also, being farther from Homer Avenue, retail uses in
this block would not benefit from the synergy of other retail uses centered around Homer
Avenue.
The opening of the Homer Avenue bicycle and pedestrian tunnel, scheduled for March
2004, represents a significant change to the City’s pedestrian and bicycle circulation
system and is expected to result in an additional 1000 bicyclists and pedestrians per day
on Homer Avenue. This is a compelling reason to develop and protect an active
CMR:365:03 Page 7 of 19
pedestrian-oriented environment on the Homer/Emerson corridor. Office uses that
benefit from a presence on the street would be consistent with this objective, so these
types of office uses would be allowed in street facing ground floor space on Homer and
Emerson.
The proposed regulations that would apply to office space in SOFA 2 are as follows:
a. Existing CD-S zoning would remain unchanged throughout SOFA 2 regarding the
amount of office space allowed on a site up to 5,000 square feet, and including
grandfathered office space over 5000 square feet. (PTC recommended approval)
b. Existing CD-S zoning regarding the location of ground floor office space (no
restrictions) would remain unchanged, except on the Homer/Emerson corridor as
provided below. (PTC recommended approval, except that the Commission could not
reach agreement on a recommendation regarding Homer/Emerson. See d. and e. below.)
c. Citywide Retail Protection Ordinance #4730 protecting certain ground floor uses
would not apply in SOFA 2. (PTC recommended approval. However, the Commission
had a split vote on whether ground floor housing should continue to be protected from
replacement by office and referred the issue to City Council. See h. below. )
d. A new office use would be allowed to locate in a street-facing ground floor space on
the Homer/Emerson Con’idor only if it is a Ground Floor Dependent office use. A
Ground Floor Dependent office use is a business that benefits from a street-facing ground
floor location in one or more of the following ways: 1) window displays promote goodi
or services provided at the place of business; 2) a significant number of customers,
whether the general public or other businesses, come to the place of business for goods or
services; and/or 3) goods or services are for sale to the general public at the place of
business.
e. All existing office tenants on the Homer/Emerson corridor may remain and may
renew their leases indefinitely. However, a new office tenant may only replace an
existing use or occupy a newly constructed commercial space in a street facing ground
floor location on the Homer/Emerson corridor if the new office tenant is a Ground Floor
Dependent business; or alternatively,
Option A. Existing non-Ground Floor Dependent office tenants in street facing
ground floor space on Homer/Emerson could be replaced with other non-Ground
Floor Dependent office uses.
Option B. In addition to Option A, existing non-Ground Floor Dependent office
uses may switch to a Ground Floor Dependent office or some other use, and then
later reinstate a non-Ground Floor Dependent office.
CM3~:365:03 Page 8 of 19
f. The determination that a business is a Ground Floor Dependent Office use would be an
administrative decision by the Director of Planning. (PTC recommended approval, in the
event that the Council adopts regulation of office uses on Homer/Emerson)
g. Throughout SOFA 2, building facades on all newly constructed street facing ground
floor commercial space and remodels involving more than incidental changes to the street
facing facade would be designed in a way that facilitates easy conversion to retail uses in
the future. (PTC recommended approval)
h. Ground floor housing cannot be converted to office use.
The PTC was not able to reach a majority agreement policies, 2.d and 2.e, regarding
whether to regulate street facing ground floor office uses on Homer/Emerson; and if they
are regulated, whether to allow existing office uses to switch back and forth between
conforming and nonconforming uses.
The Commission’s primary concerns were that the definition of allowed uses needed to
be broad enough to include business to business uses, and that the right balance be struck
between protecting and strengthening an active street life along the Homer/Emerson
corridor while not unduly restricting property owners’ choices of tenants.
Commissioners suggested that "neighborhood serving" did not accurately reflect the
breadth of businesses that should be allowed to locate in street-facing ground floor space,
and "ground floor dependent" would be a better term. To address these concerns, a
definition of"ground floor dependent" uses was developed (Policy 2.d.) that is more
performance-based and attempts to capture the qualities of businesses whose street-facing
presence would help to activate the street, thereby enhancing the pedestrian environment
and providing synergy for other businesses.
