Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-01 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, June 01, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.  2.640 Waverley [23PLN‐00092]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review To Allow Demolition of a Single Family Home and to Allow Development of a Proposed Four‐Story, approximately 10,400 Square Foot Mixed‐Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Office and Three Levels of Residential (Four Residential Units in Total) with a Basement and Below‐Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.Study Session to Review the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.  4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, June 01, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.  2.640 Waverley [23PLN‐00092]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review To Allow Demolition of a Single Family Home and to Allow Development of a Proposed Four‐Story, approximately 10,400 Square Foot Mixed‐Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Office and Three Levels of Residential (Four Residential Units in Total) with a Basement and Below‐Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.Study Session to Review the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.  4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, June 01, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.640 Waverley [23PLN‐00092]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review To AllowDemolition of a Single Family Home and to Allow Development of a Proposed Four‐Story,approximately 10,400 Square Foot Mixed‐Use Development Comprised of Ground FloorOffice and Three Levels of Residential (Four Residential Units in Total) with a Basementand Below‐Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The FormalApplication Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact theProject Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.3.Study Session to Review the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area PlanAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 1, 2023 Report #: 2305-1445 TITLE Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Board members anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that this be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair as needed. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. The attachment also has a list of pending ARB projects and potential projects. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 4     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Architectural Review Board 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2023 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/05/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/19/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Thompson 3/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 4/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/04/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/18/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/01/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/15/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 7/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Hirsch 8/03/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/17/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/07/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/21/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/05/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/19/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/07/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/21/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2023 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June 2/16 – Hirsch, Baltay 3/16 – Chen, Rosenberg 4/6 – Rosenberg, Thompson July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 6     Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Tentative Future Agenda The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics June 15, 2023 •3200 Park (340 Portage): Development Agreement •180 El Camino Real-Façade Modifications for Arhaus at Stanford Shopping Center July 6, 2023 •800 San Antonio Road (1st formal) Pending ARB Projects The following items are pending projects and will be heard by the ARB in the near future. The projects can be viewed via their project webpage at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad Hoc AR Major - Board 10/21/19 19PLN- 00347 CHODGKI 486 HAMILTON AV Mixed use On-hold pending environmental review for vibration. Major Architectural Review for a new three-story mixed- use project including 2,457 square feet of retail space, 2,108 square feet of office space, and four (4) residential units. Zoning District: CD-C(P) AR Major - Board 9/16/20 20PLN- 00202 CHODGKI 250 HAMILTON AV Bridge On-hold for redesign - Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 7     Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on September 26, 2019. Zoning District: PF. AR Major - Board 6/16/21 21PLN- 00172 EFOLEY 123 SHERMAN AV Office ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB 5/18/23 - Major Architectural Review application to allow demolition of existing buildings to allow the construction of a new 3- story office building with 2 levels of below grade parking. This project would also require the combination of 3 existing parcels. Zoning District: CC (2)(R). Environmental Assessment: Pending. AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EFOLEY 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 - Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom). AR Major – Board, Developmen t Agreement and PC 7/28/2020 10/28/2021 8/25/2022 20PLN- 00155 21PLN- 00108 22PLN- 00287 CHODGKI 340 Portage (former Fry’s) 200 Portage 3200 Park Blvd Commercial and townhomes Was heard by PTC on 10/12/22, 10/26 and 11/30; HRB hearing 1/12/23; ARB hearings 12/15/22, 1/19/23, 4/6/23, Tentative 6/1/23 – Development Agreement, Rezoning and Major Architectural Review application to allow the redevelopment of an approximately 4.86-acre portion of the site. Scope of work includes the partial demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of 91 or 74 new Townhome Condominiums. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential) and GM (general manufacturing). Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR was circulated on September 16, 2022 for a 60- day review period. AR Major - Board 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, NOI sent 5/4/23- Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 8-unit apartment building, and Construction of 12 new townhome units on the project site Using the State Density Bonus Allowances. The proposed units are 3-stories in height, and 25,522 sf of floor area. Rooftop Open Space is proposed for the units adjacent to Sutter Avenue. A Compliant SB 330 Pre-Application was submitted on 5/5/2022; however, the applicant did not resubmit plans within 90 days; therefore, the project is subject to the current regulations in effect. Zoning District: RM-20 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 8     Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCAD ERO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration On hold pending discussions with Mountain View City Council on shared costs - Request for Site and Design Review to allow construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed project will include the construction and operation of a membrane filtration recycled water facility and a permeate storage tank at the City’s RWQCP to improve recycled water quality and increase its use. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Public Facilities with Site and Design combining district (PF)(D). Minor Board 01/18/2023 23PLN- 00009 THARRIS ON 180 El Camino Commercial Tentative ARB 6/15/23 - Request by Jason Smith of LandShark Development for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior improvements, including a new façade, new storefront glazing, new signage, and a complete interior remodel for Arhaus. Zoning District: CC. Zone Change 1/19/2023 23PLN- 00010 EFOLEY 800-808 SAN ANTONIO RD Housing Tentative July/August ARB hearing date - Request for a zone change from CS to Planned Community (PHZ) for a 76-unit, 5-story residential building. 16 of the units would be provided at below market rate, 4 of which would be to low income and 7 of which would be to very low income. The building is designed as a 5-story building with four levels of wood framing over a concrete podium superstructure, with two levels of subterranean parking. Project went to a Council prescreening on 8/15. Rosenberg, Hirsch Minor Architectural Review 1/24/2023 23PLN- 00015 GSAULS 3200 EL CAMINO REAL Hotel In discussions with applicant regarding parking requirements, may remain staff level - Minor Architectural Review approval to remove one level of underground parking at the previously approved Parmani Hotel (18PLN-00045; Record of Land Use Action 2019- 06). No proposed changes to the approved hotel design, but the entire hotel likely needs to be re-approved. The request proposes to reduce the number of approved parking spaces from 106 parking spaces to 63 parking spaces. Zoning District: CS. Environmental: Pending. Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot Submitted 2/6/23; NOI sent 3/7/23, Tentative July/August ARB hearing - Request for Major Architectural Review for a 16-unit Multi-family Residential Townhome Project. The Project will Provide 15% Below Market Rate On-site and Includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. The SB 330 pre-application was deemed compliant on February 2, 2023. Rosenberg, Hirsch Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 9     Preliminary Architectural Review 4/11/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-use Submitted 4/11/23. Applicant requested delay in hearing to 6/15. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Residential Home and Construction of a four-story, approximately 10,392 Square Foot mixed-use commercial/residential building with basement and a below-grade Residential parking. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial). Potential Projects This list of items are pending or recently reviewed projects that have 1) gone to Council prescreening and would be reviewed by the ARB once a formal application is submitted and/or 2) have been reviewed by the ARB as a preliminary review and the City is waiting for a formal application. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad-Hoc Prescreening Council 06/13/2022 22PLN- 00198 EFOLEY 70 Encina AV Housing – 20 units Heard by Council on 9/12/22, waiting for formal application - Prescreening for a New multi-family residential condominium project with 20 units. The project is pursuing approval for the use of PHZ zoning. Prescreening Council 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing – 382 units Heard by Council on 9/19/22, waiting for formal application - Prescreening for a Planned Housing Zone (PHZ) to build 382 residential rental units comprised of 44 studios, 243 one- bedroom, 86 two-bedroom and 9 three-bedroom units in two buildings. Zoning: CS, CS(H), RM- 20. Preliminary AR 12/20/2022 22PLN- 00406 GSAULS 3600 Middlefield Public Facility Heard by ARB on 2/16, waiting for formal application - Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to replace Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed building will be a 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver, single-story structure replacing the existing single-story fire station. Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 10     SB 330 Pre- Application 1/10/2023 23PLN- 00003 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units SB 330 Pre-Application for 3128, 3150, and 3160 El Camino Real to replace two existing commercial buildings on-site and construct a 380 unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in height. The project includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. Rosenberg, Hirsch Prescreening for Zone Change 11/17/2022 22PLN- 00391 EFOLEY 4075 El Camino Way Residential - add 14 units to existing Will be scheduled for an August Council hearing - Request for Planned Community Zone Change to add 14 new units to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility in a similar style to the existing building. Twelve of the additional units proposed are to be stacked above the existing building footprint with the other two units proposed to be located as minor expansion to existing building footprint. The new units are to be of a similar size and layout to the existing units. Environmental: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen Prescreening and Zone Change 2/1/2023 & 2/2/2023 23PLN- 00025 23PLN- 00027 AFRENC H 2901 MIDDLE FIELD Housing – one unit Council Pre-Screening and Zone Change to consider an amendment to the PC-2343 to amend the development plan to consolidate parking and to extract 700 Ellsworth from PC district and rezone it to R-1. Zoning District: PC- 2343. