Marissa Mayer speaks to the Palo Alto city leaders
Yesterday evening Marissa Mayer spoke to Palo Alto city leaders.
About 30 people spoke up during public comment and reactions have been different. Some Palo Alto's residents support the Marissa Mayers's plan to convert the old mortuary into a private club mainly for woman, while some other residents opposed to the plan.
The city attorney will review the city council's options.
Following is the Palo Alto City Council Staff Report.
Summary Title: 980 Middlefield Road: Prescreening for PC Amendment
Title: 980 Middlefield Road [18PLN-00129]: Request for Prescreening of a Proposal to Amend the Existing Planned Community (PC) 2152 Zoning in Order to Change the Allowed Use From Mortuary to a Private Club or Similar Use with Collaborative Office Workspaces and Areas for Workshops and Special Events. The Study Session Will Give the Council and the Community an Opportunity to Comment on the Applicant’s Proposal Prior to Submittal of a Formal Application.
Environmental Assessment: Not a Project; any subsequent formal application would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Zoning District: PC 2152 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 2018)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council conduct a preliminary review (“prescreening”) and Councilmembers provide informal comments regarding the applicant’s request to make changes to the Planned Community (PC) 2152 zoning. In addition, staff seeks Councilmembers’ input on the proposed site improvements. Comments provided in the course of a prescreening are not binding on the City or the applicant.
Executive Summary
The applicant seeks preliminary feedback from the City Council concerning a proposal to amend the PC 2152 zoning for the subject parcel, located at the corner of Middlefield Road and Addison Avenue. The proposal includes changes to the development plan and to the proposed use of the site. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation is multi-family, while the site is currently zoned for use as a mortuary.
The applicant proposes interior and exterior alterations to the existing building for its reuse as a private club or similar use that provides co-working/office space, areas for workshops and small classes, and space for lectures and speaker events, among other uses, as described in further detail in the applicant’s project description in Attachment E. The project also includes exterior façade and site design modifications.
A prescreening review is required for legislative changes, including PC amendments, prior to application submittal in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A). Prescreenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action.
Background
In July 1963, the subject site included three parcels zoned R-3-P, R-3, and R-2, all three of which were rezoned to a Planned Community Zoning (PC 2152) to accommodate the mortuary use. The ordinance outlining the PC 2152 Zoning is included in Attachment B. Permitted uses in this ordinance include “mortuary and necessary related facilities, including off-street parking and employee’s residences.” Therefore, the proposed use of the site for any primary use other than a mortuary would not be allowed under the existing zoning. In 2014, Council suspended the creation of new planned community districts, but remained open to amendments to previously approved PCs. The project applicant requests Council’s preliminary feedback on an amendment to the existing PC Zoning at 980 Middlefield Road. The requirements for PC districts are stated in PAMC Section 18.38. To amend the PC, the Council would need to make the following required findings:
(a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.
(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district.
(c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.
Project Description
A location map of the proposed site is included in Attachment A. The preliminary schematic drawings included in Attachment F communicate a concept plan as is appropriate for this stage of project consideration. As shown in these schematic drawings and noted in the applicant’s project description in Attachment E, the applicant is proposing a modification to the use of the site as well as several modifications to the site design and exterior facades.
The applicant’s description generally outlines the proposed use of the site as an establishment focused on providing “a vibrant, welcoming space for traditional and non-traditional professionals to collaborate, work, learn, find support, build community, and spend time with their families, friends, and neighbors.” Use of facilities would mostly be restricted to members. The three main uses are described as collaboration spaces, classes and workshops, and special events, as described further below. The applicant notes that on average, there would be approximately 150 members/guests utilizing the site at any given time during the day and 125 people using the site in the evening or on the weekend. However, the applicant proposes a maximum concurrent number of people that may use the site at up to 300 people during the day and up to 400 people during the evening or weekend hours. The applicant anticipates four to eight full time employees and ten to twenty part-time employees to manage the facility. The hours of operation would generally be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven days a week, but the applicant notes that (1) the people using the office space would arrive earlier and/or depart later, and (2) special events and classes may occur outside of those hours. The project description seems to anticipate outdoor events with amplified sound occurring until 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and until 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Indoor events are anticipated to last until midnight.