The PTC could not reach a majority agreement on a policy regarding whether an existing
office use that does not comply with the new Ground Floor Dependent regulation: a)
would be able to continue to have new office tenants that were also noncomplying or
whether they would have to rent to a complying tenant when the existing tenant leaves;
and b) whether an existing office use that does not comply with the new Ground Floor
Dependent regulation could switch to a new conforming tenant and later reinstate a non-
Ground Floor Dependent office use. Of approximately 37 commercial spaces on Homer
and Emerson, approximately 15 appear to be occupied by non-Ground Floor Dependent
office uses, and 3 spaces are vacant.
The PTC discussed different options for how Ground Floor Dependent office uses in
street facing ground floor space on Homer/Emerson corridor could be implemented.
Essentially, the options are: 1) to treat all businesses on Homer/Emerson the same and
require new office tenants to be Ground Floor Dependent; or 2) to exempt spaces
currently occupied by non-Ground Floor Dependent offices and allow them to rent to
CMR:365:03 Page 9 of 19
new non-Ground Floor Dependent office uses or even to switch to a Ground Floor
Dependent office use or some other use, and then later reinstate a non-Ground Floor
Dependent office use. The benefits of the first approach are that all properties on
Homer/Emerson would be subject to the same regulations, which may be more equitable;
the benefits of moving to street-active businesses would be achieved sooner; and the
regulations would be easier to administer. The benefits of the second approach are that
fewer property owners would be affected by the changes and if there are any negative
impacts, such as delay in finding a new tenant, fewer properties would be affected.
Staff believes that the proposed definition of Ground Floor Dependent office (2.d.) is
broad enough to include many kinds of office uses, excluding only office uses that have
no relationship to the street, and so will not have a significant impact on the ability of
Homer/Emerson property owners to find new tenants. Consequently, considering the
benefits of different approaches discussed above, staff recommends that the City Council
approve policy 2.e. Alternatively, the Council could approve Option A. or Option B if it
prefers to exempt spaces currently occupied by non-Ground Floor Dependent office uses
from the need to move to a Ground Floor Dependent use when their current tenants leave.
The PTC recommended approval of 2.f and 2.g, with a minor word change for
clarification that has been incorporated into policy 2.g.
Four houses located in SOFA 2 are zoned CD-S or CD-N and are currently protected
from office conversion by the citywide Retail Protection Ordinance #4730. If the City
Council intends for this protection to remain in place, it should approve Policy h.
3. Bonus Floor Area Program
Projects would be approved under the Bonus Floor Area Program by a Conditional
Use Permit. The PTC will review the CUP at a public hearing and recommend to
the Director of Planning. If the Director does not agree with the PTC
recommendation, the decision will be referred to the City Council. (PTC
recommends approval)
Through the Bonus Floor Area Program, the FAR may be increased in RT-35 from
1.15 up to 1.5 and in RT-50 from 1.5 up to 2.0 by providing one or more of the
following special provisions: (PTC recommended approval)
Additional BMR component (BMR guidelines to be established).
Substantial public parking (quantitative guidelines to be established).
Provision of child-care facility that is open to the public (quantitative
guidelines to be established).
CMR:365:03 Page 10 of 19
o
o
Provision of space at below market rate for community and non-profit
services (quantitative guidelines to be established).
Projects eligible for PC zoning (affordable housing and some types of
rental housing and social service uses) may be developed under the
Bonus Floor Area Program at 1.5 FAR in RT-35 and at 2.0 FAR in RT-
50.
The new Bonus Floor Area Program would be developed for projects that could provide
certain benefits to the community as a requirement for approval of additional floor area
above the base FAR. While below market rate projects also may be approved under the
Bonus Floor Area program, the Program is designed to provide more predictability in
market rate projects for property owners, developers and the community. Quantifiable
guidelines will be established for each of the allowed benefits.
The list of benefits was developed from the P&TC’s recommended benefits for PC
projects. Two benefits from that list, public gathering space and comparable public
benefit, are not recommended for inclusion in the Bonus FAR Program because they are
not sufficiently quantifiable.
4. Planned Community Zone
To resolve concerns with use of the Planned Community Zone while retaining the ability
of decision makers to approve special projects that would provide much needed housing
opportunities not likely to be provided under standard zoning, the Planned Community
Zone would be available in SOFA 2 only for certain limited uses.
ao The Planned Community Zone could be used in SOFA 2 only for fully affordable
housing projects, exclusively rental housing projects or social service uses, subject to
the following provisions and exceptions:
"Affordable" housing is defined as in the City’s Housing Element and includes
income levels up to 120% of median income.
PC housing projects may include a small retail or social service component.
