HomeMy WebLinkAbout0184.091.
Maf(t\ 14.
~onorab1e City Council
Pi1. Alt., C.1iforni.
P~LO ALiO KEOIC~L FOUNOATION PROPOSED SPECifiC PLAN
OPTIONS ON HOUSING MITIGATIONS. BfNEFITS AND OTHER
PROVISIONS ANO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
Memb~rs ~f the (ounc),:
Repo.,.t in BIJ..rl
This report discusses a~d makes retommendlti~ns cn I) i pol},) for a suitable
nousing mitlgation for the Palo Alto Med;cal Foundation regarding the leiS of
~u'tiple-fami1, re~tal housing, and Z) strat!gies for a supplemental pub1ic
part;,;patior. proc~ss that could be implemented in completing the Pa10 Aito
Medical foundation Specific Plan and a separate participator1 strategy for
preparing a Medical foundation Plann!d Communlty lone change if a Specific
Plan is approved. lA addition, the report makes recolTlmer,6at1JJnS on a !'lumber
of propused m'itigat1ons. benefits and other project provisions that were
raised in the City staff/Medical Foundation distussion5 of ho~~ing miti9atlon
and recommends that City staff be directed to begin negotiation of a
development agreement or other appropriate document t~ be cQ~sidered by the
Council toncurrent with review of the Final Specific Plan.
Th~ City Council referred the housing mitigation and public partfcipation
items to steff on f!brulr:t 4~ 19~1. Tne Council direc-ted response 'Within four
weeks. Staff advised (ouneil of progress and said W~ would return with
responses on ~arth Ie, 1~91.
HOUSIKG M!TIGATION
Background
On February 4. 1~91, the City Council~ in considering P1annlng Commission
policy recommendltion.s (hi the Palo Alto Medic-il Foundation's proposed Specific
Plan, directed staff to negotiate wit" the Pilo Alto Medical Foundation ~,n an
acceptablE hOllsing mitigation. for the potential loss of 14 multiple-family
rental housing Url,ts on the "'est B1Dc-k of the proposed prcj~ct. At tl1e time
of this directive, the City Council endorsed the Planning Commission's
recommendation reafflrming the ~itigatiQn recommended in the Revised Draft
E"nvironmenta1 Jmpac-t Report 'DEIRJ fo!"" this loss of refital housing. The
Revised DEIR recommended p.yoent of an In-lieu fee of S848,120 for the 14
re,tal unit. that would be displaced. This figure is based on the perce't
value of a residential unit in the City's Housing Mitigation Ordinance
CMR:184:9!
•
. ,-'-
o
(S60,SeO) applied to the poter,tial lost rental unit •. St.ff .ckna.ledged,
however. that several alternate rationales could be derived from tne
Comprehensive Plan, each of whfc~ could justify different hou$ing mitigation
approaches.
Negotiation Process
City staff met w:th PaTo Altc Medical Foundation staff and consultants on
february 22, fetlruary 27, March 4 and Marcn 7. Discussicr~ at these meettngs
focused on I suitable h~usin; mitigation for this loss of r~ntal nousing
units. At tnese meetings, the Medica1 Foundation also discussed issues and
concerns relat;ng to the entire mitigation and benefit package and certain
policies endorsed by tf1.e City Councll for the proposed Specific i'ian or,
febru.ry 4, 1991.
The following paragra.phs include a description arid analysis of the prDposed
housing mitigatfon for the loss of rental housing. Discussion of other
~dica.l Foundation issues and (oncerns appears in a subsequent section.
Tentative Mitigation for Loss of Rental Housing
The rental housing mit'gati~n agreement that staff reached with the Medi(al
foundation includes tne following provisions;
1. The property it 771 Bryant Street and 319 Homer Avenue would be
lea,od to tne City by tn. Medical found.tion for SI.OO per yea"
for sa years; and two bUildings on the site, the Medical
Secretaries Building and the HMO Office Building, would be
converted by_tke City to five low-t~ moderate-inCQme rental units
fo, ~edical Foundation employe~s;
2. Terms of the lease would be(ome effective five years after City
issuance of a butlding permit consistent with tne City appro~ed PC
Planned Community lone c~inge;
3. Existing surface parking at this site would b~ IJsed as shared
parking for bot" residents and M~dicil foundation e~ploJees once
tf'le mitigation provisicn became C!f{ecti .... e;
4. Tne Medical Foundation would pay $7~fOOO tcwird rehabilitati~n
costs in converting the buildings to residential use; and
5. The ~ic.l Foundation'. $75,000 payment for rehabilitation costs
would occur at the time the l~ase became effect;ye.
If endorsed as policy by the City Council on M.rc~ 18, 1991, the housing
~itigatfon agreement would be contiined in a subseQuent series of a(tions .nen
the City Council. in conSidering Planning COlTJTlissi{H\ reco!mlendations: ]J
certiffe. the adequacy of tn. ffnal fIR; 2) approves .pprop,i.te Comprehen,ive
Ptan amendments; and 3} approves a ~1nal Sp~c;flc Plan for the Medical
Foundatfon propos.l. This housing mitigation would also b. contained witnin a
CMR:I84:91
p:\cmr\gzpl an
3/14/91
Page 2
•
,....,.
-<: .. ,/
deielopment agreement or other approprlite document~ entered into by the
Medical Foundation and t~e Cit} jn a time frame generailJ concurrent with
rinal Specific Plan approva1~
Analysis of Mitigation
'0
T~i5 mitjgat1o~ prop~s!l presumes that t~e Medical Secretaries Building, with
3 1 v.;O sQuare feet of flODT area, would be conv~rted to four lew-and moderatt;!
income r~ntal housing units and that the HMO Office Building. with 1.000
square feet of floor aTE1, would be converted to i one-unit low-and moden-te
income rental housing structure. The site in this proposal contains 11,315
squar~ feet of land area and nine parking spijces. Rehabjlitation costs
requiTed t~ convert these structures to five low-~nd modzrlte-income rental
housir'lg units most likely would range between .$400,000 and SS<:lO,QOa in current
dollars. A prtcise renabilitation ctst estimate would b~ made prior to t~e
City assuming the ground leas~ for tne site. As noted in the provisions for
the tentative agreement. the Medical foundation would pay $75,000 toward these
rehabll itation costs. Fur,ding the remainder 'Of these rehabl:1itation costs
(culd be obhfned from se .... eral sources, including the City's Housing
Mltigation Ordinance Fund or the Paio Alt~ Housing Corp~ratfon~s rental
housing re~abilitation program. Management of these converted low-and
moderate-income rental housing un1ts is assumed to be by the PaTo Alto Housing
Corporation.
The principal benefit of this mitigation for the loss of rental housing is
that the pr~posal assures the provision of five rental housing units for To~
and moderate-income Medical Foundation empToyee households over an extended
period of time. In effect, the 50-year site lease for ttli:s :-ental may be
worth iii most sale value of the land. Nonetn~less,. the 'r'alue to tt'le CH,)! and
co~nit1 lies in the f~ture provision of fiv! low· and moderate-incomE rental
u~its. The approximat2 market value of the units according to recent Palo
Alto H~using Corporation 3(Quisitions for other rental housing projects, would
bt! in the range of $80,000 to $1l0,COO per unit. rn a.dditior., pro\lision Jf
land and housing units in Palo Alto traditionally has an intar,gib1e v~lue
greater than market estimates other-ilis! would shew. because a'olailable land for
houslng in Palo Alto is such a scarce commodity. For €xample, when the City
negotiates w~th pri'r'ate developers for BMR units, it places substantially
higher priority and ~ilue on provision of housing units ~ither than on
~rovisio~ of in-lieu f~es. As i r!su1t, CitJ staff believes tnat the value of
tne prapQsed .itigation compares fi'r'orably with the ~alue of the recommended
miti9atio~ ia the Re~fsad DEIR. beeaus! of provlsion of rental housing units
rither thar. • fee and issurance t~at 5UC~ units w1ll be for Tow· and moderit~
intom! households. rather t~an market rate rental units as currently exist.