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project Council Pre- Screening 2/8/2023 23PLN- 00036 THARRIS ON 1237 SAN ANTONIO Public Utility Council Pre-Screening request by Valley Water to allow a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the land use of a portion of Area B of parcel #116-01-013 from Public Conservation Land to Major Institution/Special Facilities. The other portion of Area B is currently designated as a Major institution/Special Facilities and the proposed project also calls for the subdivision of Area B. Zoning District: PF(D). SB 330 Pre- Application 3/22/2023 23PLN- 00073 JGERHA RDT 300 Lambert Housing – 45 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a proposed 5-story housing development project utilizing Builder's Remedy. The project includes 45 residential units and two floors of below grade parking (85 spaces) in a 3:1 FAR building. Nine units will be designated as BMR/Low Income Units. Two parcels 280 and 300 Lambert Ave, previously used as automotive repair facilities, would be merged. Zoning District: CS. Thompson, Chen Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 11     Council Pre- Screening 5/2/2023 23PLN- 00105 EFOLEY 3265 El Camino Housing – 44 units Council Prescreening to rezone from CS to PHZ to develop a 5-story multi-family residential building with 44 housing units that would be 100% affordable for teachers Rosenberg, Thompson SB 330 Pre- Application 5/3/2023 23PLN- 00107 GSAULS 3997 Fabian Housing – up to 350 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for an 292 or 350 unit apartment development in an 8 story structure. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Chen, Hirsch Council Pre- Screening 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00110 GSAULS 3000 El Camino Office Council prescreening to convert an existing 10,000 square foot movie theater into new office space. Zoning District: Planned Community (PC- 4637 and 2533). Council Pre- Screening 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00100 GSAULS 260 Homer Office Council prescreening to amend a development agreement for 260 Homer that Currently Restricts the Amount of Space that One or More Commercial Office Tenants can Occupy at the Property. Zoning District: AMF (MUO). Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 6 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 1, 2023 Report #: 2305-1455 TITLE 640 Waverley [23PLN-00092]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review To Allow Demolition of a Single Family Home and to Allow Development of a Proposed Four-Story, approximately 10,400 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Office and Three Levels of Residential (Four Residential Units in Total) with a Basement and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting preliminary architectural review of the proposed redevelopment of a 5,277 sf lot to demolish two single-family homes (two-family land use) and to redevelop the site with a proposed four-story, approximately 10,400 square foot mixed-use development comprised of ground floor office and three levels of residential (four residential units in total). The project also includes a basement and a below-grade residential parking facility. No formal direction is to be provided to the applicant and Board members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. For preliminary review applications, staff performs a cursory review of the project for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. A comprehensive review of a future project for compliance with applicable codes and adopted policies would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 6 Board members may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Linnovations, LLC Architect:Hayes Group Architects Representative:Mason Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Legal Counsel:N/A Property Information Address:640 Waverley Street Neighborhood:University South Lot Dimensions & Area:51 feet wide x 105 feet long (5,277 sf) Housing Inventory Site:Not applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:None Historic Resource(s):None Existing Improvement(s):Two single-story residences totaling approximately 1,000 sf Existing Land Use(s):Two-family residential (640 and 646 Waverley Street) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-40 (Multi-family and Office uses) West: CD-C (P) and PF (Mixed-use and Post office) East: CD-C and DHS (Category 2 Single-Family Home and mixed-use) South: CD-C and PF (Public surface parking lot and mixed-use) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation:CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown-Community with Pedestrian combining district) Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 6 Comp. Plan Designation:Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria:Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide:Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan:Not applicable Baylands Master Plan:Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002):Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'):Yes Located w/in the Airport Influence Area:Not applicable Recent Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None The proposed project has not gone to any hearings or study sessions. However, the HRB held a hearing to discuss a previously proposed three-story, mixed-use development with a basement for this site on May 25, 2017. At the hearing, the HRB discussed a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared for this site and a development project. The HRE concluded that the site is not historic and discussed the proposed three-story development‘s context in relationship to the neighboring Category 2 historic structure. The three-story structure was never ultimately developed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to demolish the two existing single-story residences and to construct a new 15,831 sf, four-story mixed-use building. The ground floor would include 5,277 sf of office and the upper levels would include four residential dwellings. A ramp provides access to a lift with an underground parking facility providing seven parking spaces. Parking spaces would be provided for the residents but not for the commercial tenants. Vehicular access would be provided from Waverley Street. The project includes a parking lift that would enable cars access to the underground garage. The property owner has not yet determined whether the units would be proposed for rental or ownership. If the units are proposed for ownership, a Tentative Map and Final Map process would also be required in conjunction with any formal application. ANALYSIS Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 6 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is located within the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) district. Surrounding buildings generally range from two to five stories in height. The immediately adjacent mixed-use building to the west is four stories with two levels of office and two residences. A two-story single-family residence that is listed as a Category 2 Historic building sits immediately adjacent the site to the east. To the rear of the site is a surface level City-owned public parking lot. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 The project is designated Community Commercial (CC). The community commercial land use designation includes “districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as….apparel shops, restaurants, theaters and non-retail services such as offices and banks... In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential FARs range from 0.35 to 2.0.” The proposed mixed-use project, which includes ground floor office and multi-family residential use on the three levels above, would be consistent with this land use designation. The proposed office floor area would not exceed the allowable floor area ratio indicated for this land use designation. The proposed residential floor area is approximately 1.55:1, consistent with the allowable floor area for residential use. Residential uses, especially as part of a mixed-use development, are encouraged in proximity to major transit stops. A complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies will be completed as part of any formal application. Zoning Compliance2 A preliminary review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. The project is located within the Downtown Commercial Community Zone District (CD-C) as well as within the pedestrian (P) combining district. A summary table of the project’s consistency with the zoning district is provided in Attachment C. The project would be subject to the Objective Design Standards set forth in Chapter 18.24 of the code. However, the applicant has indicated their intent to forego compliance with Chapter 18.24 and instead comply with the context-based design criteria for the CD-C Zone District as set forth in PAMC 18.18.110. Staff encourages the ARB to comment in particular with respect to Guideline 4, residential and low-density transitions, as it relates to transitions in massing, limiting sun/shade impacts, and privacy (positioning of upper floor windows and balconies as well as minimizing site lines). Annual Office Limit 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 6 The proposed project would be subject to the annual office limit under PAMC Section 18.40.210 because the project includes over 2,000 net new sf of office space, unless the applicant chooses to restrict the space to medical office or nonprofit office use. The annual office limit allows for up to 50,000 sf per fiscal year and allows up to 100,000 sf with a rollover from the previous year. Currently, there is 41,239 sf of office space that was rolled over from the fiscal year 2022. Therefore, the threshold for this fiscal year is 91,239 sf. Currently, the project and other known projects anticipated within the 2023 fiscal year, if all are approved, would total less than 50,000 sf and, therefore would not exceed the threshold. Parking The proposed project provides seven total parking spaces, including one tandem space. Under the City’s zoning ordinance, the proposed use would be required to provide 27 spaces. However, the under new state law enacted by Assembly Bill 2097, the City cannot impose minimum automobile parking requirements for residential uses and most commercial uses (including office) located within a one-half mile of a major transit stop. The site is located within 0.5 mile of the University Avenue Caltrain Station, which qualifies as a major transit stop. Therefore, no automobile parking spaces is required under state law for the proposed project, but bicycle and an accessible parking space may still be required. Nevertheless, if parking is proposed, the formal application will require additional information to show the ramp details (e.g. slope), turning radius/maneuvering for the underground garage, and evaluate how the access/egress can be designed for the site to ensure safety and ease of use. A Transit Demand Management Plan may also be required in accordance with the PAMC Section 18.52.050(d). Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill 330 The proposed project qualifies as a Housing Development in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill 330 regulations because the project it is at least two-thirds residential. The applicant has not filed a pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill 330. However, regardless of whether a pre-application is filed for the formal project, Senate Bill 330 also includes no net loss of housing requirements as well as any tenant relocation requirements if the existing housing has been used as residential rental in the past five years. Information about the current and historic use of the site (for the past five years) would be required as part of any formal application for the City to ensure compliance with Senate Bill 330 regulations. The project would provide four units to replace two existing units and therefore the project would comply with the no net loss of housing requirements. Historic Although the project site has been deemed ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, the project is located adjacent to a Category 2 historic single-family residence. The adjacent building, constructed in 1908, has been evaluated and found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as well as the California Register of Historical Resources. Staff Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 6 encourages the ARB to provide feedback on the contextual relationship between the proposed project and the existing historic structure at 1650 Waverley Street. Consistency with Application Findings Once a formal application is submitted, the project will need to meet the City’s findings for approval under PAMC 18.76. The findings have been included for reference in Attachment B. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 19, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 17, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project’s conformance with CEQA will be performed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: ARB Findings for Approval Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment D: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     6 7 Lanning Chateau Waverley Surgery_Ce Post Office 94301 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100 100.0' 30.0' 50.0' 150.0' 200.0' 200.0' 50.0 200.0' 500 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0' 150.0' 125.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 0' 150.0' 100.0' 230.0' 50.0' 30.0' 100.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 105.5' 150.0' 105.5' 50.0' 23.0'343.0' 193.0' 70.0' 193.0' 70.0' 193.0' 150.0' 218.0' 150.0' 218.0' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5'50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 105.5' ' 105.5' 100.0' 204.8' 123.0' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 50.0' 218.0' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.5' 193 193.0' 10 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 130.0' 143.0' 650-654 661 635 690 675 734 724-730 720 712 704 360 35 332 653 -681 455 400 425 372 421 642 423 651 640-646 411 - 419 427-453560 650 636 628 385 365 375 380 345 664 325 25 635 43 400 683685 643GILMAN STREET WAVERLEY STREET TREET OREST AVEN UE EET FOREST WAVERLEY S PF CD-C (P) RM 40 RM-40 DHS Lot G Lot E PKG Williams This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts Tree Current Features 0' 92' Attachment A: Location Map 640 Waverley Street CITY OF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F OR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2023-05-23 10:24:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 19     1 7 3 3 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings     Packet Pg. 20     Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT C ZONING CONSISTENCY TABLE 640 Waverley Street, 23PLN-00092 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 8 feet for residential, 5 feet for commercial Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 10 feet for residential portion; 1 foot, 6 inches for commercial portion Interior Side Yard None Required 1 foot Street Side Yard No requirement 1 foot Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 92.8% 4,899 sf Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% 1,000 sf 34.2% 1,805 sf Private Open Space 150 sf per residential unit (600 sf) 3,157 sf Maximum Height 50 feet 50 feet (measured to mid-slope) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line Not Applicable (No residential zone district abutting the lot line) Residential Density (net)40 33 du/ac (4 units) Maximum weighted average unit size 1,500 sf Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 FAR 0.41:1 FAR 2,200 sf Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 1.55:1 FAR 8,190 sf Total Floor Area Ratio 3.0:1 15,831 sf 1.96:1 10,390 sf 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in 18.40 of the Zoning Ordinance. Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 21     Page 2 of 2 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) None required in accordance with Assembly Bill 2097 Per PAMC: 1/250 sf of gross floor area for a total of 21 parking spaces for office use and 6 for residential use 5 (including one tandem and two ADA stalls*) Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf (40% long term and 60% short term) for office= 2 spaces (1 long term, one short term) 1 long-term space per unit; 1 guest space= 5 spaces Total Long Term: 5 Short Term: 2 Long Term: 5 Short Term: 2 Loading Space None required None *Because ADA stalls count twice per PAMC, the applicant is indicating 7 total spaces on the project plans Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 22     Attachment D Project Plans Project plans are available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “640 Waverley Street” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/640-Waverley-Street Item 2 Attachment D - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 23     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 11 1 6 4 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 1, 2023 TITLE Study Session to Review the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a Study Session to review the draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) and draft updates to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The draft NVCAP summarized in this report represents a major milestone in the preparation of the NVCAP (Attachment A).1 The draft is a culmination of extensive community outreach, input from decision-makers and stakeholders throughout multiple public hearings on the plan alternatives, and the refinement of the Council endorsed preferred alternative plan by consultants and staff. Staff seeks ARB feedback that the Draft NVCAP: 1. Provides aesthetic and design principles that substantially support the Council’s endorsed plan; 2. Provides aesthetic and design principles that substantially support the stated goals and objectives from the Council for the plan; and 3. Conveys urban design principles that are achievable. This report is to support the first ARB public review of the draft NVCAP and summarizes the context of the plan area as the impetus for change; components of the plan supporting transition; and proposed implementation of the plan and integration with the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). While no action is required by the ARB, staff requests the ARB provide comments on the draft materials. Following the ARB Study Session, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) will conduct a Study Session to provide input on the Draft NVCAP. The Planning and Transportation Commission 1Public Draft NVCAP: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/north-ventura-cap/230511_nvcap_completedraft.pdf Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 24     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 11 1 6 4 2 (PTC) is scheduled to conduct a Study Session on May 31, 2023. Staff will provide a verbal summary of commissioner’s comments at this ARB study session. Staff anticipates that the updated draft plan will be brought forward to the PTC and the City Council in the Fall for a formal recommendation and decision, respectively. BACKGROUND Figure 1: NVCAP Area Boundary Image: CNES/Airbus, Maxar Technologies, Planet.com, USGS, USDA, FPAC, GEO, Google 2023 Planning Area The NVCAP project area lies within the Ventura neighborhood of Palo Alto. It is comprised of approximately 60 acres, roughly bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the Caltrain tracks. The plan area is near key community destinations such as the California Avenue Caltrain Station, California Avenue Business District, and Stanford Research Park. The plan area represents a rare opportunity within the City to plan proactively for a transit-oriented, Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 25     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 11 1 6 4 2 mixed-use neighborhood. See Attachment B for a summary of the existing conditions within the plan area and read the existing conditions report for more information.2 Coordinated Area Plan Recognizing these opportunities, the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2017, called for site specific planning in the North Ventura area. The City secured grant funding in 2017 to initiate the NVCAP project. On March 5, 2018, the City Council adopted seven goals and six objectives (Attachment C). Goals include adding to the City’s supply of multi-family housing, developing a transit accessible neighborhood with retail services, creating a connected street grid, developing community facilities, and encouraging sustainability. Coordinated Area Plan Review Process Development of the coordinated area plan followed the process contained within PAMC 19.10, Coordinated Area Plans. This chapter provides detail on the initiation, the process procedures, including the creation of goals and objectives; community involvement (the formation of a working group); public hearings; and adoption. The ARB is identified as a hearing body that will provide input on the draft NVCAP. The Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) will make a recommendation on the draft NVCAP to the City Council for their consideration of the plan. Development of the NVCAP involved many public hearings, including Working Group and community meetings. Table 1 highlights key milestones in the process to date. Additional information on prior meetings can be found on the NVCAP project website.3 The draft NVCAP was scheduled to be presented to the PTC on May 31, 2023.4 That staff report includes a summary of the entire draft NVCAP. Table 1: Notable Project Milestones Date Milestone November 6, 2017 City Council initiated the coordinated area plan process March 5, 2018 City Council adopted Goals & Objectives for the plan April 30, 2018 City Council appointed members of the working group March 10, 2021 PTC recommendation on preferred plan January 10, 2022 November 14, 2022 City Council endorsed a preferred alternative City Council further refined the endorsed plan ANALYSIS The ARB is requested to evaluate the aspects of the draft NVCAP that relate to design, form, and function of the built environment. Attachment D summarizes the endorsed preferred alternative 2 NVCAP Existing Conditions Report: https://cityofpaloalto.org//files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/north-ventura-cap/nvcap-reports/190212_nvcapexisting-conditions-memo.pdf 3 NVCAP Project website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Housing- Policies-Projects/NVCAP 4 May 31, 2023 PTC Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Planning-and-Transportation-Commission-PTC/Current-PTC-Agendas-Minutes Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 26     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 11 1 6 4 2 and the refinements by Council (January 2022 and November 2022). The draft includes further refinements of the preferred plan by staff and its consultants to reconcile requirements in State law, ensuring that typical community development principles were applied such as land use transitions and consistency with the City’s objective development standards. NVCAP Summary The ARB should focus its attention on areas that are typically relevant to its review such as urban design. As the ARB evaluates the draft NVCAP, the following questions should be considered through that lens: •Does the draft plan provide aesthetic and design principles that substantially support the Council endorsed preferred plan? •Does the draft plan provide aesthetic and design principles that substantially support the stated goals and objectives by the Council for the plan? •Does the draft plan convey urban design principles that are achievable? The NVCAP represents a rare opportunity within the City of Palo Alto to plan proactively for a transit-oriented, mixed-use, mixed-income, and walkable neighborhood. The NVCAP sets forth a vision that: •Honors the storied history and unique character of the North Ventura neighborhood; •Understands the needs of current residents and puts forward near-term solutions to current challenges; •Establishes a long-term framework for desired growth so that more people can call North Ventura home; and •Invests in community infrastructure to support an equitable, resilient, and sustainable Palo Alto. NVCAP is aligned with the goals and policies embedded in the adopted City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, addressing the eight major themes: Building Community and Neighborhoods; Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character; Reducing Reliance on the Automobile; Meeting Housing Supply Challenges; Protecting and Sustaining the Natural Environment; Keeping Palo Alto Prepared for Future Natural and Human-Caused Hazards; Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs; and Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership. Each