Social service uses that are eligible for a PC zone are intended to be projects that
could not be achieved under other zoning, and would not include, for example, an
office building that happens to be occupied by social service functions.
A market rate rental housing project would be eligible for a PC zone only if it
qualifies as a mixed income tax exempt bond financing rental project, or if the
CMR:365:03 Page 11 of 19
average unit size does not exceed 1250 square feet. Development standards for
Planned Community Zones in SOFA 2 would be as follows:
b. In RT-35, the FAR limit would be 1.5.
c. In the RT-50 zone the FAR will be established by the PC project (no FAR limit).
d. Height and Daylight Plane requirements of the zone apply, unless a minor exception is
granted through a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE).
e. There is no individual residential unit size limit, except for market rate rental housing
as provided in 4.a.
The PTC did not reach majority agreement on any motions regarding the Planning
Community zone. The following two alternatives were introduced, but both failed on a
2-4 vote:
Recommend approval of staff recommendations a. and b., but do not allow a PC
for projects that are exclusively for social services. However, affordable or rental
housing projects could have a social services or retail component. The FARs for
the RT-35 and RT-50 districts should be 1.5:1 and 3.0:1, respectively. "Minimal"
height and.daylight plane exceptions would be permitted.
Recommend approval of staff recommendations a. and b, but do not permit non-
affordable rental projects to.apply for a PC District. Affordable housing projects
must be "affordable", not "attainable".
Commission members supported the concept of Planned Community zoning continuing
to be available for affordable housing, some types of rental housing and some other social
purposes. Disagreement centered around definitions of ~affordable"; whether social
services could be the only use in a PC project or if it needed to be ancillary to affordable
housing; whether there should be an FAR limit, particularly in the RT-50 zone; possible
exceptions for minimal height and daylight plane requirements; and whether market rate
rental projects could be PC projects. Concerns were expressed that the PC should be
used to serve people who truly need housing assistance, and that while a certain amount
of flexibility was needed with regard to development standards to accommodate unusual
projects, an unlimited FAR should not be available for such uses as luxury rental projects
or social service office buildings.
In response to comments of the PTC, staff revised policies a., d., and e. to address its
concerns.
CMR:365:03 Page 12 of 19
5. Residential Density and Average Unit Size Limits
a. Density Requirement: The density limit in both RT-35 and RT-50 would be the
maximum density limit in the Comprehensive Plan. (PTC recommended approval)
b. Unit Size Requirement: There would be no maximum size limit on individual units,
but the average unit size for a project would not exceed 1250 square feet. (PTC
recommended approval of average unit size limits, with staff to investigate the
appropriate average unit size for recommendation to City Council)
In the PTC Draft SOFA 2 CAP Plan, the Commission recommended that individual units
have a maximum size limit of 1500 square feet. Subsequently, during review of the
proposed project at 800 High Street, the Commission determined the need for the SOFA
2 CAP to have a project average unit size limit to assure a wider range of unit sizes,
although no specific average size limit was established at that time. An average unit size
limit and no upper limit on the size of individual units would allow the developer greater
flexibility to tailor the sizes of larger units to fit the needs of the project while assuring
that larger units would be balanced with moderate size and smaller size units.
In the policy proposals presented to PTC at the June 25 meeting, staff recommended an
average unit size limit of 1100 square feet. This number is the midpoint between the
average unit size of 913 square feet at the transit-oriented development, Abitare, located
at 425 Alma, and the approximate average unit size of 1300 square feet in the other five
condominium projects located in or near SOFA 2. The Commission supported the
proposal to replace the maximum size limit for individual units with a project average
unit size limit, and some Commissioners suggested this average unit size should be 1400
square feet while others felt that number was too high. The Commission directed staff to
do additional investigation and recommend an appropriate average unit size to the City
Council.
Staff analyzed unit size data for all twenty-six existing air fights condominium projects
located west of Waverly Street and north of Channing Avenue. This area was selected
because it represents projects within approximately 2000 feet of the Downtown Caltrain
station. As a comparison, unit size data was also analyzed for the transit-oriented Palo
Alto Central development located on Park Boulevard at California Avenue near the
California Avenue Caltrain station. This data is presented in Table 1., Attachment B, and
the locations of the projects are shown on the Map in Attachment C.