At the time the City Council acts ~n the final EIR, staff will recommend
whatever findings lIay be appropriate for this proposed aiitigation. A City
Co~ncil policy endorseu~nt of t~is proposal ~ould be an appropriate action on
~arc~ Ie, )991; and recommendat7on to that effect appears at the (onclusion of
this r.port.
CMJ!:ISC:91
p: \< .. r\glp 1.n
3/14/9J
P,ge 3
•
o
Job/Housing Mitigation
TMe at-ove proposed Iltltigation on the loss of mu1tiple-familj zoned rental
housing will not affect the housing mitigation recommended in the Revised D£iR
and require~ in the City l 5 Housing Impact Mitigation Ordinance for the impact
of the prop!lsed prDJect en the Citlrs jobs/housing imbalance. As a result,
the Medical Foundation will be required to pa~ a fee to the (ity's Ho~sing
Reserve Fund, according to the amount required by the ordinance for the net
increase in floGr area approved in the Fin.al Specific Plan.
PROPOSED MITIGATIONS, BENEFITS AND OTHER PROVISIOHS
During the course of the negotiations on an appropriate mitigation policy for
the 10S5 of rental h~usjn9t the Medical Foundation identified a number of
other concerns and issues r~gardlng the total mitigation and benefit packages.
It alse raised several ether issues relat~ng to propos~d Specific Plan
policies Which the City Council endorsed on February ~, 1991. These ite~'
identified and raised b~ the Medical Foundation are described in the fo1lowing
paragraphs.
These items are part Df the negotiated package developed by staff ~itb the
Medical Foundatio~ in connection with tne hous;ng mitigation discussion. If
these items are acceptable to the Council, the Council should direct stiff to
begiA preparation of a d&ve1opment agreement or other appropriate document,
witbin i time framt generall, concurrent with action on tne flnal Specific
Flan.
Clarification or further explanation relative to earlier City Council policy
endorsement for particular items, and comments discussing the jtem follow in
i tali cs.
J.
Co .... nt:
1.
C"RrIlent!
The site at Channing and Ramona wouTd be leased to the City for 35
years for 51.00 per y~ar, from the time the Medical Foundation
obtains its fjrst buildir.g permit; the City would lease the site
back to the Medical Found.tion for SI.00 per year for continued
use as parkfng until a building permit for a child care center or
other ~se, ~ich may be deemed acc!ptable to the Medicai
foundation and City, is issued fer the s;te.
This offer co",fras the ,oreY'ious generous contribution of I sfte
which .fght be used for' future chtld carE facility. The
u1ti1Rate sit! use ~ou1d deper;d upar1 i! successfu' app1ic~t fan for a
chfTd care use-permit fnc1uddJg an emlfronmenta' rei/few.
The Medical Foundation .ould pay the City tne lessor of S15,OOO or
50 percent of the ,ost of funding a two·~ay street conversion
study relatlng to HDmer and Channing AVenUeS at the time of the
Shdy;
The "ediea' foundation offer to contribute S25,OOO for iI future
t~o-WII street conversion study is half of the S50,OOO suggested
CMR:I84:91
p:\cmr\glplan 3/14/91
Page 4
•
/
in the Revised ()f[R IS !n ·other measure recommended to improve
the proJect." Since thfs measure is not a recommended mitigation.
~nd tnt Channing/Homer one·w,y stud, will Include an area
5ubstanti,];, beyond the Foundation's properties, staff beiievts
the fIIedic.' Found,t;'on offer of 125.00(J is an appropriite ar710unt
to i$list i" funding suc;, a future traffic study.
\
3. The Cit,1 wOiJld 91"ant limited air and subsurface access rights on
Bryant Street near Channing Avenue to the Medical Fo~ndatjon at no
cost;
•. Public parking on t~e Medicil Foundation Maln Block and North
Block surfl(e parwing lots would bE permitt~d in late afternoons,
evenings and weekends for US! in conjunction with the WilTiams
property at no cost to the City lt~e ~edicil Foundatior. also
requests that no solid wall at the Williams propert~ line be
required iD the final PC zone (hange site p1ans);
S. The pnysician ·cap· would not be less Ula.n .50 additional fwll tjme
equivalent physicians over the 139 presently at the M~d;cal
Foundation facilities in th~ vicinity of Bryant, Homer and
Cnanning;
o.
CrllMlent:
The City would modify the suggested mitigatfon prol{ision requiring
24·~Dur security guards to reflect i variety of secur!ty·reTated
measures {e.g., lighting, window loc.ticn, secu,"ity guards} as the
Medical Foundation de~s appropriate;
The Jl!edicill Foundation stated that appropriate prcllisfcns for
private security far ffedic.l Foundation faci7it ,es cannot be
detertllined until precise p1a"s are de'/eloped, de5ignaUng use ~m1
function of p~rticu7lr facilities. As a result. the lfedical
FOlJrniatiofJ requests I IROdifl"c"tion ta thi5 suggested mTtigation
IRelSure thit would a170w for flexibility jn determining how and
when prf'litr security sh~i!id bE provided. Shff supports this
request.
7. Tr,e City would' retain existing medical office grandfatner lon4T'lg
proYisi~ns for the Pr~sident's Office site at 400 Channing Avenue;
and
C ..... nt;
CMR:184:91
(be Ifedical Foundation requests that the City Counci 1 reverSf" the
policy it endorsed o~ Febru,rl 4, 1991 removing the ~edica1 and
professiona' grandfather da{.!se provision from this resiaentia71y
zoned site. The "edica' FOlJfldltirm leases, rat,~er than owns, this
Site. Continuation of the sHe's affjcf use ..,i11 flenitate
f~ture re70Cltfofl of the d!nta1 offices that are lacated crr the
~est Block sit. at 8Z4·B28 Bryant Street if the proposed project
is approved. Staf', and earHer the P1anning Commission.
supported this n~ed to maintatl'l fTexibn ity for the 400 Che.nni119
AVf'l'Jue site. In ,ddHi;;"J steff be7iltves slJch office gr,nafather
~: \cmr\9z~la"
3/14/91
Page 5
•
J,
o
clauses shou?d b~ applied uniformly through this arel, as t,iey
ha~;e been since tile zoning regu7,!;ons and office grar;dfather
provisions were approlied in 1978.
S. Iro addition to the exactions. ,ondtt!ons and mitigation mea5ures
set forth in the re~ised Draft EIq, the City would recei~e title
to tMe par-king lot at 903 Bryant (at the southwest corner of
Bryar.t and Channing. adjacent to the (onvalescent hospital). T~is
property may be-used or exchanged for open space purposes. Title
~i 11 be tran s fe.rred when ttle 5 ite is no 1 anger needed 0 r f i .... e
years. afte:-building pencit issuance.
Staff supports the Medical Foundation positior. on these items, and staff
indicated that its support would be ref1ected in recommendations to the
Cc~nc11 concerning the contents of a development agreement at the time of
Count;l action on the Final Specific Plan.
Staff -.; shes to p01:'1t out that s.taff support for these Medical Fou.ndation
items in no way precludes the City Council from modifying its endorsed
policfes on the proposed Specific Plan at th~ time Council considers action Qn
the Final EIR, Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Final Specific Plan.
ASSURANCES REGARDING ADDITIOMAL MITIGATIONS
The ~edica1 Foundation ~as expressed concern that as the review process for
tne proposed Speciflc Pl;::n and PC lone continues, additional Ilitigations could
be required or requested tnat would add substantial cost to the Medical
Foundation. As a result, tne ~dfcal Foundation requested assuran~es at tnis
time that the mitigations identified i~ the Revised D£IR or the policies
endorsed by the City Council are the extent ~f major cost items that ~Qu1d be
required of the project at the time the City Council takes action ~n the Final
Specific Plan.