Proposed exterior modifications to the building would primarily include the creation of a new drop-off area parallel to Addison Avenue, revisions to the parking area; the addition of a new play area; and revisions to the exterior facades. The interior floor plan would be redesigned to include individual and co-working spaces, classroom areas, a gallery, a small gym, a multipurpose room with a stage, and kitchen areas.
Classes and Workshops
The applicant states that the facility would host up to 20 classes per day for youth and adults with up to 25 attendees per class. Types of classes could include music classes, visual and/or performing art programs, cooking, professional development, dance, fitness, health/wellness, language or academic/tutoring programs. Participation of classes would require pre-registration and registration fees. Some classes would be open to all members of the public while others would be open to those paying for regular membership of the facility.
Collaboration Space
The majority of the interior would be redesigned to accommodate co-working/office space with several adjacent conference/meeting room spaces. Approximately 100 people would have access (through membership) to the co-working and other breakout space monthly. The applicant states that, although there would be up to 100 members, they anticipate that no more than 50 people would utilize this collaboration space at any given time throughout the day because they would arrive and depart at various times. The facility would also offer food and beverage options to members and guests and include spaces that would be ancillary to the office use, including a fitness room, an atrium/lounge area, garden and outdoor space, and a patio area with tables.
Special Events
The applicant proposes up to ten events per week with up to 75 attendees, no more than 250 times per year, and up to four events per week with more than 75 attendees, no more than 150 times per year. As stated in the project description, the organization would offer membership to the public. The applicant also explains that, as a community benefit, the rental space would:
• be made available for non-profit and/or charity events at least twelve times a year;
• host free and under-market rate classes, workshops, or other events for the public community at least six times per year; and
• host, free of charge, at least ten meetings and/or small gatherings per year for the
purpose of community outreach, volunteering, charity or other like uses.
The project site currently consists of three parcels. It is anticipated that any formal application would also include a request to merge the three lots. Therefore, the project data on the conceptual plans reflects the area of the resulting merged lot.
Surrounding Uses
Adjacent zoning and uses include Addison Elementary School on a PF zoned parcel to the South (across Addison Avenue), single-family residential uses to the east in the R-1 zone district (across Middlefield Road), and multi-family residential uses to the north and east on a large parcel zoned PC 2836. Surrounding buildings generally range from one to two stories in height.
Discussion
Staff has identified the following key considerations for Council, and summarizes each below:
A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation;
B. Traffic and Parking;
C. Historical Evaluation; and
D. Public Comments
Conformance with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation
The project site is designated multi-family residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The definition in the Land Use and Community Design Element for this designation does not speak to uses other than housing; however, the City’s Zoning Code does allow for some additional uses within residential zoned districts either by right or with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
It should be noted that the City defines community center in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.04.030(34) as “a place, structure, area, or other facility used for and providing religious, fraternal, social and/or recreational programs generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significant segments of the community.” Though the applicant likens the proposed use to a community center, it is not clear that the project, as currently proposed, meets the City’s definition of a community center. Membership is generally open to the public and the applicant has offered, as a community benefit, use of the site on a limited basis to non-members. However, use of the facilities is generally restricted to paying members, and membership is limited. Therefore, the proposed use may also be considered a private club use, which is permitted in certain districts, but not specifically defined in the municipal code. In addition, a significant portion of the floor plan is dedicated to co-working use, which may not be consistent with either a community center or a private club use. The co- working use and ancillary space is most consistent with the definition of general office use and; therefore, the use would likely be subject to the citywide office/Research and Development cap requirements, which limits the addition of new office space in the City to 50,000 square feet of new space per year.
Staff notes that the residential zoning regulations in the City’s Zoning Code do allow Community Centers as a conditionally permitted use in any residential district, while private club uses are conditionally permitted only in the RM-40 district. Office uses (other than home occupation) are not permitted in any residential zones. The current PC 2152 Zoning only allows a mortuary use; therefore, an amendment to the PC would be required to accommodate the proposed use. Because the project proponent seeks to amend an existing PC zone, any use may be considered by the City Council.