Based on the results of this analysis, and for other reasons discussed below, staff
recommends that 1250 square feet is an appropriate average unit size limit for
condominium projects in SOFA 2. The twenty-five condominium projects in the area,
CMR:365:03 Page 13 of 19
excluding 101 Alma, have a total of 282 units. The median size for these units is 1237
square feet, and the average unit size is 1273 square feet. For the 99 units at 101 Alma
the average unit size is 1212 square feet. The transit-oriented Palo Alto Central project
at California Avenue has 141 units with an average size of 1146 square feet. In contrast
to the sizes of existing condominiums, the two condominium projects currently under
construction in SOFA 1 located at 315 Homer and 325 Channing, with a total of 66 units,
have an average unit size of 1526 square feet and 1973 square feet, respectively. Only
one of these 66 units are less than 1250 square feetl
Some Commissioners wanted to encourage housing for families to provide stability in the
neighborhood and felt that a larger average unit size might produce more 3 and 4
bedroom units that would attract families. To explore this concept, data on unit size and
number of bedrooms in the twenty-five projects in the study area was analyzed. The
results show that an overwhelming number of all units (78%) are two bedroom units, and
these are represented across a wide range of unit sizes, from less than 800 square feet to
over 2200 square feet. Only about 10% of the units have 3 or 4 bedrooms, and these also
occur across a wide range of sizes, from 900 square feet to over 2500 square feet. A
conclusion that can be drawn from this is that units of almost any size are more likely to
be configured as 2 bedroom units because that is the most adaptable type of unit, and
having more large units is not an assurance of family housing; rather, large units are more
likely to be designed as large two bedroom units.
A key goal of the SOFA CAP and programs in the Housing Element, particularly
Programs H-5 and H-6, is to increase the amount and variety of housing opportunities
within walking distance of the Downtown Caltrain station, especially affordable and
"attainable" housing. Housing Element Program H-6 encourages development of
housing units of less than 1200 square feet as a way to increase both affordability and the
number of housing units. Producing units of a more moderate size can help to increase
the total number of units. If average unit size is increased from 1200 square feet to 1300
square feet, the number of units that can be provided within the same total floor area is
reduced by 7%. A further increase in average unit size to 1400 square feet would result
in 14% fewer units. Over the SOFA 2 area, larger average unit sizes could represent a
significant reduction in the number of housing units provided.
The PTC approved the staff recommendation to eliminate density limits, other than those
provided in the Comprehensive Plan. The number of units that could be provided on a
site would be limited by the FAR, height, daylight planes and parking requirements.
6. Transfer of Development Rights
go TDR bonus floor area used within SOFA 2 may only be used for residential use.
Exceptions to the vehicle parking requirements in PAMC Section18.83 may be
granted with an approved TDM program through a Conditional Use Permit. The
CMR:365:03 Page 14 of 19
do
parking requirements would not apply to parcels located within the Downtown
Parking Assessment District. (PTC recommended approval)
Bonus floor area cannot be transferred into SOFA 2 from other areas, unless both
the historic building outside SOFA 2 and the non-historic receiver site in SOFA 2
are under the same ownership at the time the SOFA 2 CAP is adopted. (PTC
recommended approval)
Bonus floor area cannot be used to exceed 1.5 FAR in RT-35 and 2.0 in RT-50.
However, if an existing historic building exceeds the FAR limit, this would not
preclude using the bonus floor area from that building on site. (PTC
recommended approval)
The TDR program could be expanded to allow the transfer of development rights
to a proposed development site from a separate parcel not part of the development
site. The donor parcel would be dedicated as public open space. (PTC
recommended approval)
For both Seismic and Historic bonuses used on site, the existing program would
remain unchanged. Because of the unique constraints on each site, adding
additional restrictions on how the bonus could be used may discourage use of
these programs. However, transferred FAR bonuses used within SOFA 2 could
only be used for housing. Also, because of the parking shortage within SOFA,
parking may have to be provided for the bonus floor area. The actual parking
requirement for each project would be determined in the discretionary review
process and exceptions to the parking requirement could be granted with a
Conditional Use Permit.
The PTC approved the proposed TDR Policies 6.a - 6.d. with a change to 6.a to make it
clear that the vehicle parking requirements would not apply to the three parcels in SOFA
2 that are located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District.
