The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0425.000b , It'-.,-~-- -" _. ~ ~ o JuIJ' 19. 1990 HONORABLE CITY COUNCil Pll. Alto. Califorll. SOUTH Of FOREST PLANNING ISSVES Members of t~e Council: / The purpose of this imformational staff re~ort is to rela, to Counel1 staff's cp11fons on general ~lanntng issues related tD the sout~ ~f forest area. ~fTe no Council action is requested at this time, it is recommended t~at I jolot Planning Commission-City Council study session be bold i. l.te 1990 t. disc~ss the Downtown Urban Design flan·s conclusions regarding the south of forest area, is ~el1 as the reco~ndations cor.tained 11 this report. rl the flterfm, staff ~11 iR1tiate, unless directed ot~e~ise by the (ounc11~ a process referrfDg to the Council-requested off-site Fartfng agreements for more than five spaces. r_ts report is accompanied by an fnformatfonal staff report on the reuse of the PeRf.,.I. Creamery site (CMR:406:0)_ 'lannf'g Analysfs of Souto of Forest Area T~e south of forest area (see attac~e~ ~ap) is ~ostl1 zoned CO-$ (downtu.n servfce commercial). Since the adoption gf t~e downtown regulations 11 1985~ substantf.l changes im land use underway since the earl] 1980s ia t~i$ area lIave contfnued to DCctlr. Ifarket consi·derations for the automotive sales and ser~ice and ware~ousfng uses. traditionall] located il the sout~ of forest area, ~ecessltate larger sites, mare parking and cheaper land. Consequentl], this area ~as exhibited land use shifts toward retail and limited office with. fl the earlJ 1980s, some residentfil iB m1xed-use prQjects~ Curing t~e manl public hearir.gs associated wit~ the downto~n regulations. there was a considerable amount of discwssfoD about t~e c~ange$ 11 uses occ~rrin9 il the sout~ of forest area. Whlle the present tD-S loniog reflects final Council action, public policy is to the Iltimate la~d Gse 11 this area was not ~ consensus. I~ recognition cf the fne~itable c~anges that would occur fl land uses fa t~fs areal the Planning Commissfon recommended 'ig~ dens;tl ~ulti,le-fa~ill resfdentill incentives along the Alma Corrido~ tc encourage housing and support the population essential to a bealthy Downtown. At that time. the Citl Council opted t. leave the commercial zoniog f. ,lace fa an effort to ret.il areas of the Cit1 wbtc_ illo~ for bUSlnesses essential to t~e commun1t,. suc\ is automotive services. However. the Council recog~1zed the ~eed to accommodate ~arket c~anges and, t~erefo~e, ~ermitted CItR:42S:0 • ,\ -,". I , ., I ~ I I. f f [ I I ! f • "".--.~ . , • .' I i " - -- , ' _-___ ' ______________ .1....-_ ...... __ ". ___ _ residentfll wfthfa t~e co-s zones fl order to encourage .fx~-use de~elopments w't~l. t~e sout~ of forest area. It fs staff's op1110n that certai! provfsfDns of t~e Ion tog reg~'ltfn~s appll.~ t. the south of forest lCO-S) area ~ave worked against achieving .It~er the t~e. Commission's objective t. see housing f. t~ls area, or the Council's obJect(~e to retafl communit1 servIng c~~rtii' uses. These provfsfons are is follows: 1~ Housfng incentive: Vhile ~ou$ing is ·permissible-~thim the CO-S regulatfons J t~ere Ire ins~fffcfent fncentf~es for urban-type housing projects one would expect t. see f. this locotlon. Currently. setbacks~ ~efght restrictions and r.ultfple-famil, open space requ1remects fl the CD-s loning regulations Ife more 1m keeping ~t_ suburban development patterAs as see a fl ~ore cOQventional ~ultiple-fa~il, areas. As I res~Tt~ mixed-use prQjects fncorporatfDg commerc1al and residential ~se$ can be achfeved realistlcall, onl, under the Planned Communit1 zoning process4 Staff ~elfeves applicattca Df ~ore permfssive nonresidential development regulations for mfxed-~se projects ~ould allow substantially greater desIgn flexibility for these projects. It Is staff's concl~sfon that rEwised and mar! urban resident.al expectatfons s~oDld include ~se of the S1te and Design process for mixed-use resldent~al prcjett!. T~fs process was applied tl mixed-use projeets f. the CS and eN zones i. the Citywide tand Use .n~ Transp~tot;on study, but not i. the CO distrfcts. The Site .n~ Design process allows for greater publfc review t~an the standard ARB submltt.l, but does not require the public benefit findings of t~e Planned CommunitJ zoning~ Staff has not found this process an impediment to promoting mixed-use proJects. While all of these changes would allow for mixed resfdential and commercial proje(t$~ there 15. of cours~~ no assurance that mixed-use development will occur. z. Prohlblt!o. on offices greoter tha~ 5,000 sSuare feet: T,ls zoning restriction was a clear policy directfwe if~~ at stoppfag demolition and reconstruction of sites for pew office develDpment il t~e servfce commercfal areiS nort~ and south Qf the Downtown core~ Rowever. it is staff's ophfon that unfeltended consequences may 'Well be at ~1i1 ~eR the office square footage limIt is applied t. the south If forest (0-5 area~ Reuse of .are~ause buildings for office purpo$e~ is occurring successfMll1 t~roughout t~e Bay Area. ~ffices requfre less parking than retail. and exftibit 'frt~all1 no eveRing Of' .eekend .. se~ If retention of exfstfDg structures is cOMsf.dered desirable II this area. allowa~ces for offices greater t~an 5,000 square feet under c(rtai. conditions ~a1 facilitate reuse Qf bu11di~gs, suc~ as the Penins~la Creamerl fac~lit~, to ~ore nelghborbood-comp.tible offfce .ses. Changes to the CO·S area ~ic~ .auld perait Qfffces over 5,000 square feet -nt~ the issuance Qf a conditional .se permit liS with the (S and CN districts) w.ul~ .ll.~ greater land ~se flex1bjlit~. especial11 il areas where a retail pedestrfan envfronment fs less friendl,. IS 110ng Alma Street. 3. Provisions fi::"_ Iliff-site parkfnr tHy regulations provide ror~ with the approval Df the birector ~ Planning and Communit, Environment. locati~D of required parling off site, i.e.~ on parcels ot~er than CItR:42S: ~ SoforestjCJ 1/19/90 ·Z- :.<:. • "' .. , • " ~. ~ . , -, , ~ i l , I ~~ .. - ':;0;,; 'fr,,:. I' t , t r f , , , , i , 1 • ...J: ~", ' , i .i 1 - . ,;-.. '-.. : ;;'~"-.,. t~at cont'll~ the primary use. The Off.slt~arklng regul,tlo n• have been used. fB I few f~stanc!s. to accannodate ~nusual 7ott;ng patter •• and reuse of existing buildings. While the application of this parking provision allows for needed fle,fbilft" partle,larl, wit~rl or near the Downtown area~ applying th1s provisioD to the south of fore.t are, has bad mixed res.lts. On one band, It has allowed I m~h-needed food market to locate near t~e Downtown area. However. the parkf~g different;.1 for changes from less-iDtensive waTe~ousfng or automQtfve use tG more-iltensive retail or eating an~ drfnking uses is substantial, ~hic~ increases the demand for additional off·site spaces. As. res.lt, substantial parking credits and off-site lots that have been granted granted for reuse of existing bu;ldiDgs such is the Whole foods Market. ~r the previous PeAins~ll Creamery Chevy'S proposal. are likel~ to exacerbate parking prDblems h the iru and lI',al reSfJlt h increases. parliclllllarl, of employee parking., wiUlI nearby residenthl areas. It I. staff'. opi,ion that the parting regu'atlon. illo-,og off·sit. parking and park;ng space credits for previous uses s~ould be limited it this time wlthi. the .outh of forest arei. The exception to thiS conclllsion is He reuse of tfl.e Peoinstll a Creamery buHding discussed 11 I companion staff report (CMR:406:0). Outright prohibitIon of off·site parki~g would not allow ainor ~se changes suc~ as the office co~yer5ion/re~abilitatia~ of the Cit, of Paris building, ~tlc~ required onl1 ffwe off-site par\lng spaces. An i~terfm meas~re to address off-site parting issues 1m the sout~ of Forest area ~ould be tc have staff refer any Qff-site ~arting agreements for more tha~ five spaces to the City Council for review prior to issuance. T.is referral process would belp allow th! Coune,l te monitor substantfll ~se changes \1 the sout~ of Forest area until such lime as amendments to the zoning regulitfons fl that area are fa place, s~ould that occur~ and for <ompletion of the Downtown Urban