chapter touches on these themes leading to a cohesive vision. Finally, this is a vision shaped by the Palo Alto community. This plan would not be possible without the guidance of stakeholders, decision-makers, residents, and other community members, who graciously volunteered their time as members of the Working Group to thoughtfully consider the challenges and opportunities of the Plan. The following summarizes the contents of the NVCAP: •Chapter 1: Introduction provides an overview of the NVCAP physical and regulatory context. The plan is shaped by the project goals and objectives, adopted and in-progress Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 27     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 11 1 6 4 2 City plans and policies, recently enacted regional and state laws, and the comprehensive community planning process. •Chapter 2: The Vision provides an overview of the vision for the future of NVCAP built and natural environment. This includes urban design frameworks that calibrate the optimal mix of uses; support a multi-modal mobility framework within the neighborhood and how it connects to the rest of the city and the region; foster a regenerative and ecological framework to support the health of humans and wildlife while supporting the implementation of City’s Climate Action Plan; and the neighborhood’s context-specific urban form. Chapter 2 summarizes the proposed land use, floor area ratio, densities, active ground floor requirements and provides a cross-reference with the zoning code for implementation. Specific urban design elements are contained within Chapters 3 through 6. •Design Standards and Guidelines include requirements that govern the construction and modification of the public realm including streets and open space, as well as new buildings. Standards are quantifiable, whereas guidelines are qualitative requirements. o Chapter 3: Public Realm includes requirements and guidelines that govern the construction and modifications of the public realm including the sidewalk zone, traffic lanes and intersections, green infrastructure, paving, exterior lighting, wayfinding, and public art. o Chapter 4: Streets includes the requirements and guidelines that govern improvements adjacent and within Park Boulevard, Olive Avenue, Ash Street, Acacia Avenue, Pepper Avenue, Portage Avenue, Lambert Avenue, and Page Mill Road. In addition to public streets, this chapter discusses publicly accessible private streets. o Chapter 5: Parks includes the requirements and guidelines that govern improvements within park and open space areas such as Matadero Creek and the future public park. o Chapter 6: Buildings provides guidance on desired future built form and sets aspirations for how new buildings will contribute to the character of the NVCAP as it develops incrementally over time. This chapter discusses building heights and massing, retail and active frontage, Portage Avenue frontage, residential frontage and sustainable design. •Chapter 7: Implementation outlines the necessary steps to fulfill the vision of the plan, including funding, financing strategies, infrastructure improvements, and capital investments. This chapter will include the necessary steps for property owners considering improvements on their property. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 28     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 11 1 6 4 2 •Appendix includes information for reference used to prepare the NVCAP, including existing site conditions, market studies, and infrastructure analysis. NVCAP Highlights The following summarizes some key elements of the NVCAP pertaining to aesthetic and design principles that support the adopted goals and objectives of the plan and the endorsed preferred plan. See Attachment E for the plan’s consistency with these goals and objectives. Transition of Commercial Properties to Mixed-Use & Residential (Chapter 2) Up to 530 additional dwelling units at buildout (20 years from adoption) are expected within the NVCAP area. To get there, opportunity sites such as “Equinox,” portions of the Cannery site, and the “Cloudera” site are expected to transition from commercial or parking lots to residential or mixed-use. While at buildout some new commercial space is anticipated, the overall net amount of commercial (retail, office) will be lower than what exists currently. Commercial space in the NVCAP will transition to other uses such as mixed-use (residential with limited commercial) and open space. Parcels that are currently zoned commercial and office will become mixed-use zoned properties with the adoption of the NVCAP. “Grandfathering” regulations will be added within the PAMC to address aspects of this transition. Sidewalk Zone (Chapter 3) Consistent with the terminology within PAMC 18.24, the NVCAP illustrates the sidewalk zone elements, including dimensions within three distinct zones: frontage, sidewalk, and street. Elements within the frontage zone include sidewalk dining, seating, and trees. Elements within the sidewalk zone include pedestrian clear area, landscaping, and furniture. Elements within the street zone include bicycle lanes, on-street parking and drop off zones. As projects are proposed, street frontages will be made consistent with the NVCAP. Paving, Exterior Lighting, Wayfinding and Public Art (Chapter 3) Paving is a key component that will help define the character, connectivity, and identity of the North Ventura neighborhood’s varied streets and open spaces. A hierarchy of paving materials on streets like El Camino Real, Portage Avenue, and Park Boulevard can help create clear wayfinding and contribute aesthetically to the neighborhood. Adequate exterior lighting should be provided in all dedicated open spaces and along all streets and greenways to ensure clear wayfinding and safe pedestrian passage. Lighting design also has an opportunity to support habitat and mitigate light pollution, allowing current and future generations to be able to look up and clearly see the night sky. The design and integration of wayfinding is an effective tool that can celebrate the neighborhood’s history, foster a sense of place, and support clear and predictable navigability for residents, employees, and visitors. Building on the City’s legacy of commissioning iconic public art within urban centers like Downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue, the integration of new and diverse public art can Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 29     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 11 1 6 4 2 contribute significantly to the sense of place within the neighborhood. This plan is aligned with the City of Palo Alto’s Public Art Master Plan. Street Sections (Chapter 4) Vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, and visually interesting streets will be the setting for the future of the North Ventura neighborhood. Each street within the NVCAP includes a dimensioned cross- section depicting elements within the right-of-way and building setback, such as travel lanes, bicycle lanes and landscaping. Additionally, each street includes standards (street design), guidelines and streetscape elements that help support the plan’s vision and provide guidance to property owners. For example, see the description for Park Boulevard on pages 74 and 75 within the plan. As projects are proposed, street sections will be made consistent with the NVCAP. One unique design feature of the NVCAP is the Portage Avenue woonerf. Woonerf (street for living) is a Dutch term for an integrated, common space shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed motor vehicles. Located adjacent to the future public park, this design feature would complement the recreation and placemaking activities. Parks and Open Space (Chapter 5) Located in the southeast corner of the Plan Area, the public park is a proposed 2.25-acre public open space. The proposed naturalization of Matadero Creek between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue will serve as the organizing framework for the park’s design and neighborhood destination. Standards such as park acreage, circulation, gateway locations, utility availability, and guidelines for programming are included to provide guidance towards the implementation of the park. Matadero Creek will be fully naturalized between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue. The flood channel is widened to a 100 feet riparian corridor serving maximum geomorphic form and ecological function. Leading with resilience in mind, the design offers the creek the capability to convey 100-year flood events. As with the future park, standards and guidelines will provide guidance towards implementation of the creek improvement. Building Height (Chapter 2 & Chapter 6) Building heights within the NVCAP would range from two stories to five stories (30 feet to 55 feet). This would generally allow for various building typologies ranging from single-family residential, townhouses, and mixed-use buildings between two to four stories of residential over ground-floor commercial or lobby amenity space or an all-residential building up to five stories. Taller building heights are expected along El Camino Real and Park Boulevard (adjacent to the train tracks). Minimum 15-foot ceiling heights for the ground floor in mixed-use buildings would allow for commercial and residential amenity space to thrive. Building height is expected to transition lower near lower-density residential such as single-family and duplexes. Active Storefronts Along El Camino Real (Chapter 6) Ground floor retail and other active uses enliven and activate streetscapes by enhancing the public interface between new buildings and the sidewalk. Within the NVCAP, the highest concentration of retail and active uses is located along El Camino Real. These ground floor spaces Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 30     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 11 1 6 4 2 are designed to accommodate a wide variety of commercial spaces including local shops, cafes, maker spaces, co-working spaces, and professional services. Medical offices with scheduled and regular customer appointments may be considered for active ground floor spaces. In addition, office spaces are limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet per parcel. Birdsafe Building Design (Chapter 6) All new mixed-use development that has facades exceeding 30 percent glazing shall utilize birdsafe design strategies. Applicants shall choose from a menu of options provided in the plan. Objective Standards In 2022, the City adopted Objective Standards (PAMC 18.24) to provide guidance for good design in the form of “contextual design criteria”. These objective design standards were intended to facilitate streamlined review. Most properties within the NVCAP would be subject to objective standards since new development would be considered Housing Development Projects (as defined in Government Code 65589.5). Applicants may forego using the objective standards, as an option. In that case, the project would not be eligible for streamlined review and would be subject to context-based design criteria and architectural review. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines The draft plan is a direct implementation of Comprehensive Plan Program L.4.10.1, which directs staff to prepare a coordinated area plan for the North Ventura area and surrounding California Avenue area. The plan should describe a vision for the future of the North Ventura area as a walkable neighborhood with multi-family housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek improvements and an interconnected street grid. It should guide the development of the California Avenue area as a well-designed mixed-use district with diverse land uses and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets. Properties within the NVCAP will be designated “North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan” on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. As drafted, the NVCAP meets the intent of Program L.4.10.1. Relationship with Zoning Integration into the PAMC is essential for the implementation of the NVCAP. Currently, the existing coordinated area plans operate separately from the zoning ordinance and are vaguely referenced. Staff proposes to include a new Chapter for “Coordinated Area Plans” that describes the relationship between coordinated area plans and the zoning ordinance. The adopted coordinated area plan shall operate as the zoning regulations for the subject property. Where standards are not listed within the coordinated area plan, the Zoning Ordinance shall regulate. Staff proposes creating a new North Ventura (NV) zoning district to identify the zoning designations within the NVCAP that match the appropriate NVCAP land use classifications. A new set of zoning designations are proposed for the area acknowledging the unique aspects of the area and varying residential and mixed-use densities. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between the NVCAP land use designations and the PAMC zoning district designations. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 31     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 11 1 6 4 2 Table 2: NVCAP Land Use Designation & PAMC Zoning Designation Crosswalk NVCAP Land Use Classification Anticipated Density (DU/AC) Maximum Height (FT) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Allowed Zoning Districts High-Density Mixed-Use 61-100 55 3.0:1 NV-MXH Medium-Density Mixed-Use 31-70 45 2.0:1 NV-MXM Low-Density Mixed-Use 3-17 35 0.5:1 NV-MXL High Density Residential 61-100 61-100 55 55 3.0:1 3.0:1 NV-R4 NV-PF Medium Density Residential 16-30 36 1.5:1 NV-R3 Low Density Residential 1 or 2 units/lot 30 0.45:1 NV-R2 NV-R1 Parks NV-PF Updates to the PAMC Consistent with other zoning land use designations within the PAMC, the NV chapter would include permitted and conditionally permitted uses as well as development standards depicted in tables. Special Requirements necessary to provide discrete regulations such as “ground floor commercial uses” or “hotel regulations” are also provided. See Attachment F for the proposed PAMC amendments. Updates to the PAMC include a Housing Incentive Program (HIP), like the existing HIP provisions, except these provisions only apply to 100% affordable housing projects within the NV district. Any eligible 100% affordable housing project applicant may request the incentive, which allows for the waiver of any development standard and height up to the allowance in State law (33 feet above the base zoning height limit). Pipeline Projects Since the onset of the NVCAP project, property owners could submit development applications consistent with the existing zoning code. Notable projects submitted since the NVCAP initiation Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 32     Item No. 3. Page 10 of 11 1 6 4 2 include 3001 El Camino Real5, 200 Portage Avenue6/3200 Park Boulevard7, 300 Lambert Avenue,8 and 420 Acacia9. These projects are considered “pipeline projects” or projects that do not have to be consistent with the NVCAP due to their submittal occurring prior to the adoption of the NVCAP and its associated implementing zoning code amendments. Next Steps The NVCAP is entering the final phase of the project. The next series of meetings include a study session with the Historic Resources Board on June 8, 2023, a PTC recommendation meeting, and the City Council decision meeting. As mentioned, a separate study session on the PAMC revisions is upcoming. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Consistent with PAMC 19.10, the City Council appointed a 14-member working group. The working group met 17 times over the course of two years and concluded their effort once alternatives were forwarded to the PTC and City Council for consideration. Notifications throughout the process have been sent to the working group, stakeholders and property owners. The City maintains a project website with archives of working group, workshops and public hearing materials related to the NVCAP. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This study session does not trigger any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination. However, the adoption of the NVCAP will require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that tiers from the Comprehensive Plan EIR. Consistent with CEQA, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released on March 1, 2023.10 The NOP is the initial step in the EIR process where input may be gathered from the public and public agencies on the scope and content of the forthcoming Supplemental EIR. The NOP contains the project description, location, and probable environmental effects to be analyzed in the EIR. The comment period on the NOP ended on March 31, 2023. The next step in the environmental 5 3001 El Camino Real: a 100% affordable housing project with 129 units. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News- Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/30013017-El-Camino-Real 6 200 Portage Avenue: a project including partial demolition of the cannery building and construction of 91 townhome units. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/200-Portage-Avenue 7 3200 Park Boulevard: a project including partial demolition of cannery, construction of 74 townhome units and 75 future affordable housing units, renovation of cannery to accommodate/relocate existing research and development space in the building, through a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. This is proposed as an Alternative to the 200 Portage Avenue project. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/3200- Park-Boulevard 8 300 Lambert: a 45-dwelling unit project. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and- Development-Services/300-Lambert-Avenue 9 420 Acacia: a 16-unit townhome residential ownership development. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/420- Acacia-Avenue 10 NVCAP Notice of Preparation. March 1, 2023. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/north-ventura-cap/environmental/nop-nvcap-2.28.23-signed.pdf Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 33     Item No. 3. Page 11 of 11 1 6 4 2 review process is to release a public draft of the Supplemental EIR for public comment for a period of 45-days. Any comment on the EIR requiring responses will be integrated into the Final Supplemental EIR for certification by the City Council when considering the NVCAP. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices) Attachment B: Summary of Existing Conditions Attachment C: Council Adopted Goals & Objectives Attachment D: Summary of Preferred Plan Consistency Attachment E: Consistency with Goals & Objectives Attachment F: Draft NV Zoning District Regulations AUTHOR/TITLE: Sheldon Ah Sing, Principal Planner Report #: 2301-0897 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 34     North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Plan: May 2023 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 35     City Council Lydia Kou Mayor Greer Stone Vice Mayor Patrick Burt Ed Lauing Julie Lythcott-Haims Greg Tanaka Vicki Veenker Planning & Transportation Commission Doria Summa Chair Bryna Chang Vice Chair Bart Hechtman Keith Reckdahl Carolyn Templeton George Lu Allen Akin Consultants Perkins&Will Prime Consultant Arup Mobility Strategic Economics Economics BKF Infrastructure Plan to Place Engagement City Staff Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Development Services Clare Campbell Manager of Long Range Planning Sheldon S. Ah Sing Principal Planner, Project Manager Chitra Moitra City Planner Sylvia Star-Lack Transportation Planning Manager Shrupath Patel Transportation Planner Acknowledgments Architectural Review Board Osma Thompson Yingxi Chen Peter Baltay David Hirsch Kendra Rosenberg Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 36     North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Prepared by Perkins&Will Prepared for Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 37     Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 4CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Context 1.2 The Plan Area 1.3 The Project Goals 1.4 The Project Objectives 1.5 Citywide Planning 1.6 Regional and Statewide Planning 1.7 The Community Process 28 102 CHAPTER 2: THE VISION 2.1 Preferred Plan 2.2 Land Use 2.3 Ground Floor Edges 2.4 Mobility 2.5 Ecology and Sustainability 2.6 Urban Form CHAPTER 5: PARKS 5.1 Public Park 5.2 Matadero Creek CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS 6.1 Building Heights and Massing 6.2 Retail and Active Frontages 6.3 Portage Avenue Frontages 6.4 Residential Frontages 6.5 Sustainable Design 92 v North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 38     CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM 3.1 The Sidewalk Zone 3.2 Traffic Lanes and Intersections 3.3 Green Infrastructure 3.4 Paving 3.5 Exterior Lighting 3.6 Wayfinding 3.7 Public Art 58 114 72 CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION 7.1 Entitlement Process 7.2 Environmental Review 7.3 Transportation Infrastructure 7.4 Transportation Demand Management 7.5 Utilities 7.6 Matadero Creek Civil Infrastructure 7.7 Funding and Financing Strategy 7.8 Implementation Actions CHAPTER 4: STREETS 4.1 Park Boulevard 4.2 Olive Avenue 4.3 Ash Street 4.4 Acacia Avenue 4.5 Pepper Avenue 4.6 Portage Avenue 4.7 Lambert Avenue 4.8 El Camino Real 4.9 Page Mill Road 4.10 Publicly Accessible Private Streets APPENDIX A1 Existing Conditions Memo A2 Traffic Modelling vi Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 39     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Figures Figure 1 Photograph of architect Mike Lyzwa hold- ing a model of a proposed building at the intersection of Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, circa 1984, xii. Credit: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 2 Photograph of the Cannery monitor roof supergraphic on the former Fry’s site, 3. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 3 Bird’s eye photograph of the NVCAP Plan Area circa 1957, 4. Credit: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 4 Priority Development Areas (PDA) in the Bay Area, 7. Figure 5 Matadero Creek Existing Conditions, 8. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 6 Former Cannery Building Existing Conditions, 8. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 7 Existing Conditions of the NVCAP Plan Area, 9. Figure 8 Existing Zoning Districts of the NVCAP, 11. Figure 9 Photographs of recent development, 12. Credit: Premier Properties, Level 10 Construction. Figure 10 Renderings of development under construction, 12. Credit: Hayes Group Architects, Zillow. Figure 11 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Credit: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull, 14. Figure 12 Gabled addition attached to the southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage Avenue. View northeast. Credit: Page & Turnbull, 14. Figure 13 A portion of the southwest facade of the former office building. Credit: Page & Turnbull, 15. Figure 14 Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his canning plant in Alviso. Credit: Our Town of Palo Alto, 15. Figure 15 Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Credit: Palo Alto Historical Association, 15. Figure 16 An illustrative example of low-cost buffered bike lanes and intersection improvements, 17. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 17 Building 0 in San Francisco, CA, an example of mixed-income multi-family apartments next to a public park, 17. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 18 A breakout discussion during the NVCAP working group meeting, 19. Credit: City of Palo Alto Figure 19 Documenting feedback during a working group design charrette, 19. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 20 A worksession during the NVCAP working group meeting, 24. Credit: City of Palo Alto Figure 21 A sketching session and report back during the NVCAP working group meeting, 26. Credit: City of Palo Alto Figure 22 A presentation during a community workshop, 27. Credit: Perkins&Will vii North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 40     CHAPTER 2: THE VISION Figure 23 The NVCAP Preferred Plan, 30. Figure 24 NVCAP Land Use Framework, 32. Figure 25 Example of High-Density Mixed Use Development in Palo Alto, 34 Credit: Steinberg Architects Figure 26 Example of Medium Density Mixed Use Development in Palo Alto, 34. Credit: BDE Architecture Figure 27 Example of Low-Density Mixed Use Development, 35 Credit: WHA Figure 28 Example of High-Density Residential Development in Palo Alto, 35 Credit: Redfin Figure 29 Example of Medium Density Residential Development in Palo Alto, 35. Credit: Compass Figure 30 Example of Low-Density Resident Development, 35 Credit: Google Figure 31 The Cloudera Galactic HQ is located at 395 Page Mill Road, 36. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 32 NVCAP Ground Floor Edges Framework, 38. Figure 33 Building lobbies and other accessory spaces to residential uses are considered active uses, 40. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 34 Neighborhood-serving retail along major boulevards like El Camino Real, 41. Credit: Bruce Damonte Figure 35 Residential stoops should be set back and elevated to provide privacy for residents, 41. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 36 NVCAP Mobility Framework, 42. Figure 37 NVCAP Pedestrian Network, 44. Figure 38 View of the Bell Street Woonerf in Seattle, Washington, 45. Credit: Puget Sound Business Journal Figure 39 Bike Facility Degree of Separation, 46. Figure 40 NVCAP Bike Network Framework, 47. Figure 41 NVCAP Vehicle and Parking Framework, 49. Figure 42 NVCAP Ecology and Sustainability Framework, 50. Figure 43 A conceptual design for the future Public park, 52. Figure 44 An example of a restored creek in San Luis Obispo, CA, 53. Credit: Food and Wine Safari Figure 45 An example of green infrastructure integrated with street furnishings, 53. Credit: AJ Landskap Figure 46 NVCAP Urban Form Framework , 54. Figure 47 Internal streets have height allowances that are conducive with missing middle housing like townhomes, 56. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 48 Urban form design standards requires setbacks and stepbacks for new development that is adjacent to single family zoning, 57. Credit: Perkins&Will CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM Figure 49 The Sidewalk Zone, 61. Figure 50 Proposed improvements to El Camino Real, Hansen Way, and Portage Avenue will sup- port a safe, low-stress, multi-modal street environment, 63, Figure 51 Planting a double row of trees along the sidewalk and frontage zone creates connected canopy for a pleasant pedes- trian experience, improves neighborhood aesthetics, and fosters ecological corridors, 67. Credit: Scape Figure 52 Light colored pavement reduces the urban heat island effect, 68. Credit: John Keatley Figure 53 Dark sky compliant exterior light fixtures helps mitigate light pollution and the health of both humans and wildlife, 69. Credit: Edgar Zacarias via Foursquare. Figure 54 Neighborhood map and directional signage are effective wayfinding tools for visitors to the NVCAP, 70. Figure 55 An example of a recent public art installation, 71. Credit: Passages by Susan Zoccola viii Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 41     CHAPTER 4: STREETS Figures CHAPTER 5: PARKS Figure 56 Typical Park Boulevard Section, 75. Figure 57 Typical Olive Avenue section between Park Boulevard and Ash Street, 77. Figure 58 Typical Olive Avenue section between Ash Street and El Camino Real, 77. Figure 59 Typical Ash Street section between Page Mill Road and Olive Avenue, 79. Figure 60 Typical Ash Street section between Acacia Avenue and Lambert Avenue, 79. Figure 61 Typical Acacia Avenue Section, 81. Figure 62 Typical Pepper Avenue Section, 83. Figure 63 Typical Portage Avenue section between Park Boulevard and Ash Street, 85. Figure 64 Typical Portage Avenue section between Ash Street and El Camino Real, 85, Figure 65 Streetscape elements like double row of trees, textured pavement, pedestrian scale lighting , and seating encourages a low-carbon, welcoming neighborhood environment, 87. Credit: SWA Figure 66 Typical Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Section, 88. Figure 67 Typical El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Section, 89. Figure 68 Typical Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Section, 90. Figure 69 Typical mid-block connetion section, 93. Figure 70 Typical rear setback connection section, 93. Figure 71 Location of Park Gateways and Circulation Paths, 97. Figure 72 An example of passive park programming, 99. Credit: Jennifer Tyner Figure 73 An example of active park programming, 99. Credit: Daggett Figure 74 The location of the Matadero Creek buffer, circulation, and gateways, 101. Figure 75 The Matadero Creek Channel is currently a constrained concrete trapezoidal channel., 102. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 76 A naturalized creek has the opportunity to provide multi-use trails and habitat areas, 103. Credit: Food and Wine Safari ix North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 42     CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION Figure 77 Stepdown to Single-Family Residential, 106. Figure 78 Allowable Height Map, 107. Figure 79 Retail ground floor provide adequate floor to ceiling heights, transparency, and signage, 108. Credit: David Baker Architects Figure 80 Ground floors can create notches of outdoor rooms to allow for lively spillover of retail, 109 Credit: Bruce Damonte Figure 81 Active ground floors provide openness, transparency and a connection to the street, 109 Credit: David Baker Architects Figure 82 Ground floors treatments can emulate the materiality, fenestration, and roof datum of historic structures, 110. Credit: Connect CRA Figure 83 Ground floor residential stoops can provide privacy for residents, neighborhood beautification, and stormwater management, 111. Credit: Perkins&Will Figure 84 Buidling roofs can be multi-purpose, including providing additional outdoor space for residents, 114. Credit: Kirstin Bucher Figure 85 Visible elements of sustainability can include design features such as celebrating secure bike parking, 115. Credit: Nelson / Nygaard Figure 86 Map of Conceptual Gateway Intersection Design Improvements, 123. Figure 87 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road Con- ceptual Intersection Design, 124. Figure 88 El Camino Real and Olive Avenue Concep- tual Intersection Design, 125. Figure 89 El Camino Real, Hansen Way, Portage Ave- nue Conceptual Intersection Design, 126. Figure 90 Lambert Avenue and Ash Street Conceptu- al Intersection Design, 127. Figure 91 Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue Con- ceptual Intersection Design, 128 Figure 92 The Matadero Creek Channel Today, along Ash Street, 145. Credit: BKF Engineers Figure 93 Storm Drain Outfalls to Matadero Creek Channel, 145. x Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 43     Tables CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Table 1 Historical Population and Growth in Palo Alto, 1980 - 2040, 7. Table 2 Existing Zoning Designations, 10. Table 3 Existing and Future Development Potential by Land Use, 32. Table 4 Proposed Land Use, FAR, and Active Use Requirements, 36. Table 5 Bicycle Facility Classifications, 47. CHAPTER 2: THE VISION CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM Table 6 Local native protected tree species, 64. Table 7 Trees to be exempt from protection, 65. CHAPTER 4: STREETS Table 8 Park Boulevard Street Design, 74. Table 9 Olive Avenue Street Design, 76. Table 10 Ash Street Street Design, 78. Table 11 Acacia Avenue Street Design, 80. Table 12 Pepper Avenue Street Design, 82. Table 13 Portage Avenue Street Design, 84. Table 14 Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Design, 88. Table 15 El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Design, 89. Table 16 Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Design, 90. Table 17 Mid-Block Paseo Design, 90. Table 18 Rear Setback Pathway Design, 90. xi North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 44     CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION Table 19 TDM Strategies Menu, 137. Table 20 Unit Flow Rates for ABWF, GWI, and RDI in the City of Palo Alto Water, Gas, & Wastewater Utility Standards Section 2730 Wastewater Design and Construction Standards, 140. Table 21 Existing and proposed wastewater generation for the NVCAP site, 141 Table 22 Proposed water demand for the NVCAP site, 142, Table 23 Funding Source Categories and Examples, 146. Table 24 Examples of Potential Regional or County Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements, 148. Table 25 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements, 150. Table 26 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements (Continued), 152. Table 27 Examples of Potential Federal Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements, 152. Table 28 Summary of Major District-Based Value Capture Tools, 154. Table 29 Infrastructure Improvements and Applicable Funding Sources in the NVCAP, 156. Table 30 Implementation Actions in the NVCAP, 158 Table 31 Implementation Actions in the NVCAP (Continued), 160 xii Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 45     Figure 1 Photograph of architect Mike Lyzwa holding a model of a proposed building at the intersection of Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, circa 1984. xiii North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 46     The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) represents a rare opportunity within the City of Palo Alto to plan proactively for a transit-oriented, mixed-use, mixed-income, and walkable neighborhood. The NVCAP sets forth a vision that: • Honors the storied history and unique character of the North Ventura neighborhood; • Understands the needs of current residents and puts forward near-term solutions to current challenges; • Establishes a long-term framework for desired growth so that more people can call North Ventura home; and • Invests in community infrastructure to support an equitable, resilient, and sustainable Palo Alto. Executive Summary NVCAP is aligned with the goals and policies embedded in the adopted City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, addressing the eight major themes: Building Community and Neighborhoods; Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character; Reducing Reliance on the Automobile; Meeting Housing Supply Challenges; Protecting and Sustaining the Natural Environment; Keeping Palo Alto Prepared for Future Natural and Human-Caused Hazards; Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs; and Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership. Finally, this is a vision shaped by the Palo Alto community. This Plan would not be possible without the guidance of stakeholders, decision-makers, residents, and other community members, who graciously volunteered their time as members of the Working Group to thoughtfully consider the challenges and opportunities of the Plan. 1 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 47     Plan Organization The plan document is organized as follows: Introduction provides an overview of the NVCAP physical and regulatory context. The Plan is shaped by the project goals and objectives, adopted and in-progress City plans and policies, recently enacted regional and state laws, and the comprehensive community planning process. The Vision provides an overview of the vision for the future of NVCAP built and natural environment. This includes urban design frameworks that calibrate the optimal mix of uses; support a multi-modal mobility framework within the neighborhood and how it connects to the rest of the city and the region; foster a regenerative and ecological framework to support the health of humans and wildlife while supporting the implementation of City’s Climate Action Plan; and the neighborhood’s context- specific urban form. Design Standards and Guidelines (Public Realm, Streets, Parks, Buildings) include requirements that govern the construction and modification of horizontal and vertical development, standards are quantifiable, whereas guidelines are qualitative requirements. Implementation outlines the necessary steps to fulfill the vision of the Plan, including funding and financing strategies, infrastructure improvements, and capital investments. Appendix contains information for reference used to generate the NVCAP including existing site conditions, market studies, and infrastructure analysis. 2 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 48     Figure 2 Photograph of the Cannery monitor roof supergraphic on the former Fry’s site, 2022 Credit: Perkins&Will 3 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 49     1.1 The Context 1.2 The Plan Area 1.3 The Project Goals 1.4 The Project Objectives 1.5 Citywide Planning 1.6 Regional and Statewide Planning 1.7 The Community Process Introduction 1 Figure 3 Bird’s eye photograph of the NVCAP Plan Area circa 1957. Matadero Creek Sutter Packing Plant Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 50     Sutter Packing Plant Park Boulevard El Camino Real Southern Pacific Railroad Stanford Industrial Park Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 51     1.0 The Context The purpose of the NVCAP is to capture the City’s vision for the North Ventura neighborhood into a regulatory document that will guide the future development of the 60-acre Plan Area, including land use, development standards, and design guidelines This planning effort was initiated by Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program L-4.10, which states the following, Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for the North Ventura area and surrounding California Avenue area. The Plan should describe a vision for the future of the North Ventura area as a walkable neighborhood with multi- family housing, ground-floor retail, a public park, creek improvements, and an interconnected street grid. It should guide the development of the California Avenue area as a well-designed mixed- use district with diverse land uses and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets. The NVCAP aligns with the Comprehensive Plan policy, however, the Plan Area focuses solely on the North Ventura neighborhood. On November 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 9717, authorizing the filing of an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for a Priority Development Area Grant for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. The Council expressed local support and commitment of necessary matching funds and assurance of the completion of the project. City Policies Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.7: Use coordinated area plan to guide development Comprehensive Plan (Program L-4.10.1): Prepare a coordinated area plan for the North Ventura area and surrounding California Avenue area. On November 6, 2017, the City Council adopted a Resolution expressing local support and commitment for the preparation of the NVCAP. 