7. Non-complying Facilities Provisions ("Grandfather Clause")
ao Grandfathered buildings may be enlarged solely for the purpose of providing housing,
up to the base FAR for the district, except that buildings eligible for historic or
seismic bonuses may continue to use their bonuses on site for any allowed use. (PTC
recommended approval)
b°Grandfathered buildings may further enlarge up to 1.5:1 in RT-35 or 2:1 in RT-50 by
participating in the Bonus Floor Area Program, which can only be used for housing.
(PTC recommended approval)
CMR:365:03 Page 15 of 19
Co When rebuilding grandfathered commercial space, the building may be shifted outside
the building footprint. (PTC recommended approval of the staff recommendation,
except they deleted the condition, "if the shift will make the building more suitable for
retail use or for housing. ")
As was discussed earlier, most of the existing commercial buildings in SOFA 2 are
noncomplying because they exceed 0.4 FAR, and as "grandfathered" structures they are
not permitted to expand the size of the building in any way or shift the footprint of the
building without giving up the excess-grandfathered commercial space. The exception is
that buildings eligible for historic or seismic bonuses are not precluded from using these
bonuses. To encourage adding housing units to existing buildings, the existing
grandfather clause would be amended to allow these noncomplying buildings to expand
solely for the purpose of adding housing units.
NEXT STEPS
After direction from the City Council on the policy proposals, staff will prepare a final
draft SOFA 2 CAP. The final Draft SOFA 2 CAP will then be presented to the City
Council for review and action.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no significant long-term impact on staff resources as a result of approval of
either the Working Group plan or the PTC plan or an alternative plan. The CAP will be
implemented in the SOFA 2 area in place of existing zoning. Either the ARB or joint
HRB/ARB board, in accordance with standards and guidelines included in the CAP, will
review projects. These review and approval procedures will not use significantly more
resources that the current review and approval procedures.
There will be an initial impact on staff time as training in the new requirements and
procedures occurs. This additional time will eventually return to current levels, as staff
becomes proficient in the application of the CAP requirements.
In determining the resource impact of these proposals on property owners, staff has had
the benefit of several economic analyses, as well as input from the property owners
themselves. Based on this information, the proposal that is presented in this staff report
is less restrictive than earlier proposals. It would have no negative impact on the majority
of property owners in the area, because it does not add restrictions beyond tho~e present
in the current CD-S zoning. For properties along Homer Avenue and Emerson Street, the
proposal will minimally limit tenant selection in street facing ground floor commercial
spaces, since allowed uses would include certain kinds of offices and there are no
additional restrictions on the size of office uses. It should also be noted that incentives
for housing, including increases in allowed development, have been added area-wide.
CMR:365:03 Page 16 of 19
These incentives, by increasing the flexibility that property owners have in remodeling
and redevelopment for housing, may increase the value of property in SOFA 2.
POLICY IMPLICATION
Relevant Statements from the 1997 SOFA Council Policy Framework
The following are some statements paraphrased from the 1997 SOFA Policy Framework
that are particularly relevant to the topics discussed in this staff report. The .full policy
framework is incIuded in Attachment I:
¯Provide a significant quantity of new housing.
¯Allow a variety of housing types, especially affordable housing.
¯Plan for convenient neighborhood and local commercial uses and services, including
automobile repair, hardware, and sundries.
¯Identify appropriate and mutually compatible uses that provide vitality and
convenience for residents, businesses, and visitors.
¯Promote high quality design and construction that preserves and continues the
existing character of the area, including the scale of development.
¯Pursue opportunities for public facilities in the area including but not limited to open
space, parks, plazas, childcare, art, libraries, and other such facilities.
Vision Statement of the SOFA 2 CAP
The following are some statements parapl~ased from the vision statement of the SOFA 2
CAP that are particularly relevant to the topics discussed in this staff report. The full
vision statement is included in Attachment H:
¯Increase housing opportunities.
¯Support a mixture of uses.
¯The plan calls for higher density housing
Enhance the neighborhood-serving character of the retail and service uses in the area.
Support physical change provided that new buildings and additions are compatible
with and complement the character of existing buildings.
Housing Element
Program H-5: Maximum unit sizes should also be considered to encourage the
production of more affordable housing. Establish development standards that allow the
maximum amount of housing, particularly for affordable housing projects, permitted
under the allowed density range while preserving the character of adjacent
neighborhoods. Since housing supplies are so limited, the loss of development potential
on any residential site must be discouraged.
CMR:365:03 Page 17 of 19
Program H-6: A variety of housing types are desired in Palo Alto to address the broad
spectrum of needs. By providing incentives to develop housing units of less than 1,200
square feet, the affordability and number of potential units can be increased.