Given the very high (ost that already is estimijted for the prDpos~d ~edical
Foundation project and the ~ijor mitigations and othe~ benefits the Medical
Foundation has agreed to f~nd or provide, staff is sympathetic to the
FouPldation"s concerns .. Staff believes tnat it would be appropriate for the
Council to reiterate its direction tnat preparation of the Final Specific Plan
be ~overned by the Council's policies. The basic purpose of such directio~
woudf be to give the Foundation assurances that, notwithstandtng the ongoiOlg
option uf Council to modify its endorsed policies, major elements of the
project will not be cnanged so as to cause significant cost increases. Staff
would also request the CounCil to consider forming an ad hoc CounCil Committee
to provide guidance tD 1itaff on an is-needed' basis during the course of Fjnal
Specific Plan and Development Agreement preparati~n. Staff can en~ision
numerous POIDts of policy concerD which may arise during the process. The
Councfl CommUtee would' serve is ill: guiding resource to pra',lide greater
lssurance t~at tne Council's objectives are satisfjed.
C~R;184:91
p:\cmr\gzplan
,
3/14/91
Page 6
•
.-,
.---~<~ ---_ •..
o
PUBLIC PARTltIP~TIOM PROCrSS
The following paragrapMs discuss several alternative public participation
strategies for both comp1etion of the Palo Alto Medical foundation Specific
Plan and subsequ~nt prpparation of a PC Planned Communlty zone change pro~jded
a Specific Plan is approved.
At the outset, it should be acknowledged that the public input and
participation ove~ the past l~ months nave befn extensive in revie~in9 and
c<lnrnenting on the ol~iginal Poilo Alto Medical f~l.lndatfcn Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR), the Drift Specific Plan. t~e Revised Oraft fnvironme~tal
rmpact Report and on Specific Plan policy raco~ndations regard~ng the
Ned1cal Foundation proposal. The Planning Commission alene he1d 14 meetings
between Oecember 1989 and Detember 1990, on the Medical Foundation proposal
fncluding fOUT public hearings and sev€ral informal study sessions with
nelshbars and ~mbers of the c~mmunity. In addition. the MedicaT Foundation
consultant t2am met with interested neighbors during the winter and early
sprfng of 1990 to develop iiter"ativ~ development concepts for tha ~edical
Foundation proposal. (itJ staff attended these wor~ing sessions. Thesf
concepts subsequently Wfre pr~sented to the Planning Commis~ionT and the
PTarlning Commission selected two of these alternative development concepts for
evaluation in tne Revised DBR. More recently, t~e City Council held a public
hearing on policy recommendations fGr the Medical foundation Specific Plan.
It is assumed that the furthcoming Specific Plan is to be drafted conSistent
with tne polity direction adopted bJ the City Council on february 4. 1991. As
sucn, tne preparation of the Specific: Plan does not inv~lve activ!
reconSideration of development alt!rnatives (i.e., the over4l1 siz~ of the
project and the area to be aevoted to Medical Foundation us~} previously
evaluated 1'" the Draft [IR .and by tho! .Planning Commission. Of course, there
is not~ing to limit th€ Counc1l's further conSideration of alternativ!s when
the Plan retu~ns from tne Planning CommissiDn.
It is .lso impertant to note the differences between the Specific Plan proce"
and the subsequent Flanned Community (PC) zone c~ange proce.s. The Specific
Plan shDuld estiblish the design. development timing and mitigation guidelines
for tn~ PC zone. Fro~ I design standpQint~ the Specific Plan provides the
framework fOT the detailed design incorporated in the PC lone. The designs
deve10ped during the PC site and bUliding zone change process will address
mani of the remafn1ng neighborhood and community ;mpa~t issues (e.g.,
appearance of buildings, location Df windows and lights, extent of new
landscaping).
Public Participdtion Strategies fqr Specific Plan
In suggesting alternative participator,Y strategies in completing the SpetHlc
Phn, stiff assumed tbat the City CounCil wished to consider several
strategies expanding public participation in completing the Plan. As a
Tesult, t~e fiTst three strategies i~ the following paragraphs discuss
opportunities for more proacti~e publiC partiCipation in completing the Plan.
On the-other hind~ if the City CouncilTs public participation asSignment was
C~R: 184 :91
p:\cmr\gzpian
3/14/91
Page 7
, "
,'. ,Co',"~'" _", .' ..
intended ~nly for subsequent p~eparit1on of a PC Planned Community zone
change, then a mere traditional public re~iew proc~ss, described under t~e
fourt~ strite9Y. would be the appropriate strategy for completion of tne
Specific Plan.
1. Working Committee Specific Plan Preparation
Tnis strategy (ould be Similar to the Terman Working Group,
wh~rebi a lim1ted number of representat;~es of constituent groups,
'neluding the Me~ical F~undat;on. community organizations,
nelgnbors and City staff, and possibiy the Planning Commission,
would convene and essentially develop i new Draft Speclfic Plan
from the begfnning. Su(h a group sho~ld be of a reasonably smal'
size, e.g., between 10 and 12 individuals. tach constituent group
should tlave approximitely equal [Le .• 2 to 3 individuals)
representatior.. Staff would serve as a tec~n1cal resource but
would not actuall, be representEd on the ~orking committee.
Leadership of the c~mmittee could be provided by ~ Planning
Commission rEpresentatfve~ or if the Planning (ommission did not
serve on the cDmmittee. i facilitator would have to be secured.
rn the Terman process, the Plan~ing Commission was not part of the
neg~tiation process. Past experience i~dlcates that with
controversial public issues, City staff can not effecti~e11
combine the roles of independent meeting fac~l;tator~ tec~nical
expert and pc' icy recDmlender. Therefore. if the CO:mlisston ",,·ere
not giveN responsibility to faCilitate a Medical foundation
process. an Dutside faCilitator would be r.ecessary to manage the
meetings. Start·up time for sucn a working committee. including
the apPointment of ccnstttu~nt representatives, would take betweEr.
one and three months depending in part on whether hiring a
facO itator "o'Jld be necessary. Estimated cOllll1ittee time required
to prepare a Draft Specific Plan could rang~ betweer. three and six
mont~s. Several wariable factors affecting the time for Plan
preparation include the level af consensus required by the
c~ittee on important fssues and the ~illingness of the committee
to meet regularly ,e.g., ~eekly) during the Plan's preparation
phase.
Possible benefits of such a stritegy ire that certain const;tuent
groups mai believe tnat tney would have 9r~at~r voice in the
altimate Specific Plan b'y having representatlve spokespersons
serving in i forma. setting. II'l addition, there .. .ould be
continuity in ha~ing a small n~mber of selected representatives
meet;~ 011 a regulir basis to draft a prell!llinary Speci(1c Plan.
The problems of sud, a strategy are that further dela)s in the
process could occur, 1f consensus ~n critleal issues was expect~d
and could nat be reached from such a working committee. Given the
controyersf.l blstory of this project, m"c~ of the policy
endorsement reached to date cou1d eisily be dissol~ed, if such a
relatfvel, formalized working committee becamE stymied Qver
CM~:j84:91
p:\cmr\gzplan
3/14/91
Page 8
•
/
o
certain issues. Moreoller. the Palo Alto Medical Foul'1dati{)rt could
determine tnat soch a strite9~ would not be cost effective; 3fid.
as a result, 1t could ~;thjraw from the proc!ss entirely and fecus
its futur! e~pansiDn on upgrading existing facilities and
piecemul expansion in corrmercial areas.
Z. Volur.her Citjun Specific Plan PnlRuatian
Thls participatory strategy would .llow a ,olunte.r
citizen/neighborhood group to develop their own Draft Specific
Plan for tne Medical Foundation within I stipulated tlme frame.
The City (ouncjl. at the outset. would enderse a specific cit;ze~
group to develDp suth a plan. Presumabiy, the size of such a
group could ~anQe between ]0 and 20 indiv1dua1s; but most likely a
working nucleus of 8 to 12 indiwiduals within tne group would
e· .. olve and, in tffect, prepare mu;;:1'1 af tne Plan. Plan preparation
time could be relativ!ly brief, e,g., within two to three months,
again deper.ding an the CounCil stipulation and tnls group's
commitment to ~et regularly. Consensus bU71ding may not be an
obstacle wit~jn such a volunteer group~ since many of tn!
volunteers could hold similar objectives regarding the content of
a final Plan. Upon completing a draft Plan, the group ~ould
submit it to the Planning Commission for consideration. Since the
draft Plan under this alternative participatory strateg~
presumably would be a new plan~ a determination would ha~e to be
made at its completio~ as to whether additional enyjronmental
assessment would be nEcessary. Th~ benefit of such a strategy is
that such a plan would reflect the objectives and, presumably, the
tndorsernents of those citizens who ~olunteered for such an
endeavor ~
Tne problem wit~ such a strateg1 is that suc~ a p1an may not
address the needs of the applicant, i.e.t tne Palo Alto Hedlcal
Foundation. or reflect the interests ind concerns of other
neighbors, citizens or community organizations who w€re not
participating in this volunteer effort. In addition, if
additional environment evaluation of tne draft citizen pian were
necessar1t the proce~s in completing i Medictr r~undation Speclftc
Plan wo~ld be s~bject to further delays. A1so, the volu~teer
grou~ would likely need technical resources supplied either by
City staff or a consultant paid for by the City.