Desfgn 'lan ~hich includes a sectio~ on urban des;'gn issues fa tfie south of Forest area. Role of the Urban Oesfqn Plan ancl SouU of Forest At the present t;~e, staff is draftIng t~e text for the Downtown Urban DesIgn Ilan. Final approval by t~e Urban Design Committee is antiCipated to be withf. the ~ext four to sil rcnths. The public revfew process subsequent to the draft ~1an~s ava1labl1lty fs estimated to entail three to six montns. [I summary. staff's expectatfons are that a Counctl-a~proved Downtown Urban Oeslgn 'lan ~ll be a~ailable ~fthil one year~ ~anl of the sout~ of Forest design-related issues will be addressed is that 'lan. It is important to note, bowever. t~at the Downtown Design 'Jan, as presently en~isio"ed. would guide the City. and partic~larl1 the ARB. il its decislon making, but that the fundamental issumptions regarding land uses would rema;. as is. As applfed to the so~th of Forest area, t~is ~ould mean t~at building rehabilitation and use cODversfons could take place and mixed-~se pr0jects could occur. but that noth1ng would be ~andatory or precluded. Aowev€r. Council review of Dff·site pariiDg agreeme~ts for more t~an fj~e spaces would act as a constralet and monitorfng process for c~anges i. land ~se~ Staff supports this posilion. la t~at we are concerned ~th an approach to de~elopment ia t~e so~t~ af forest Ire. wtfch would res~lt 1m 'ighl, specific zoning rtstrfctfons w~ich ~al Dot prQ~ide the flex;~1lit, for an Irea that is clearl, evol,;ng fa response t~ lIarke-t c'hanges. CAA:42S:0 SoforestjCJ L 7/19/90 ·3- .. t f I I ! , f , , . ."',* • , I I / "'"" r'\ V V Staff Is concerned abo"! the potential fer committIng substantl,l Cit, resources to an open-ended south Df forest area stu~J It least prfo~ to the availability of the Downtown Urban Design Plan. Staff Is a1so coocerned about undertaking I .ajor lanJ ,se study prior to the Planning Commission and (it, Council clarifying the significant pol!c, dlfferencos that the t.o bodies have evidenced for the sout~ of Forest .rea (I.e., Council support of the Downtown Study policies and Commission support for a multiple·famil, alternative}. fl.all" staff Is concerred about adding further delal to the Penlo.,la Creamer} reuse issue is reviewed in the companion CMR~406;O. Conchlsfons: I. It I. staff's Intention to Immedl,tel, refer all proposed off·slt. partfng agreements. for more than fl~e spaces il the south ~f forest area, to the Council for review on I regular agenda. The onl, except;on to this wDuld be t~e Penfasall Creamery reuse off-site agreement -as noted above and described h CKR.:406:0 .. t. Imediatel, ,fter the Do""to'n Urban DesIgn Corrrnlttee completes its recomendalions (l,te 1990}, $Chedul. a tit~ Council·Planning Commission StYdy Session tQ rev lew policy options for t~e south Qf Forest area. Depending on the outcome of the Study Session, staff could be directed to prepare t~e offfce use permit and resident;il to~clus;ons fdentiffed above, some ot~er ~~£c1fic ordinance c~anges, Dr flitfatt a broader lana use study of the area. 1{1t4d;(~~ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of 'lanning and (ommunity [~wirDnmeDt Ct~ Architectural Review Board Planniog Commission Downtown Urban Desig.l (omit tee VESCO Developm •• t Co., 390 So. San Antonio Road, los Altos, CA 94022 Stoecker and Northway Arch~tects~ Inc .• 431 lytton Ave., Palo Alte, C~ 94301 Den. ~~ssar, 1024 Emerson St., Pal. Alt., tA 94301 SQsan Ric~ardson, 353 Addfson St., P,l. Alto, CA 94301 Steve Pl,yer, 1874 Guinda St., P,10 Alt., (A 94303 lfnda Scott, 1051 Ramona St., Palo Alt., CA 94301 Jess ~Ilson, 318 Lfn<ol. Ave., Pil. Alto, CA 94301 "arlf. and Bodil Gerot.ol, 633 Channin~ Ave., Pil. Alt., CA 94301 ~arry Leweostei., 1102 Ramona St., F,l. Alto, CA 94301 ~ay"e Sm;t~, 835 Waverley St., Pil. Alto, CA 94301 Oave Ross. Jack. Cohen, Builders Inc., 97S High Street, Pil~ Alt~, CA 94301 CIiR:425:Q SoForest(tJ 7/19/90 -C· , ., • " . . ~ ~ , . _. __ r __ _ • \ \ \ • o o ! , -' :.;.- ) , ,-.. I t I i I I I , , , , , I i ! I t - ~ , i , cc PC-2637 " " " -