Comprehensive Plan
Page L-12 - Mixed Use Land Use Designation: Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15,
though Residential-Retail and Residential-Office located along transit corridors or near
multi-modal centers will range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas
resistant to revitalization. The FAR above 1o 15 will be used for residential purposes.
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City.Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
Page L-11: Transit-oriented Residential: Net density will range up to 50 units per acre
within 2000 feet of a multi-modal transit station.
Policy H- 14: Encourage construction of SRO Housing.
Policy H-15: Support housing that incorporates facilities to meet needs of households
with special needs, including seniors.
Program H-2: Consider enacting minimum density requirements in multiple-family
zones.
Policy L-6; Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between
residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different intensities.
Program H-12: Allow reduced parking standards for higher density development,
especially for transit-oriented development and for development that can demonstrate a
lower need for parking than required by the zoning ordinance.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Policy Proposals.
Table 1. Unit Size in Condominium Projects.
Map of Condominium Project Sites West of Waverley and North of
Channing.
Memorandum to City Council listing Attachments sent under
separate cover.
District Map of South of Forest Area
CMR:365:03 Page 18 of 19
COURTESY COPIES:
SOFA Working Group Members
PREPARED BY:
VIRGINIA WARHEIT, Senior Planner
JON ABENDSCHEIN, Management Specialist
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EM~I~I~A~~X(~N~"
Assistant City Manager
CMR:365:03 Page 19 of 19
ATTACHMENT A
POLICY PROPOSALS
1. Parking
go All allowed commercial uses (except eating and drinking): 1 space per 250
square feet. (PTC recommended approval)
bo Eating and Drinking: uniform rate (1 space per 250 square feet) for first 1500
square feet. All area over 1500 square feet as required by PAMC Sect. 18.83.
(PTC recommended approval)
Co Exemption for Housing Units added to Existing Buildings: When new housing
unit(s) are added to an existing building on a parcel that is too small to provide
additional parking, an exemption to the vehicle parking requirement for the new
housing units may be granted with an approved TDM program through a
Conditional Use Permit. To address concerns raised by the P&TC, there would
be an exception for up to two housing units with a combined unit size not
exceeding 2500 square feet. Until a Residential Parking Permit Program is in
place, a parking exemption may be granted with a CLIP, and no TDM program
would be required. At such time as a Residential Parking Permit Program is in
place, up to two housing units with a combined unit size not exceeding 2500
square feet will be exempt from parking requirements.
2. Office Uses.
go Existing CD-S zoning would remain unchanged throughout SOFA 2 regarding
the amount of office space allowed on a site up to 5,000 square feet, and
including grandfathered office space over 5000 square feet. (PTC recommended
approval)
No Existing CD-S zoning regarding the location of ground floor office space (no
restrictions) would remain unchanged, except on the Homer/Emerson corridor as
provided below. (PTC recommended approval, except that the Commission could
not reach agreement on a recommendation regarding Homer/Emerson. See d.
and e. below)
Co Citywide Retail Protection Ordinance #4730 protecting certain ground floor uses
would not apply in SOFA 2. (PTC recommended approval. However, the
Commission had a split vote on whether ground floor housing should continue to
be protected fi’om replacement by office and referred the issue to City Council.
See h. below)
do A new office use would be allowed to locate in a street-facing ground floor space
on the Homer/Emerson Corridor only if it is a Ground Floor Dependent office
use. A Ground Floor Dependent office use is a business that benefits from a
street-facing ground floor location in one or more of the following ways: 1)
window displays promote goods or services provided at the place of business; 2)
a significant number of customers, whether the general public or other
businesses, come to the place of business for goods or services; and/or 3) goods
or services are for sale to the general public at the place of business.
eo All existing office tenants on the Homer/Emerson corridor may remain and may
renew their leases indefinitely. However, a new office tenant may only replace
an existing use or occupy a newly constructed commercial space in a street
facing ground floor location on the Homer/Emerson corridor if the new office
tenant is a Ground Floor Dependent business; or alternatively,
Option A. Existing non-Ground Floor Dependent office tenants in street facing
ground floor space on Homer/Emerson could be replaced with other non-Ground
Floor Dependent office uses.
Option B. In addition to Option A, existing non-Ground Floor Dependent office
uses may switch to a Ground Floor Dependent office or some other use, and then
later reinstate a non-Ground Floor Dependent office.