3. Planning Corrmissioo Wgrk..ing Session SpecifiC Plan .Preoaration IIHr.
CM: 184 :91
Public and Neighbors
Tbis participatorl strategy ~ou1d begin wit~ the Planning
Commfsslon holding iI s.eries of working sessions in an informal
setting with tne general public, including an1 neighbors who
wished tD partiCipate, Hedical Foundation and City staff, to
develop a final Spetifft Plan. The framework for begInning this
document would tncl~de the City Council-endQrsed poli~ies and an
p :\cmr\glplan
3/14/91
Page 9
•
o o
outline or skeleton of I Fi~al Specific Plan. A preliminar1 Fi~al
Speci fie Plan then lIIo{.!ld' be drafted at these lIIorking seSs ion5.
A11 interested part If 5 could attend and participate.
Under this stritegy. I member of th~ Pla~ning Commissio~ would act
as chair and facilitator in the working sessions. Staff would act
as recorder and as techntcal advisor. Givefl. that it is likel, a
wide range cf views would b@ expressed on tne proposed project and
that p1an preparat10n wo~ld follow City Cou~cil poTicy
endorseEents. consensus on controversial issues would ~ot be
expected.
Estimated time for pTan preparation at these working Sl!'ssions
wou1d be Ipproximately two n~nths, assyming the working sessions
were scheduled on i weekly basiS. 1f the draft Plan were
(ompleted on scf'ledtJle, Planning Conrnission ptJbl ie hearings. on
Comprehensive Plan amendmtnts and the Final Specific Plan could
begin in June or early J'Jly. City Councll public hearings on
Cornprehens;ye Plan amendments and the Final Specif:c PTan cculd
begin in Jul1 or August. [See Attachment I for a tentative
compl.tion schedule.)
The final draft document t~at would be the product of these
worklog sessions 'Would be relit ivel)' sf'lort t ranging between ten
and twenty pages. The format and level of deta11 •• uld be similar
to numerous preCise plans approved in "~untain Vie~ in recent
years. (Two sample Mountlin Wiew precise plans arp .ttached.)
The benefit of this participatory strategy is that such a Specific
Plan should reflect endorsed policies of the City Council and
needs of the Nedical Foundation. as weTl as 1np~t from individuals
and community groups w~o participated in these informal working
sessions. I~ addition, such a strategy. as noted earl'er~ would
permit City CounCil cOfisideration of a Ff~al fIR, Comprehensive
Plan amendments and a Specific Plan for the Medical Found.t1o"
proposal by early Septe~r of t~is year. Ho~e~er. patential
dOk'r-.sides of this strateg,Y are that the working session
productivity could recede if the partiCipants failed to meet on a
regular bash, if discussfon (If controversial 1ssu~s became
unfocused and led to a stalemate in the Plan~s preparation, and/or
there were limited partiCipation because of i sense that key
fssues were decided and resolution of remaining important topics
would occur it the Planned Community zone c~ang~.
4. Staff Spec; fie Plan Preparation wit~ Subsequent Planning
~j55ion Working Session$ with publiC ind Neighbors
CMR; !84;91
Tbls participatory strategy would ha~e stiff immediately prepare a
draft final Specific Plan reflecting t~e City C~unci1's policy
recommendations. At t~e completion cf a Oraft Specific Plan, this
docume~t and the Final [n~ironmentil Impact Report would be sent
p: \cmr\!lzp"n
3/14/!1
Page 10
.",
/
o
to tht! Planning COlfl'T1issicn for re·,de· .... The Plar.ning (omission
w?uld fjrst scheduie an infcrma' working se$si~~ .ith t~e publ;c
at-larg~~ nefghbors and ;nterest~d citizen groups to re~iew and
obtain j;Jformal inp'.Jt en the draft Plan. The Planning COr.m1ission
would then formally re¥iew the Final EIR and hold the required two
public hearings on a Specific Pian reflecting i~put from the
werking sessions. It would also hold a pub~ic nearing en
appropriate Comprehensive Plan amendments. The time frame for
this strategy from the time of Cit1 Council action on a Specific
Plan participator) proce~5 to th! initfal Planning Commission
public hear;n~$ would be similar t~ the time (rame de~cribed for
the previous strat!QY and would ext!nd over approximately t~ree
monthL {See Attachment H for iii tenht1v!' comp1'etion s.cnediJie.]
The benef,t of t~is strQtegy is t~at the prtliminary Final
Spettfi: Pla~ submitted to the Commi~sfon should reflect er.dors~d
policies of t~e Cit~ Ccuncil. the needs of the Medical foundatton
and prtsumabls reflect input from individuals and groups that
participated earlier in the prO<tss. This strategy. of all
discussed, offers tne gre.test likelihood in t~e City completing
its re~few of the Final Eli and acting on Comprehensive Plan
ame~dments and tne Final Specific Plan by late summer of tnis
year. The principal 1 fat-Hit.)' of this strategy is that
; nc!hi dua ls and corrmun; tJ gl""oups who wi sh to be pro-act i'o'e t n the
preparation of a final Medical Foundation Specific Plan may feel
that they did not fully participate I. the process.
Public ~artlcjpttiRn for PC Planned (Qrnmunity Zone Change Preparation
Since pr~parltion for. PC zone change would not be initiated until a final
Specific Plan for the Pila Alto Medical Foundation is approved, participato,"y
strategies could .Ilow forsal or inform.l participation from the inception of
PC zone change prepa~ation. The particfpator1 strategies could include fermal
working groups functioning w;t~ or without Planning Commlss;on representation.
]. Wprking GrDUP without Arcl1Hectul'".l Re .... iew BOArd fARB) and.
Planning Commission Particfpation
Tbis partitipatory strategy for PC zone change preparition would
provide for formal ccr.st1tuent representat;on on a working group
t~at would also include design consultants for th& Palo Alto
Medical Foundation and C;t~ staff. Tn! fit) GouneTF would
determine .. hJch organizations and neighborhood groups \l/o'Jl d be
represented on the working group. The constituent groups
themselves ~ould select their o~n representatives. Tn! Medical
Found,tion consultant team wculd lead the working group through
the tasks req~ired for PC zone cnange preparation. Cit1 staff
would be • resource for de,elop.ent polic1 and development
regulation fnterpretat10n. T~e hEnefits of this partiCipatory
strategy is that ;t ~ould allow for eitizen and neighborhood input
C~J!;)84:9)
p:\cmr\gzplin
)(14(91
P.ge 11
o o
into the design of the Medical Foundation;s PC lone changE from
its inception. As i resuTt, the final design plan s~cu'd refTect
desires and concerns of citizen and neighborhood groups intere~ted
in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's proposed project. Tt1e
problems of suc~ a process are that they usually add time and cost
to i project. These costs wlll not only be assumed by the Medical
f~undition. but also by the Cfty in providing staff to such a
working group. In addition. whi1e citizen input on des;g~
features of the proposed project may be si~ce're, it ~ay not
necessarily result in ths ~ighest quality design of the Medical
Foundation project. Finally. objective reviEW bi the A.RB and
Planning C~mm15siDn Qf the proposed PC zone change may be
obviated. if a consensus is reached by the working group on the
merits of the project~
2. Working £rQUD witb Architecturjl Re .. ·iew Board and Pianning
CommissiQn Participatipn
This strategy would be similar to the previous one except that tne
ARB and Planning Connission would be represented on the worl1r.g
group. As a res~lt. the working group would benefit from Board
and Commission representaticn~ A prob1em tnat could irise is if
one or more Board members and/or Commissioners were not ab1e to
m~ke the necessary extensive time commitment to serve on a working
group in addition to their ot~er dutie$~
3. No Working Group but Informal PC lane than9t Public Re~iew prior
tq Formal Public Review
This partic1patory process would be similar to tne process
exercised by the de~elopers of RallOna Pla.za it 250 llnfversity
Aven~e. Tnus, under thiS strategy I the designers for the Medical
foundation i~it;illy would prepare preliminary plans for the PC
zone change projec.t. They would secure If.lformal input en the
plans from community and neighborhood groups who expressed
interest in the p~ject and then submit them for formal public
review required under the PC zone chan9~ process. Th~ benafit of
this participatory strlteg~ is that it w~uld give the designer a
freer hand at the outset in preparing Site and Design plans for
t~e Medical foundation project. Jt would also provide the
designer ~;th informal community and cit1zen comment before the
plans were formally revie~ed b~ the Planni~g Commission and ARB.