6 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 52     The Region The Bay Area is expected to be home to an additional 1.4 million households by 2050. It is essential that housing, transportation, and other types of land use ning work together – as part of a regional growth framework – create an equitable, prosperous future for all Bay Area communities and make the best use of available resources. Priority Development Areas (PDA) are a key piece of the Bay Area’s regional growth framework. Approximately 70% of the Plan Area is located within the California Avenue PDA, which was selected as a PDA based on excellent access to transit, the proximity of the existing California Avenue Business District, and the availability of underutilized parcels of land. Figure 4 Priority Development Areas (PDA) in the Bay Area Palo Alto Growth Projections Additionally, the City of Palo Alto is growing. According to the City’s Housing Element Update, the total population is projected to grow to 82,835 people by 2030 and 86,510 people by 2040. Historically, the number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of new homes in Palo Alto increased 3.8 percent from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Santa Clara County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period. At the same time, Palo Alto’s population increased 6 percent. Table 1 Historical Population and Growth in Palo Alto, 1980 - 2040 Sources: U.S. Census 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, California Department of Finance 2021 and ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 Projections * Projections Year Population Numerical Change Percent Change 1980 55,225 741 1% 1990 55,900 675 1% 2000 58,598 2,698 5% 2010 64,403 5,805 10% 2020 68,145 3,254 6% 2030*82,835*15,178*22%* 2040*86,510*3,675*4%* California Avenue PDA IN T R O D U C T I O N 7 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 53     The Plan Area The NVCAP Plan Area is approximately 60 acres, roughly bounded by Oregon Expressway / Page Mill Road to the north, El Camino Real to the west, Lambert Avenue to the south, and the Caltrain rail corridor to the east. Nearby neighborhoods include the Evergreen neighborhood to the west, the Midtown neighborhood to the north, and Barron Park to the south. 1.1 Proximity to City Destinations The Plan Area is within walking and biking distance to several key destinations, including: •The California Avenue Caltrain Station, which is within a half mile of the Plan Area, and walking access to the station is primarily along Park Boulevard, a designated Bike Boulevard, •El Camino Real, which is a regional commercial and retail corridor, but has limited opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross Page Mill Road safely. •California Avenue, which is a regional retail attraction and social destination for the peninsula. •Stanford University, one of the premier higher- education institutions in the world •Stanford Research Park. A University affiliated employment center, which, along with California Avenue accounts for almost 40% of the City’s employment distribution. •Signature Palo Alto open spaces such as Sarah Wallis Park, Boulware Park, and J. Bowden Park. Plan Area Notable Sites Notable sites within the Plan Area include the Matadero Creek Channel and the buildings associated with the Cannery. The portion of the Matadero Creek running through the Plan Area is contained with a concrete trapezoidal channel, which was built in 1990 from El Camino Real to the Caltrain Tracks. Figure 5 The Matadero Creek Channel is currently a constrained concrete trapezoidal channel. Figure 6 The former Cannery building is 12.5 acres and located at the heart of the NVCAP. 8 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 54     Cloudera Galactic HQ The Cannery Matadero Creek Channel California Avenue Caltrain Station Boulware Park Park Plaza Apartments Cannery Office Building Figure 7 Existing Conditions of the NVCAP Plan Area IN T R O D U C T I O N Project Boundary Caltrain Station Bus Stops Traffic Signals Existing Sidewalks Major External Connections Surface Parking Parks 9 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 55     Land Use and Zoning The North Ventura neighborhood is already made up of a mix of multi-family and single- family residential, office, service, and retail. Service commercial uses are concentrated along El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the southern segment of Portage Avenue. Additionally, office uses are located primarily along Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, the most notable anchors being the Cloudera Galactic Headquarters at 395 Page Mill Road and the newly constructed 3045 Park Boulevard. Several smaller companies such as Blue Sky Outdoors and EarnIn are currently located in the historic Cannery building. About 70% of units in North Ventura are single- family detached homes, most built before 1950. Single-family homes occupy about 10 percent of the Plan Area and are generally found along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue. The Park Plaza Apartments is the most notable multi-family residential development within the Plan Area, situated at the corner of Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road. 1.1 Table 2 Existing Zoning Designations Zoning Map Designation District Name R-1 Single-family residence district RM-30 Medium density multiple-family residence district CS Service commercial district ROLM Research, office and limited manufacturing district GM General manufacturing district CN Neighborhood commercial GM General manufacturing PC Planned community district 10 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 56     Figure 8 Existing Zoning Districts of the NVCAP IN T R O D U C T I O N PC: Planned Community RM-30: Multiple-Family Residential R-1: Single Family Residential CS: Service Commercial ROLM: Industrial/Manufacturing CN: Neighborhood Commercial GM - General Manufacturing Project Boundary Historic Building 11 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 57     Recent and Pipeline Development The Plan Area is experiencing significant change and new investment in mixed-use development. This includes the following development: Completed 425 Page Mill Road: a three-story mixed use building with one level of underground parking. The project includes Class-A office space, ground floor retail, and 16 apartments. 3045 Park Boulevard: a two-story shell commercial building with underground parking. Under Construction 3225 El Camino Real: the project consists of two distinct mixed-use buildings. The first building is 4 stories with ground floor retail and apartments/ condos on the upper floors. The second building is 2 stories with ground floor retail and office on the upper floor. The project includes underground and podium parking. 3265 El Camino Real: a three-story mixed-use building with commercial space on the ground floor and residential on the upper floors. 1.1 Figure 9 Photographs of recent development Figure 10 Renderings of development under construction 12 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 58     The 340 Portage Avenue Development Agreement In parallel to the NVCAP planning process, a development agreement for the combined 14.65- acre parcel at the 340 Portage site also known as the Fry’s site has been underway with the City. The proposed development agreement includes the following: •Demolition of a portion of the Cannery building to develop 74 ownership townhouses. •Adaptive reuse of the historic portion of the Cannery to include research & development (R&D) and 2,600 square feet of retail. •The Ash Building will remain office space. •The 3250 Park Boulevard (Audi Building) will go from auto repair service to R&D space. •The developer will construct one level garage for R&D and retail parking needs on the existing surface parking lot. •Dedication of 2.25 acres for parkland. •Dedication of one (1) acre for affordable housing. •Contribution of $5 million for future park improvements and contributions to the City’s affordable housing fund. •Development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the R&D and office uses. It is not the intent of the development agreement to replace the NVCAP goals and objectives. The development agreement and development proposal are considered as a pipeline project being processed prior to the adoption of the NVCAP. Every attempt to ensure compatibility with the NVCAP goals, objectives and preferred plan were made. IN T R O D U C T I O N 13 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 59     Spotlight: The Palo Alto Cannery At the heart of the NVCAP is the 12.5- acre 340 Portage Avenue property. What appears to be one large building on the parcel is composed of approximately ten buildings that were constructed at various times between 1918 and 1949. The building is surrounded by a narrow parking lot to the north and a larger parking lot to the south bounded by Matadero Creek. The rectangular former cannery building features walls that are concrete, corrugated metal or wood siding, with a variety of roof shapes. Some of the most distinctive features include the monitor roofs, capped with composition shingles and clad with corrugated metal, wood clerestory ribbon windows and wire glass skylights. Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 73: 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Subject property outlined in orange. Office building outlined in blue. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 72. Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 13 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 23. The loading platform or cooling porch converted into a patio with replacement aluminum frame garage door window. View northeast. Figure 24. Rooftop parapet and small gabled roof in middle section of northwest façade. View northeast. Figure 25. Gabled addition attached to the southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage Avenue. View northeast. Figure 26. Close-up of the gabled and flat- roofed additions. View northeast. Figure 27. A portion of the concrete loading platform or cooling porch with its shed awning and wood post-and-beam supports in the middle section of the northwest façade. View northeast. Figure 28. Outlines of shallow gabled roofs are visible along the concrete platform. View southeast. Figure 11 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 12 Gabled addition attached to the southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage Avenue. View northeast. Source: Page & Turnbull 1.1 14 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 60     Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 73: 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Subject property outlined in orange. Office building outlined in blue. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 72. Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 38 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. 