The determination that a business is a Ground Floor Dependent Office use would
be an administrative decision by the Director of Planning. (PTC recommended
approval, in the event that the Council adopts regulation of office uses on
Homer/Emerson)
go Throughout SOFA 2, building facades on all newly constructed street facing
ground floor commercial space and remodels involving more than incidental
changes to the street facing fagade would be designed in a way that facilitates
easy conversion to retail uses in the future. (PTC recommended approval)
h. Ground floor housing cannot be converted to office use.
3. Bonus Floor Area Prowam
go Projects would be approved under the Bonus Floor Area Program by a Conditional
Use Permit. The PTC will review the CUP at a public hearing and recommend to
the Director of Planning. If the Director does not agree with the PTC
recommendation, the decision will be referred to the City Council. (PTC
recommends approval)
Through the Bonus Floor Area Program, the FAR may be increased in RT-35 from
1.15 up to 1.5 and in RT-50 from 1.5 up to 2.0 by providing one or more of the
following special provisions: (PTC recommended approval)
o
Additional __% BMR component (BMR guidelines to be established)
Substantial public parking (quantitative guidelines to be established)
Provision of child-care facility that is open to the public (quantitative
guidelines to be established)
Provision of space at below market rate for community and non-profit
services (quantitative guidelines to be established)
Projects eligible for PC zoning (exclusively rental housing, affordable housing
or social service uses) may be developed under the Bonus Floor Area Program
at 1.5 FAR in RT-35 and at 2.0 FAR in RT-50.
4. Planned Community Zone
ao The Planned Community Zone could be used in SOFA 2 only for fully affordable
housing projects, exclusively rental housing projects or social service uses, subject
to the following provisions and exceptions:
¯"Affordable" housing is defined as in the City’s Housing Element and includes
income levels up to 120% of median income.
¯PC housing projects may include a small retail or social service component.
Social service uses that are eligible for a PC zone are intended to be projects that
could not be achieved under other zoning, and would not include, for example,
an office building that happens to be occupied by social service functions.
A market rate rental housing project would be eligible for a PC zone only if it
qualifies as a mixed income tax exempt bond financing rental project, or if the
average unit size does not exceed 1250 square feet. Development standards for
Planned Community Zones in SOFA 2 would be as follows:
b. In RT-35, the FAR limit would be 1.5.
c. In the RT-50 zone the FAR will be established by the PC project (no FAR limit).
d. Height and Daylight Plane requirements of the zone apply, unless a minor exception
is granted through a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE).
e. There is no individual residential unit size limit, except for market rate rental
housing as provided in 4.a.
5. Residential Density and Average Unit Size Limits
a. Density Requirement: The density limit in both RT-35 and RT-50 would be the
maximum density limit in the Comprehensive Plan. (PTC recommended approval)
b.Unit Size Requirement: There would be no maximum size limit on individual units,
but the average unit size for a project would not exceed 1250 square feet. (PTC
recommended approval of average unit size limits, with staff to investigate the
appropriate average unit size for recommendation to City Council)
6. Transfer of Development Rights
go TDR bonus floor area used within SOFA 2 may only be used for residential use.
Exceptions to the vehicle parking requirements in PAMC Sectionl 8.83 may be
granted with an approved TDM program through a Conditional Use Permit. The
parking requirements would not apply to parcels located within the Downtown
Parking Assessment District. (PTC recommended approval)
Bonus floor area cannot be transferred into SOFA 2 from other areas, unless both the
historic building outside SOFA 2 and the non-historic receiver site in SOFA 2 are
under the same ownership at the time the SOFA 2 CAP is adopted. (PTC
recommended approval)
Co Bonus floor area cannot be used to exceed 1.5 FAR in RT-35 and 2.0 in RT-50.
However, if an existing historic building exceeds the FAR limit, this would not
preclude using the bonus floor area from that building on site. (PTC recommended
approval)
The TDR program could be expanded to allow the transfer of development rights to
a proposed development site from a separate parcel not part of the development site.
The donor parcel would be dedicated as public open space. (PTC recommended
approval).
7. Non-complying Facilities Provisions ("Grandfather Clause")
go Grandfathered buildings may be enlarged solely for the purpose of providing
housing, up to the base FAR for the district, except that buildings eligible for historic
or seismic bonuses may continue to use their bonuses on site for any allowed use.