The p~~blem with tnis strategy is t~at input fro~ interested
parties may be reactive rather than proactive, if the design die
not reflect the spec?fie desires or needs of these indl~iduaTs
regarding to_ design of the project.
Summart and Conclusion
Apprc'priate pub1fc partiCipation stritegies for the completion of the Palo
Alta Medical FDu~datian Sp~cific Plan and a subsequent PC lone change should
CMR: 184:91
p :\cmr\gzplan
3/14/91
Page Il
•
be ccnsiderad in separate contexts. The Specific Plan process has beer.
eV{lhing a .... er 3-1/2 years, and the public rh'iew portion of His process has
extended cv~r the past 16 rnOr1ths. ThE-policies the (ity Council endorsed on
feb~uary 4. 1991 reflect a very concerted response to t~E M~dical Foundation's
needs. the Planning Commission's reccmmer.dations, input (rom the (ommunitj it
large and neighborhood concer~s and desires. It is unlik~ly that the Medical
Foundation, or neighb-crhood groups a:1d ~ndi'fid'u:als are entirely satisfied with
all e'~ment5 of these Council-endorsed policies. Nenetheless. the Qany voices
who participated in this process to date have ~een heard; and many of their
suggestions and concerns are reflected in these endor5:ed policies~ As a
resuit, staff strong1y believes tnat a subsequent p~blic particip~tion proce)s
for completion of the Specific Plan should be based en the policies accepted
by th@ Counc!l .on F"ebriJiry 4~ 1991. Further, any approlled procass s.hould naile
active Planning COlMlisc;ion participation in order to assure that 1) cormner:ts
voiced by ~arjous sectors of the corrmunity over the past sixteen months and,
~ost specifically. policles endorsed by the (itl Council are not lost ir. a
final phoj 2J continuity in completing Ii Specific Pian, in whier, tne Planning
Commission has exp~nded such vast effort to date~ is mainta1ned; and 3) I
Specific Plan can be brought back to the Plannlng Comm1ssion and City Council
for formal review and action within a rtasonable time frame, gillen the
ext~nsive time and resource expanded to date on the Medfcal Foundation DEIR
and Draft SpecIfic Plan.
fr the City Council intended ~odification ~f i p~blic participation process to
apply to both completion of the SptciflC Plan and preparation of thE PC
Planned Community lont change. tt'len staff belfeves that a public paY"ticipation
process described in Strategy 13 is tne most feaSible af the strategies
discuss!d in thts report in developing a preliminary final Specific Plan,
given th~ 'evel of publlc intertst expressed in participating in tne Plan's
completicn~ In such a process. ail particfpati~g parties nave tne opportunity
of having a vofce in the prelim1nar, final Plan's preparation in a forum and
atmosphere tn~t is muc~ less structured tnan tne public near1ng process.
However. if the Counci1~s directive was only intended for preparation of the
Planned Community zone, then staff endorses the fourth strategy discussed
und€r Specific Plan participatory strategies. Such a strategy prOvides
greater ass~rances t~a! public input heard ove~ the past sixteen montns and
the City Council-endorsed poliCies on the proposEd plan ~ould be reflected ir.
a prelir.!;na.rj' final Plan. Nonftf1.eless. this ~'lblic review pro-cess, ir>clud';ng
an informal working session and required public hearings, after preparation of
a draft final Plan by stiff. would permit substanti11 opport~nity for
additional public review and cornnent prior-to final PlaMing Corrmissicn action
on the proposed Specific Plan.
Preparltion of PC zone ch3T1ge Site-and Design plans for the Palo Alto Medical
foundation proposal ~ill not begin until after the Cjty Councl1 takes actiofJ
on the Final EIR t appropriate Comprenensive Pian a~~ndments and on the Medical
fOlJndation:'s Specific Plan. Howeve!"', tne development of the site and building
deslgn plans will ha'lle to address numerous. issuu of c.oncern to the nelghbQrs.
Developing the PC zone change plans .il1 take time and c~nsistency of
participation by neighbors and will be important becaust of tMe detaile~
nature ~f the design development process. Therefore, staff endorses a pub11c
CMR:1B4:9!
p:\cmr\gzpl an
.,
l' .,
,.~,: , ·i \ ) ,
3114/91
Pag~ 13
•
--.-,
./
o o
participation strategy ~avin9 i formalized neighborhood del~gitt pro(ess i~
pr!paraticn of tne PC z~ne change Site and D~5ign plans. Such ~ worKing grDup
would benefit from ARB and' Planning CommiHicn oarticipation , if ene or more
Board members and CClTi!TlisSic-n2rs could ma~e such i time commitml2'r.t.
RECOIIIIfNDATlOHS
Rental Housing Mitigation
Staff rectlTmends CHy Council endorselTier.t, as oil policy, of th.e followifl9
provisions regardin9 an appropriate housing ~iti9atfon for the 1035 of West
BTock multiple-family zoned rental housing:
J ~ n~e prgperty iit 777 Bryant Street i!;n<l 319 Hemer Avenue 'Would be
l •••• d to the City by tne Medical fo,nd.tion fer II_CO per ye.r
for SO yeaTS; and two buildings on tne site. the Medical
Secretaries Building and toe HMO Office Building would be
converted by th~ City to five low· to ~oderite-income rental units
for Medical Foundation employees;
2. Terms of the lease would become effective five years after City
issuancE of I building permit. consistent with the ~itJ approved
PC Planned Community zon~ thange;
3. Existing surface parking at this site-would be used as shared
parking for bot" residents and Medical FOI .. mdatiol"l emp1oyees. once
th& mitigation provision became effective;
4. The ~ed;cal foundation ~ould contri~ute 575,000 toward
rehabilitation '05t5 in converting the b~ildings to residential
flSe; a~d
5. The Medical Foundation's S75,OOO contribution for rehabilitation
costs w~uld occur it the time the lease became effective.
Proposed Mftigaticns, Benefits and Other Provjsions
Staff recommends that tne City Council direct staff tD begin negotlation ~ith
the Fo~ndation on a development agreement or other appropriate document,
including the following items, to be completed fr, a time frame generally
concurrent w1t~ action on the Fi~al Specific Plan:
1. The site at Channing and RamC}na wOiJid be lEased to the CHi for 35
years for Sl.OO per year, from the time the "~dical Foundation
obtains its first b~tlding permit; t~e City .o~ld lea~e the site
back to the Medical Foundation for S!.OO per year for continued
use as ~arkjn9 until I building permit for I c~ild ~are ~enter or
other use which may be deemed acceptable to the Medical foundation
and City is issued for the site.
