North Downtown Specific Plan MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: November 13, 2017 TO: Members of the North Downtown Specific Plan Advisory Committee FROM: Jeanine Cavalli, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Materials for the November 13 Advisory Committee Meeting Meeting Objective The objective of the meeting is to provide clear direction on proposed development and design guidelines and standards to be included in the Specific Plan. Homework (See attachments) Please review the following materials included in this packet and come prepared to discuss the proposed development and design details in a collaborative work session at the upcoming November 13 th committee meeting: 1. Land Use Summary 2. Height and Intensity Diagrams 3. Proposed Design Standards and Guidelines Background The Advisory Committee reviewed a variety of land use alternatives at previous meetings, and at the July 10 meeting provided direction to for development of the proposed land use concept. The proposed land use concept is shown as the first diagram in the attached materials, and has been reviewed at a community workshop in July, by a joint session of the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission in August, and by the City Council in September. Council stated general support for the proposed land use concept, and advised that the planning team continue to move forward with drafting the more detailed land use and design components of the Specific Plan. The intent of this Advisory Committee meeting is to vet some of these more detailed land use and design concepts, providing guidance and refinements for the planning team as they work to draft the specific plan. These topics include: Overall land use acreages and growth projections in the proposed land use concept Height and intensity regulations Community benefits framework and approach Setback and provision of outdoor open areas Building design Streetscape furnishings and public wayfinding design Land Use and Design Objectives As discussed in previous Advisory Committee meetings, the land use and design concepts are intended to accomplish a number of objectives and features, including: Design objectives: 1. Enhance the character of the area and become more compact, dense and walkable in form 2. Evolve into a vibrant mixed use district 3. Enhance the project area with small outdoor spaces such as plazas, courtyards and parklets 4. Beautify streets and public spaces with street trees, landscaping, pedestrian scale lighting and public art
NDSP Advisory Committee Meeting Materials Packet Page 2 5. Create a more recognizable sense of place in North Downtown, while capitalizing on proximity to the BART station and Downtown Land Use Objectives: 1. Consolidate auto sales and services north of Ygnacio Valley Road, with a more compact footprint 2. Establish a Makers Row along Pine Street to create opportunities for hand crafted manufacturing, such as brewing, ceramics, jewelry making, and shared technology/tool space 3. Increase opportunities for office north of Ygnacio Valley Road 4. Encourage focused areas of pedestrian ground floor retail, restaurant, and services along North Main Street and North Broadway 5. Increase opportunities for housing south of Ygnacio Valley Road 6. Increase mixed use office or residential over commercial along Civic Drive 7. Create and arts/entertainment/hospitality district to encourage community gathering, outdoor event space, and a focus on public art and entertainment 8. Allow for flexibility in use and implementation as North Downtown changes over time Analysis /Additional Materials The Advisory Committee packet includes proposed plan direction for the following topics, for vetting and comment by the Advisory Committee: Land Use Summary. This section of the packet includes the proposed land use concept, identifying the minor revisions made since it was presented at the previous advisory committee meeting. It provides additional information about how the overall land use acreage would change under the proposed land use concept, and provides an estimate of growth projections. A key question for the committee is how/if the ground floor retail shown along certain corridors in the proposed land use concept map should be required, incentivized or encouraged. Height and Intensity. This section of the packet shows maps of the proposed height maximums and associated FAR maximums. FAR is proposed to be aligned with allowed heights, since these two regulations on development potential are closely linked. This section identifies a framework to allow increases in height up to the Measure A maximum for projects that provide community benefits. This community benefit bonus pathway would only be available to the small number of parcels that are currently zoned at heights below Measure A, and which therefore have potential to increase in height within the limitations of Measure A. A key question for the committee is whether the community benefits framework should request specific features and dollar values for improvements, or be kept more flexible and negotiable with council. Proposed Design Standards and Guidelines. This section of the packet shows potential concepts and options for a variety of inter related design topics. While the City currently regulates average front setbacks citywide through the General Plan as a means to provide outdoor open areas (e.g. plazas, and landscaping), there is an opportunity to provide more direct guidance for the North Downtown. Other design standards and guidelines for building design, site access and loading, and streetscape furnishings are intended to create an attractive and engaging pedestrian oriented environment. A key question for the committee is the degree to which guidance should be required standards or discretionary guidelines.