Traffic and Parking
There are currently 45 parking spaces provided on the site. The proposed project would reduce the number of on-site parking spaces to 36 spaces. For a private club use, the City’s Zoning Code typically requires one space for each four seats, or four person capacity, based on maximum use of all spaces at any one time. Office spaces typically require one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant has stated that up to 150 people would be anticipated to use the facilities on average throughout the day, a maximum of 300 people may utilize the space during regular work/school hours, and up to 400 people may utilize the space during evening or weekend hours. The applicant notes that the facility would “encourage walking, biking, rideshare, carpooling, or public transportation for all patrons” and notes that the neighborhood is walkable. The applicant also states that they may utilize off-site lots and shuttles and/or valet parking for large events. However, even with special accommodations for larger events, as currently proposed, it is not clear that the proposed parking would be sufficient to accommodate the day-to-day use at the site.
If there is Council interest in changing the current PC zoning, staff would recommend that as part of any future project, specific parameters be defined for the use of the facility in order to ensure that the number of parking spaces is appropriate for the maximum anticipated number of users at any given time. Staff also notes that the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant spaces on the plans do not appear to meet the City’s municipal code or California Building Code requirements. Therefore, further consideration of the parking layout would also be necessary as part of any formal application.
Staff also notes that the proposed size and hours of operations could be impactful to operation of Addison Elementary. Further consideration and coordination with the school would be required as part of any formal application to ensure the proposed operation of the facility would not conflict with school operations. The project also includes changes to the site to create a drop-off area, which would require a new curb cut on Addison Avenue. This drop-off zone would allow transit network companies (e.g. uber, lyft, etc.) or parents with children to drop-off and pick-up passengers without impacting traffic flow on Addison Avenue. Further analysis of pick-ups and drop-offs, in coordination with the City’s Transportation Division, would be required as part of any formal application, to ensure that the site is designed appropriately to prevent queueing from impacting local vehicular circulation.
The applicant notes that during construction, workers would park on site, and arrival and departure times would be scheduled to avoid school pick-ups and drop-offs. The applicant is also aware of concurrent construction activities occurring at Addison Elementary and anticipates further coordination with Addison Elementary School’s contractor to reduce cumulative construction impacts to the neighbors and school.
Historical Evaluation
The City contracted with Page & Turnbull to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the existing buildings on the subject parcels. The HRE prepared for these properties is included in Attachment D. The HRE concludes that the existing mortuary building is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 3, Architecture/Design, for its “distinctive Midcentury Modern design, as a midcentury property type, and as work of architect Leslie Nichols.” As described further in the report Leslie I. Nichols was a prominent local architect best known for designing the Palo Alto City Hall at 1313 Newell Road (now the Palo Alto Art Center). Characteristic Midcentury Modern elements include projecting eaves, cantilevered overhangs, flat roof forms, a vaulted roof form, an articulated primary façade, wood siding, brick veneer, stones used as accent material, and several other features seen on this building. Because the building is found to meet the criteria for eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), site and building exterior modifications would be required to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards), which would require modifications to the proposed façade revisions as part of any formal application. If the plans are not modified for compliance with the Standards, preparation of an environmental analysis analyzing the project’s significant impact on a historic resource would be necessary.
Public Comment
Several public comments were received following noticing of this prescreening application. Some of these comments were provided verbally; written comments are included in Attachment C. One nearby resident wanted to better understand how the site would be used, expressing that they would not be supportive of an office use but may be supportive of a true community center use. This same resident and one additional nearby resident expressed that, in the past, the site has been used for unpermitted events that have generated excessive noise and traffic and impacted parking in the vicinity. Therefore, the neighbors want to better understand the parking and noise impacts of the proposed project.
In addition, two members of the public noted that construction is anticipated over the next two years at Addison Elementary and in the adjacent right-of-way. Therefore, if a formal application is approved, construction at 980 Middlefield Road might coincide with construction activities at the elementary school.
As part of any formal application, staff would further assess the potential impacts of noise, traffic, and parking associated with construction, especially simultaneous construction with the adjacent elementary school, as well as those impacts associated with the ongoing use of the site.
Timeline
Following the prescreening review, the applicant will consider Council’s comments and determine how they want to proceed. Any formal application would be subject to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Council’s purview, similar to a zoning code text amendment process. Physical changes to the site are also anticipated to require a recommendation from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) as part of the Architectural Review process and may also require a recommendation from the Historical Resources Board (HRB).
Environmental Review
The prescreening is a preliminary review process in which Councilmembers may provide comment, but no formal action will be taken. Therefore, no review under the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) is required at this time. A full review under CEQA would be initiated with the formal filing of a development application.