CMR:184:9!
p:\cmr\gzplan
3/14/91
Page 14
. -
2. The Medical found.tfon would pay the CitJ with the lessor of
525,000 or 50 percent of tne cost of funding a tWO·W4y street
COriverSlon study relating to Homt!r and Channing k .... enues at tne
t1me of the Study;
3. The City wou,~ grant limited air and subsurface acce~s rights on
Bryant Street near Channing A~enue to the Medical Fo~~dation at no
costi
4. Public park1ng on the ~~dical foundation Main BTock and Nort~
Block surface parklng lots would be permitted in late ifternoons~
e~en;ngs and we!~end5 fCi use in conjunctfon with the Williams
property at no cost to the City ,the Medical Foundation aiso
requests that no solid wall at the Williams property line be
required in the final PC Zone change site plans);
S. The phY:7.iclan "cap· would nlit be less than SO addHional full time
equivalent physicians over the 139 presently at the ~ed;cal
foundation facilities i~ the ~~cin;ty of Bryant, Homer and
Channing j
6. The City would modify the sU9gested mitigation provisio~ requiring
24~hour security guards to reflect a ~ariety of secu.rity-re,lated
measures (e-.g.~ llghting, ... indo .. lo<:atlon, security guards) as the
Medica1 Fo~ndation deems appropriate;
7. The City would retain existing medical office grandfather zoning
provislons for the President~s Office site at 400 Cl-tannir,g Avenue;
and
S. In addition to the exactions, conditions and mitigation ~easures
set fort~ in the rtvised Draft £IR, the C1ty would receive title
to the parking Tot at 903 Bryant (at t~e southwest corner of
Bryant ina Channing t adjacent to the convalescent hospital). This
property may be used or exchanged for cpen space purposes. Title
will be transferred when the site is no longer needed or five
years after bUl1ding penmit issuance.
Assurances Regard7ng Additional Mitigation
Staff reconmen-ds u,at tfle City Co~nci1 reiterate) as policy. that ,preparatloro,
of the final Specific Plan and ~ P~3nned Co~ur.itl lone change be 90~erned by
the Council's endorsed policiES. The basic purpose of such direction wo~ld be
to give the foundatio~ assurances that major elements of the project will not
be cha~ged so IS to cau~e significant cost increases. Staff further
rtcounends fOnJIation of an ad hoc Council Conrnittee to pro¥ide 9\Jidance to
staff on an as-needed basis.
CMR:184:91
p: \c~r\gzp lan
3/14/91
P'ge IS
•
./
.~ .
Public Participation Process
Stiff recoml'l',et')ds. that the City (ounen appyoye for imp'ementation the
fo'lo~1ng public participation strategies:
J. Completion of the Sppcific Plan
If the City C~uncil endorses an expanded pub1ic participation
process in completing the Spec;fic Piin, then staff recommends
Strategy 3 under Specific Plan st~ite9~tS that includes informa1
Planning Commi.ssfor. working sesslor,s with th'! publl-:: and neighbors
fn developinq i draft Final Specific Plan. Completion of trle
Specific Plan would be conSistent wit~ the attached Tentative
Specific Plan Completion Schedule for this strategy.
If the City COtJncil prefers an established public review process
in ~omplet'ng tht Specifi~ P1a~, t~en staff recDmme~ds Strlt~9Y 4
under Specific Plan strategies that includes staff preparation of
a draft Final Specific Plan falTowed by an informal Pianning
Commission working session and subsequent Flanning Commission
public hearings. Completion of the Specific Pla~ w~uld be
consistent with the ~ttached Specific Plan completion schedule for
this stratoqy.
2~ preparation of PC lone Change SitR lnd Oesfqn plans
The strategy est~blishi"g I formal wDr~ing group witn Flanning
Commission and Architectural Review BOlrd participation.
Respectfully submitted.
WllllM ZAliER
City Manager
Off1chl
~ENNETH ~. SCHREIBER
Director of Pla1ning and
(ommunity EnYirc~~ent
Attachments: I. Tentat!ve Specific Pl.n Completion Schoou1e fo. Strategy 3
II. Tentative Specific Plan Completion Schedule fo. Strategy 4
[II. T~ sample Mountain Vi~ Precise P1ans
CMR:184:91
p:\cmr\glplan 3/14/91
Page IE
(~: Plaonin9 Comm'ssion
Architectural Re~iew Board
Histortc Resources Board
Pa10 Alto Medical Foundat1an
P410 Alto Housing Corparlti~n
Fa10 A1 to Chi ld Car! Task Force
Pa.l0 Alto B1cyc1~ Adljiso!",)' (olm\\ttee
Urban Design Committee
Unh't.rsity Pa.rk. N~ighborhood Assoc.ia.ticn
Ne!ghbors of the foundation
Cit)' OJf Menlo Park. Di"rector of Ph~,nin9
Stoe=ker and Northway As~ociates
Brady and Associ iltes
~~stern ~etlers Bicycle Club , Inc,
Persons that s\lbm~tted p'Jblic cQrrespond~nc.e
00:J84:91
l>:\tmr\gzpl.r, 3/14/91
Page 11
Qate
March 18, I~!ll
" :
ATTAC""OO I
PALO ALTO KEDICAL FOUNDATIOH
FINAL EIR AND SPECIFIC PLAN
TEIITATIVE COPll'LETIOH SCHEDULE
FOR
SUGGESTED STRATEEV l
Actf91'/Act iii ty
CQuncil acts on:
Housing Mitigation Policy
• Public Participation Process
Early April to late Hay 1~91 Planning Commission/Public Working
Sessions on Specific Plan {wee~Ty
sessions)
June and July 19~1
July, A~gust and, if ne,essary~
September 1991
p: \gl\sct.edu1 e
Two Planning Commission Public Hearings on
Spectfic Pla~ ind Comprehensive PTan
Amendments. (ommissfon action on Final
EIR, Specific Plan and Camprenens;ve Plan
a.mendments.
City Council Publ ic Hearing or. Specinc
Pl.n and (ompre~ensive Plan Amendments
[CHy Council ,I so acts on Final ElF.]
Dat.
M.rc~ 18. 1991
.~pri1 1991
K.y 1991
June and July 1991
AnACHltENT II
PALO ALTO NEOICAl fOUNDATION
FINAL EIR AND SPECIFIC PlAN
TENTATIVE COlIPlETIOH S~HrouLE
FOR
SUGGESTED STRATEGY ,
Act! on/Act 1\1; tv
Council acts on:
o
Housing /IIIitigatfon Policy
~ Public Participation Process
Staff prepares draft Final Speclfic Plan
P1anning Commission Jnfcrmal Working
Session Gn Specific Pla~
Tvo Planni~9 Commission Public Hearings on
Specific Plan and Comprehenslve Phn
Amendments. Commission action on Final
EIR. Specific Plan and Comprehensiv~ 'la~
amendments.
July, August and, if necessary,
September 1991
City Council Public Hearing on Specific
Plan and Camprehens ire Plan Amendmer,ts
[Cit)' Council also acls on fir~a' fIR]
p:\gl\schIl
.
, , .
.
. ... ~ "
, -
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
ELMONTE/· .. ·
. EL CAMINO _-
PRECISE
PLAN --
EL MONTE/EL CAMINO PPECISE PLAN
AOOPTED BY THE .Io\OUr-lTAIN VIEW CITx COUNCIL
DECEMBER 10, 1985
RESOLUTION NO. 14323
Amended ResollJtion No. Summar):,
""
£1 MONTS/£L CA.."'.INC PRECISE PLAN
DECEMBE~ 10. 1985
A. LOCATION
This area; located at the so~tneast corner of E1 Camino Real
and El Monte Avenue is divided into four parcels in three
o\llnerships {Exhibit I). The major property (Ar-ea A) consists
of 5::!: acres (t'..'o parcels}. of which apprc,ximately 5 a percent
is occupied (1985) by the Hubbard' Johnson building supply
outlet and ~torage areas; the remainder of the property is
vacant. Area e is vacant {1985). but eomi~ates the corner of
£1 Camino Real and £1 Monte Avenue~ BecaUsE of its location
on the intersection, access is awkward.
B. PURPOSE
This Flan provides guidelines, design parameters, de~sity and
use limitations ~hich acco~~odate the potential for retail
commercial uses, offices and housing or in the form of mixed
use development. The Plan relies on and references the
C3 Co~~ercial District but applies additional criteria to
help ensu~e retail use of this relatively large site. The
Plan also pr:ovides provisions to encourage common develop
ment, but also allows the smaller corner prcperty to develop
inoependently.