City of Walnut Creek North Downtown Specific Plan Process Advisory Committee Meeting November 13, 2017
Land Use Summary
Proposed Land Use Concept Areas changed since our meeting in July
Land Use Comparison Land Use Designation Existing (acres) Proposed (acres) Office (OF) 42.7 32.8 Auto Sales and Service (AS) 36.1 31.9 General Retail (GR) 25.1 0.7 Mixed Use Commercial (MU C) 0 25.7 Golden Triangle (GT) 16.9 16.9 Public/Semi Public (PU) 7.9 2.2 Mixed Use Residential (MU R) 4.4 22.9 Pedestrian Retail (PR) 0.9 0.9 Open Space Recreation (OSR) 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 134.3 acres 134.3 acres
Growth Projections (Estimated) Existing Current City Regulations Proposed Concept Multi Family Residential 706 units +200 300 units +700 900 units Office 2.8 million sf +400k 500k sf +700k 800k sf Retail 380k sf +50k 75k sf +50k 75k sf Auto Sales & Service 420k sf 0 sf -60k-80k sf
Land Use Summary? Any comments on the land use comparison and growth projections? How should we approach ground-floor retail corridors shown on the Land Use Concept? Require, encourage, or incentivize?
Height + Intensity
Proposed Height Clean-up Areas where heights were cleaned up to match Measure A limit (< 15 difference)
Potential Zoning Height Increase to Measure A
Community Benefits for Increased Height Honda Site Significant public space (Giammona) Community arts and entertainment Mid-block pathway Others? Post Office Site Complete Brio pathway Others? All other Sites Bike/ped facilities Public open space Public parking Public art Affordable housing Fund district infrastructure or programs Others? Honda Post Office
Proposed FAR (aligned with height) 2.0 2.4 2.6 3.0 4.0
Height + Intensity? Do you agree with the proposed heights and FARs? Do you agree with the approach to community benefits? Are there other community benefits or locations that should be specified?
Design Standards + Guidelines
Setbacks Existing (General Plan) Proposed
Desired Outdoor Open Areas Public Plazas Seating areas Parklets Restaurant patios Tot lots Private Courtyards Rooftop amenities Private common areas Balconies and porches Garden spaces
Public Outdoor Areas Existing City Requirements: Setback requirements (may or may not be comprised of public space) Landscaping areas required for office and multi-family development (20% of site) No other open area requirements for new development Options and Considerations: Should there be requirements for public outdoor areas (e.g. plazas, outdoor seating areas) in new development? Should different uses or locations have different requirements? What is the best metric (% of lot area? Minimum square feet for projects over a certain size? Other?)
Private Outdoor Areas Existing City Requirements: None besides basic life safety building code requirements and Options and Considerations: Should there be requirements for private outdoor areas in new development? Should we distinguish between private areas (e.g. balconies) and common private areas (e.g. courtyards and play areas)? How should we treat different uses (e.g. resident space for housing, vs. worker break space for office, retail, or auto)? What is the best metric (square feet of space per unit; % of total project area)?
Sidewalk Frontage Standards: No blank walls over 30 along the sidewalk Regularly occurring building entries Privacy and transitions to ground floor residential Guidelines: Public to private transitions: stoops, porches, courtyards, balconies Active retail frontage (storefronts) Façade architecture and materials Transparency Landscaping
Massing + Articulation Standards: Major massing breaks at least every 100 feet Minor massing breaks at least every 50 feet Stepbacks (over 35, step back 10 ) Guidelines: Special corner treatments Design for top, middle and bottom of buildings Vertical and horizontal articulation Visual interest and variety
Site Access + Loading Standards: Vehicular and bicycle parking Limit curb cuts and driveways Loading/unloading for services and passengers Parking reductions (shared parking, proximity to BART, for what other conditions?) Guidelines: Site circulation Parking placement Screening Ped, bike, and vehicle access
Streetscape Furnishings + Wayfinding Considerations for discussion: Single unified palette? Distinct from traditional downtown or consistent? Distinction between north and south of YVR sub-areas? Unique features for special districts (makers row and arts/entertainment/hospitality)?
Design Standards + Guidelines? Which topics warrant further discussion? Which strategies do you support or oppose? What should be standards vs. guidelines?