(PTC recommended approval)
No Grandfathered buildings may further enlarge up to 1.5:1 in RT-35 or 2:1 in RT-50
by participating in the Bonus Floor Area Program, which can only be used for
housing. (PTC recommended approval)
When rebuilding grandfathered commercial space, the building may be shifted
outside the building footprint. (PTC recommended approval of the staff
recommendation, except they deleted the condition, "if the shift will make the
building more suitable for retail use or for housing. ")
E
.__
o
Attachment C
Condominium Project Sites
West of Waverley
and
North of Channing
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
Attachment D
TO:
SUBJECT:
City Council Members
South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan Phase 2 Attachments
July 21, 2003
The attachments to the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase 2 are attached.
Copies are available for review by the public at the 5th Floor Front Counter, the
Development Center counter and the Downtown Library.
Enclosed, please find the following:
Attachments A through R that were submitted to the Council at the October 7,
2002 City Council Meeting:
A. Resolution certifying SOFA FEIR as environmental document for SOFA
Phase 2 with the attached Addendum to SOFA FEIR (Exhibit A).
B.Ordinance approving the SOFA Phase 2 CAP with the attached PTC
Recommended SOFA Phase 2 CAP (Exhibit A).
C.Resolution Amending the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan for
SOFA Phase 2.
D.Working Group Recommended SOFA, Phase 2, CAP.
E.Coordinated Area Plan Ordinance Number 4626.
F.Policy Framework for the PAMF/SOFA CAP.
G.Chart Summarizing Differences between the two recommended SOFA,
Phase 2 Plans.
H.Draft and Final EIR for the PAMF/SOFA CAP (Councilmembers only)
I.Development Prototypes prepared by Freedman, Tung and Bottomley
J.Bay Area Economics Economic Study - Please note: Enclosure I consists
of the revised Tables.
K.Sedway Economic Analysis
L.Steve Pierce Economic Analysis
M.Harold Justman Economic Anlaysis
N.HRB Minutes
O.ARB Minutes
P.PTC minutes
Q.Correspondence
R.Letter from Matt Kowta, BAE dated September 3, 2002 to Steve Emslie
II.The following materials were received from the public since the October 7, 2002
meeting:
Document 1"
Document 2:
Document 3:
Document 4:
Document 5:
Letter from Jim Baer, dated June 25, 2003 representing the property
owners within the SOFA 2 area on the Zoning Plus issue and
including a collection of letters from property owners. Also attached
are a) Summary of modifications to the CD-S Zone; b) SOFA 2
Ground Floor Retail Protection - Not Mandated; c) History of Land
Use Success; d) copy of CMR 165:88; and e) Elimination of Auto
Service Uses.
Letter from Patrick Grey, dated January 30, 2003.
Letter from Irwin Yarkin, dated January 5, 2003.
Letter from Simon Cintz, dated June 4, 2003
Letter from Willis Thoits, dated December 12, 2002.
III.The following materials were developed by Staff for SOFA 2 meetings that took
place after October 7, 2003"
Enclosure
Enclosure
Enclosure
Enclosure
Enclosure
Enclosure
Enclosure
Enclosure
Enclosure
Enclosure
A:Summary of Comments by SOFA Property Owners received at the
May 22, 2003 Meeting
B:Summary of Comments by SOFA Working Group received at the
May 29, 2003 Meeting
C: Minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
meeting of June 25, 2003.
D: Tables on Recommendations by PTC and Working Group.
E: PTC Recommendations, February 4, 2003.
F: HRB Comments, January 15, 2003.
G: ARB Reeommendations, January 16, 2003.
H: Vision.
I: Revised Tables for the Bay Area Economics (BAE) Economic
Analysis.
J: Responses to City Council Comments and Questions Regarding the
Proposed South of Forest Area, Phase 2 Coordinated Area Plan,
February 4, 2003
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Attachment E
i~pFL
DISTRICTS
RT-35 Residential Transition 35’
RT-50 Residential Transition 50’
RM-15 SOFA 2 RM-15 District
PC
R-2
RM-30
Planned Community District
SOFA 2 R-2 District
SOFA 2 RM-30 District N
FBEEOHAH
IUHG 5
BOTTOHLEY South of Forest Area District Map SOFA PHASE 2
Coordinated
Area Plan
s:\Pla n\Plsdiv\Lisa~Sofa\planning commission discussion_updt.pdf