C. USES
1. ~
a. Permitted:
(11 Shopping centers, retail businesses and service
establishments including restaurants.
(2) Offices located above the ground flocr limited
to 50 percent of the project floor area.
b. Provisional~
'1) HOUSing when inCluded as pa~t of a mixed r~si
dential/ccmmercial complex.
(21 Indoor corrmercial recreation facilities
includioq theaters.
, .
(3) Other ~~es ~hlCh ar~ f0und by the Zoning Admin
istra~or to be cornpati~le ~jth tMe intent and
principles of t~e Precise Plan by virtue of
extent of their ~se and d€sign of the b~lldings.
(Gl Drive-up ~indo~s may be consiaered in conjunc
tion ~i~h a ban~ing use if it can be demon
strated that suc~ use will not cause congestion
on or otf the site and t~e circ~lation pattern
does net disrupt the pa~king lot design or
pedestrian access. Drive-up windo~s for res
taurants ~111 not be permitted.
2. ~
a. Permitted:
{lJ Offices with a floor area ratio net to exceed
those enumerated below.
(2) Low-intensity retail bUSinesses such as furni
ture out],ets which generate minimal traffic.
(3) All uses permitted in Area A if mutual access is
provided.
b. Prov~sional:
Any uses listed as permitted or provisional i~
Area A, abo~e, so long as access is coordinated with
the iarger site and the site design is effectively
coordinated ~ith the redevelocrnent of the larger
Site. ~
D. DCSIGN CUIDELINES
1. C3 De~elopment Standards
Unless otherwise enuMerated, the basic provisions of the
C3 District shall serve as minimum design standards for
uses on the property.
Particular attention shall be giv~n to additional street
side landscapinq, building setbacks~ and orientation of
buildings at the corner to avoid sight distance and
lIccess problell'"ls, to enhance tbis major 51 te and to screen
parleing.
- 2 -
2. Bt.:lldlng C,9'Jerace"
Building coverage rrlay not exceed 50 percent of each site.
3. ~e5ide~tial Density
A ffia~tmum of 1 uni~ per 2,000 square feet of the overall
net project site may De considered if apprcpriate to the
overall mixed-use site design.
4. Lar.dscapi r1q
A minimum of ~O percent of the site must I;;e lan:dscaped.
Landscaping shall be used to complement the intersection
of £1 camino/EI Monte.
The existin9 grove of trees on the City-o· ... ned land shall
be preserved ar.d incorporated into the site design. This
area shall not be counted towards required landscape
cequirenents unless legally joined with one of the
proper ties.
S. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
a. Without ffi~tual access
b. With mu~ual access
c. With housing
Area A
.40
.60
1.0
Area B
.4{l for
office •. 60
for retail
.60
N/A unless
pa.rt of
development of
Area A
6. Bwilding Height ,Including Roof Equipment and Screens)
Basic provisions of the C3 District, Section 36.l6.A.4
amplified by the follclo.·ing:
Ar_ea A Area B
a. Without mutual access 3 story/4S' 2 story/35'
' .... hichever is less)
b. With mutual access 3 story/4S' 3 story/4S'
(whiChever is less)
c. With housi:'l9 4 story/55' N/A
(wI"'. i c'neve r is less)
- 3 -
I
I
d. POrtiO~5 of b 'l!1di"gs in e:.<cess of. 45' rl1l..lst r,alle a
mi~imum setback from adjcining property lines of 100'
to 150' from streets.
e. The tctal amount of floor area above three stories
shall be cevoted to housing and manifestly designed
for individual ho~e ownership.
E. OTHER REOUIR!D CONDITIONS
1. Architectural and Site Design
~. Desi9n E~cellence--!n keeping with thjs prominent
location, special emphasis shall be given to
architectural and site desig."l e.zcellence. llse of
talented, e~perienced, recognized architects is
encouraged to create an innovative~ high guality,
one-of-a-kind bul1ding and site design. Submittal of
alternative siting and design studies may be required
to help ider.tify options ~nd t.o aid in evaluation of
the appropriate site and bulldlng design.
b. Coordinated Design--The two areas shall be designed
as a coordinated unit; even th.ou~h separate .ownership
and phasing may be inv~lvedp Particular attention
shall be given to access, parking layouts; building
orientation and location, l~r.dscaping. transition to
and buffering of adjoi~in9 uses and treatment of the
public frontages.
c. Residential ~esign--Rec09nizing the orban setting;
any residential uses shall be designed tG promote
privacy and reasonable separatio:-. from cO.r:unercial
activity =~d conflicts~ Open areas, including decks,
patios and com~on reSidentially oriented landscaped
areas shall be at least 10 pprcent of the reside~tial
floor area~ High-quality d!'sign and amenities shall
be i~cluded to belp create a distinctive residential
setting.
2. Signing
A detailed sign proqra~ shall be 5ubmitted for approval
as part of the Planned COffilT.urd.ty Pf'fa'>lt for Areas A
and B. Si9ns s~all b~ re!trained in size, scale and
design; rec~nizjn9 the i~portanc~ Qf this landmark
location.
All [cot eq~lpme~t s~all be scre~ned on all sides and
s~411 ~e architecturally integrated with the buiIding
ceslg;"..
4. ~
t.;~ise-prod.Jci.:"lg vej;ts~ fans a"d CI€"c!la"ical eq;Jip:ller,t
shall b~ orlfnted away from adjoining properties. Resi
dential u~!tS and exterior reside~tial ~menity spaces
s~ch as ~ilconi~5 shall be designed to reduce noise
!evels from th~ environment ~nd achieve the desired ncise
level$ specified io the Ceneral Plan to the extent feas
!ble to 45 ~8(A)tla daytime and 35 d8(A)LlO nighttime fer
i~terlcr~ and ~S ~afA)LIO daytime and 45 as{A)LlO ~ight
t~me for e~terlcrs.
F4 ADMINISTRATION
Except as noted belov, all major developments shall be
approved by the City Coun~il as per Sections 36.22.5 to
36.22.10 ot the Zoning Or~inance. On~e a major project has
heen approved. uses ~hich are identified as provisional uses
in this Plan. bUlldinq e%pans.ions and mOOif:'cations in sign
progra~ changes may be granted by the Zoning Administrator
afte: app:oprlate p~blic hearings as per Sections 36.22.6
thro;.lgh 36.22.8.
Upon granting" of the Planned Community Permit, the approval
of roj~or sign program changes, approval of specific signs,
approval of minor site cha,"ges and building alterations ..
including buildi~g material changes and cnanges in ~se which
are in conformity \.o'ith the PreCise Plan may be authorized
through the Site Plan and Architectural Review {SPAR)
process.
KA/PLN/1II S*
BOl-2-11P
-5 -
. -
!
I
I
I
-.. .L ..... ... ... ..... ......... -... ... ... .....
..
. .
• -~ _"! -. - -. '
~, " .• " . ;,.,,,
>--","
CITY OF MOUNTAJN VIEW
310-600
WEST
EVELYN
AVENUE
PRECISE
PLAN
. _.
3l0-600 WEST E'JELY~ PRECISE PLAN
ADOPTED B7 THE MOUNTAIN VIEw CITY C()UNClL
FEBRUARY 25, 19 BO
RESOLUTION NO. 12976
AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. SU¥.MARY
pr;HPOSE
o
310-600 WEST EVELYN AVENUE PPECISE~
FEBRUARY 1980
> ..
. . -.. f-.
Tbis Pr~cise ?lan sets forth the ~se and development standards
~ppropriate to this heavy commercial and transit services are~,
located prominently near Downtown. This plan is intended to
guide develop~rs, property owners, and the City in preparing and
reviewing proposed uses and plans for improvements within the
area.
BACKGROUND
The 310-600 Evelyn Precise Plan is based on the Mountain View
General Plan and, mo~e specific~lly, on the Central City Area
Plan (CCA?), adopted June 12, 1978. The area is generally
bounded by Central Expressway to the north, ROQte 85 Freeway to
the east, Evelyn Avenue to the south, and Castro Street to the
W&st. {See Map 1, attached.} This area (containing 15.1 acres)
consists entirely of the Southern PacifiC Railroad lands between
Evelyn Avenue and Central E~pressway and between Route as Freeway
and Castro Street. As of early 1~80, it is substantially open,
bllt muc;l of the land is cotr.mitted to railroad use--the Southern
Pacific passenger Station and park~~g, railroad spur lines,
loading platf¢rms, etc.. There Bre t ... o signi ({cant buildings 0'1
the property, one occupied by a wallboard and plastering firm,
one occupied by a whclesale/retail d~sk and office equipment
supplier. The City cou~cil has gi~en preliminary approval fot
establishment of a Santa Clara County Transit District bus pas
senger transfer station here, in conjunction with the SP pas
senger station. This area Is at the nexus of five bus routes,
augmenting the transit orientation of the existing and potential
land uses in thIs area.
The CCAP noted that upgrading ¢f the e~istin9 development is
needed to better complement the surrounding residential and
Downtown Re~italization area. Special street setbacks, land
scaping requirements, sign controls and b~ildin9 rehabilitation
are all D~eded to upgrade the area and render it more compatible
with its prominent location, and to enhance its relationship to
Downtown and the adjacent neighborhood.
PRECISE PLAN OBJECTIVES
1. To promote the development of an attractive entrance~ay
into the Downtown througb architectQral and lan~scape
enhancement of the area.
-1-
.-, ..
! • I
2. To h~lp'provide for the long-t~rm transit needs of the
communi ty.
3. To accommod~te for int~ri~ eetyice-c~mmercial uses,
A. Principal permitted Uses
1. Railroad passenger statton!.
2. Bus passenger ttansfer stations.
J. Other forms of re91o~al or loc~l passenger transfer
station-so
4. Parking lots and pa~senqer loading areas to serve these
IIses.
S. Retail commercial and office uses, as appropriate to
serve these transit services~
B.. Provisional
1. Transportation facility servic~ yards and buildings, not
including heavy repair.
2. Freight loading and storage yards and buildings, when
appropriately screened froB off-site view.
3. Uses listed as peraitted, accessory or conditional uses
in the CG (Service CommerCial) District.
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
C. Reiqht; Tbe maximum beigbt to top of building shall be
three stories 0= 35'.
D. Front yard: There shall be a minimum yard area at least
15 1 deep adjacent to the street right-ot-way, all of ~hlch
must be landscaped, excluding driveway entrances.
E. Side xard between separate uses: There shall be a minimum
side yard of 5~, increased as may be required through review
(see ad~inistration) to ens~re a reasonable layout~ taking
both the particular development and adjacent development
into CO~5ider.tion.
-2-
-.
I
1
1
I
F.
G.
'-.>
..
Rea: yard: There shall be a mi~imum side yard of 5',
increased as maj be required through !evie~ (see adminis
tration) tv ensure a reasonable layout, taking both the
pertic~lat degeiopmer.t and adjacent deve~opment into con
side.rat ion.
Landscaping requirement: A mlnlrnu~ of 10 percent of the
total site area shall be landscaped, i~cluding landscaping
~ithin the parking areas so that n~ p4~ed are3 is further
than J5 f from e landscaped area.
B. Outdoor stora~e: Storage sball be screened from off-site
vie~ by a solld masonry or board fence and landscapin9~
I. Noise bufferlnq~ Projects 'Will be reviellled to determine
theIr compliance with the General Plan sound level
guidelines fer transportation facilities (70 dB(A) L10).
measured at tbe property line.
J. Traffic impact: Projects will be specifically reviewed to
determine their impact on traffic on the adjacent streets.
including potential impact or-. paridng demand ... ithin the
area.
A.
B.
c.
SIGNS
Identification SiS"S: One identification sign shall be
permltted for eac lot. Said sign shall have co moce than
t~o faces, shall not exceed an area of SO square feet for
each face. shall not exceed a height of :0' ahove the sur
face of the street if freestandLng, or hei9bt of eave if
building-mounted.
Identification Signs-OCcupancies: One Ldentification sign
snall be permitted for eacb occupancy frontage. Said sign
shall not have more than two faces, shall not e~ceed an area
of 25 square feet for each face provided I however, that any
sign &ttacb flat against a principal building may have a
maximum area of 50 squate feet, and shall not project abc'le
the eave of the coof or top of coping of said building.
Real Estate Signs
One real estate sign shall be permitted for each occu
pancy. said 8190 shall not exceed an area of a square feet,
shall be attached flat dgainst a principal buildin~. ie
which case it shall not project above the eave of the roof
or top of the parapet. or shall be incorporated into a
freestanding sign, and shall be unlighted.
-3-
-------..,:------,..... ""-' .. _._-'
.... '
•
•
--.
. _-----_ ......... ""
:~
D. Real Estate 5 !.gns·~TJnimp'o\Ted Acreage
One real estate sig~ shall be permitted for each lotI not to
eKceed an atea of one-fo~~th of a sguare foot for eacb foot
of lot frontage, shall not in any eve~t exceed an area of
50 square feet, shall not e~ceed a height of 10' above the
surface of the street, and s~all be unlignted.
ADMINISTRATION
Oses listed as ·provisional-a~d/or construction inv~lving excep
tions to the proFerty development standards set forth in thi;
Precise Plan shall requir~ review by the Zoning Administrator and
approval of the Planned Community Permit by the City council. as
set forth in Sections 36.22.6 through Sections 36.22.10.
Changes in land use~ to a ·principal permitted· use and new
developments which comply with the stanjards and criteria set
forth in this Precise Plan shall be s~bject to public hearing
review and final action by the Zoning Administrator in accordance
with Sections 36.22.6 through 36.22.8.
Minor site changes, changes in tenancy or principal permitted
ases, minor building additions, and signs which are in conformity
with the st~ndarda and c[ite!ia of tbis pr~cise plan may be
anthori%ed administratively through Site Plan and Architectural
Review process vithout the necessity of issuance of a plann~d
community permit or a puhlic hearing.
Existing uses made nonconformin; oy this Precise Plan may be
continued for a peliod of 40 years from the date they became
nonconforming, except that an eztension ~ay be granted by the
Zoning Administrator after application and a public hearing in
accordance with the Secticns 36.22.6 through 35.22.8. Changes in
tenancy of the nonconformin9 use which is of the salne or less
intensive nature than the original use may be authorized
administratively through the Site Plan and Architectural Re""ie\r,l
process without the necessity of issuance of a Plannea Community
Permit or a public bearing_ Once a nonconforming use has been
red~ced in intensity, it may not tbereaftel be increased in
intensity.
All ezisting buildings made nonconforming by this Precis~ Plan
may be continued indefinitely subject to the reconstruction and
alteration limitationa speCified. Any building damaged by
natural caases or other -Act of GoQ-where the damage Is less
than 50 percent of the value of the str~cture at the time of
destruction may be replaced to bring the building back to its
-4-
,.....,--,-. .,----"'" ------._-
.. --.,
original form. Any building similarly da~aged by SO percent or
more of value of thp. &tructure at the time of destr~ction may be
rebuilt only if the ne~ construction complies ~ith all applicable
p£operty development standards.
IIJP/PLN/tS'
S12-6-14P?
-5-
',.'
.:
',,,'
J ~ l~witjjl3 I i lJJJJ. I I PRJ I IJ~I
EXPRESSWAY
SECTION I -S. P.R. R. LANf)S
::::::;;;;~~:::::::;=;:AVENUE '<EST-EVELYN D
tPl FA I I n, I t;::,-Esd bB STREET WJ I-LJ-J
--'
LJ ..... '" ... or ...
~ ~" ~ I I '~-5 "l{-. ~
II I." I I , -:;;~J-;--, I "~,---j-I
n ~_ b!_~AL.i J;
,-=~--.J " .. ' '-----!...lLJ I
--r.--~-"1--,
:r1
S'"R((T
--r
---' -
I~
'" ,~ "" ~ t'" '.::> r ,
~ '" Z L'
C> .,.
< :ao::
M '" ~ VI c: ~
M
WL )
\
,
~ -~
I
.'
, .',':: .... '~_/ ,
',~> '
' ..
,,.',
•