1972 Bemiss & Jason Corp, shipping, receiving, paper products manufacturing 300 Portage Avenue 1962 Tubes & Cores Inc, paper products 1976 Ceilcote Company Inc, distribution office 303 Portage Avenue 1961-1965 Advance Transformer Co 1961-1976 James R W Packaging, packing, crating, and shipping 340 Portage Avenue 1985 Basket Galleria, Inc. ca. 1990-Present Fry’s Electronics 370 Portage Avenue 2002-2004 Lyncean Technologies 380 Portage Avenue 2006 Danger, Inc. 2016 – Present: Playground Global, technology Select Owner and Occupant Biographies The following biographies have been researched for longer-term owners and occupants. Thomas Foon Chew (1887-1931) and the Bayside Canning Company (1918-1936) Thomas Foon Chew was born in China around 1887, likely in the Loong Kai District of Guangdong Province, and became one of the richest and most influential Chinese- Americans in California. His father, Sai Yen Chew, emigrated to San Francisco when Thomas was a child, where he founded a small canning operation, Precinta Canning, around 1890. According to family members, Chew brought his son, Thomas, from China to San Francisco sometime around 1897, where he gained his first introduction to the canning business. Precinta Canning was located near Broadway and Sansome in San Francisco’s old Chinatown. The small cannery was equipped with a single 40- Figure 76: Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his canning plant in Alviso. Source: Our Town of Palo Alto. https://ourtownofpaloalto.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/histor y-of-mayfields-chinatown/ On the parcel is a one-story, wood frame office building on Ash Street located to the south of the former cannery building. The building appears to have been initially built as a dormitory for the cannery employees sometime between 1918 and 1925 and was moved to its current location in 1940. The building features a front- gabled roof, wraparound porch with a shed roof, and wood lap siding. Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California April 11, 2019 - 20 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 57. A portion of the southwest façade of the former office building. View northeast. Figure 58. The rear portion of the southwest façade of the former office building. View northwest. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The subject property is located in the Ventura neighborhood, which is surrounded by the Evergreen Park, St. Claire Gardens, Charleston Meadow, Barron Park, Neal, and College Terrace neighborhoods in Palo Alto. The immediate surroundings of the subject property consist of office and commercial buildings, several of which appear to have been influenced by the industrial architecture of the property at 340 Portage Avenue, and parking lots associated with these properties (Figure 59 to Figure 62). Single-family residential buildings along Olive Avenue border the subject property to the west (Figure 63). Figure 59. A neighboring property on Park Boulevard to the east of Matadero Creek. View southeast. Figure 60. An office building at 3101 Park Boulevard. View northeast. The former cannery site was initially developed in April 1918, by Thomas Foon Chew, the owner of Bayside Canning Company or affectionately known in the press at the time as “the asparagus king”. This was intended to be Mr. Chew’s second cannery; the first cannery was built nearby in Alviso, California. The Palo Alto cannery was strategically located alongside a railroad spur of the Southern Pacific Railroad’s Los Gatos branch, which facilitated shipments, and Matadero Creek for a ready water supply. The cannery was expanded over the next several decades. The site operated as the Bay Side Cannery and then as the Sutter Packing Company in 1929. The cannery continued to grow through World War II and was closed in 1949. Although the building has undergone some exterior alterations throughout the expansion, aerial photos show that from 1965, the building continues to have the same shape and general form as now. Following the closure of the cannery, the site has been occupied by an anchor retailer Maximart and other retail and office uses. The next significant and largest tenant, Fry’s Electronics, continued to occupy the site until the end of 2019. Figure 13 A portion of the southwest facade of the former office building. Source: Page & Turnbull Figure 14 Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his canning plant in Alviso. Source: Our Town of Palo Alto. Figure 15 Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association IN T R O D U C T I O N 15 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 61     Project Goals On March 5th, 2018, the City Council approved the following goals to guide the NVCAP. A project goal refers to the desired outcome of a project. The following goals are high-level statements that provide an overall context for the aims and accomplishments of the project. Housing and Land Use Add to the City’s supply of multi-family housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed- use, transit-accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Connections Create and enhance well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain Station, Park Boulevard, and El Camino Real. Connected Street Grid Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. 1.2 16 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 62     Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. Urban Design, Design Guidelines, and Neighborhood Fabric Develop human-scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. Figure 16 (left) An illustrative example of low-cost buffered bike lanes and intersection improvements. Figure 17 (top) Building 0 in San Francisco, CA, an example of mixed-income multi-family apartments next to a public park. Throughout the document, applicable project goals are included in insets. IN T R O D U C T I O N 17 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 63     Project Objectives On March 5th, 2018, the City Council approved the following objectives to guide the NVCAP. Project objectives describe the optimal process and set the goalposts for a successful plan. Project objectives are measurable and achievable. Data-Driven Approach Employ a data-driven approach that considers community desires, market conditions and forecasts, financial feasibility, existing uses and development patterns, development capacity, traffic and travel patterns, historic/cultural and natural resources, need for community facilities (e.g., schools), and other relevant data to inform plan policies. Comprehensive User-Friendly Document and Implementation Create a comprehensive but user-friendly document that identifies the distribution, location and extent of land uses, planning policies, development regulations, and design guidelines to enable development and needed infrastructure investments in the project area. Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision Makers Provide a guide and strategy for staff and decision-makers to bridge the gap between the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and individual development projects in order to streamline future land use and transportation decisions. 1.3 18 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 64     Meaningful Community Engagement Enable a process with meaningful opportunities for community engagement, within the defined timeline, and an outcome (the coordinated area plan document) that reflects the community’s priorities. Economic Feasibility A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with specific analysis of marketplace factors and incentives and disincentives, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected economic benefits to the City and community. Environmental A plan that is protective of public health and a process that complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Figure 18 (left) A breakout discussion during the NVCAP working group meeting, Figure 19 (top) Documenting feedback during a working group design charrette IN T R O D U C T I O N 19 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 65     Citywide Planning The standards and guidelines in this document are informed and in conformance with the following foundational city plans and policies. 2030 Comprehensive Plan The City adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in November 2017, which is the primary tool for guiding preservation and development in Palo Alto. The Plan reflects community values and provides a collective vision that guides preservation, growth, and change. The Plan Area is a part of the California Avenue Multi- Neighborhood Center. A multi-neighborhood center is defined as retail shopping centers or districts that serves more than one neighborhood with a diverse mix of uses, including retail, service, office, and residential. Program L4.10.1 directs staff to prepare a coordinated area plan for the North Ventura area and surrounding California Avenue area. The plan should describe a vision for the future of the North Ventura area as a walkable neighborhood with multi-family housing, ground- floor retail, a public park, creek improvements, and an interconnected street grid. It should guide the development of the California Avenue area as a well-designed mixed-use district with diverse land uses and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan The City adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan in July 2012, which strategically guides public and private investments in non-motorized transportation facilities and related programs. The plan identifies several streets within the Plan Area as critical bicycle streets, including Portage Avenue as an enhanced bikeway as part of the Bay to Ridge Trail and Park Boulevard as a major north- south Bicycle Boulevard. Housing Element 2023-2031 The Housing Element update, one of the State-mandated components of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, represents the City of Palo Alto’s sixth Housing Element and plans for the years 2023 through 2031. In total, approximately 6,700 housing units are needed to accommodate the 2023-2031 growth for all income groups as part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. The Plan Area includes 15 properties identified by the Housing Element as opportunity sites that could help the City meet its housing needs (unit yield of 348). Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 19.10: Coordinated Area Plans This chapter establishes the procedures for the preparation of coordinated area plans. The chapter’s sections outline the purpose of a CAP, the procedures needed to be performed throughout the planning process, the contents of the plan document, and the requirements for permitting and development once the CAP has been adopted. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.32: Affordable Housing Incentive Program The affordable housing incentive program is intended to promote the development of 100% affordable rental housing projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or one- quarter mile of a high-quality transit corridor. Due to the Plan Area’s proximity to transit and everyday needs, the NVCAP is a strong candidate to support the City’s goal of adding more affordable housing units to support a wider range of incomes. 1.4 20 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 66     Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.24: Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards To comply with California’s recently adopted legislation (Senate Bill (SB) 35 and SB 330) to address the housing shortage within the state, Palo Alto adopted objective design standards to review new multi-family and mixed-use residential housing projects. The development standards and design guidelines included in the coordinated area plan are intended to be complementary to the objective design standards. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan Adopted in September 2017, the Parks Master Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space, and recreation system. The plan identifies the entire Plan Area as an urban canopy target area, emphasizing the need for new green streets and parks. Additionally, Policy 1.B.10 states the following, ‘develop a creek walk along Matadero Creek that links parks and creates open space and a habitat corridor’. Finally, the plan designates Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard as ‘Pollinator Pathways,’ which are intended to provide connectivity for natural systems through the integration of green stormwater infrastructure. The future public park and the renaturalization of the creek can serve as an integral component of the City’s larger regional habitat connection concept, connecting people and wildlife from the foothills to the Baylands. Urban Forest Master Plan Adopted in February 2019, the Urban Forest Master Plan establishes long-term management goals and strategies to foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto. The urban forest includes street trees, park trees, forested parklands, and trees in many private ownership settings. NVCAP is aligned with the master plan’s goals and policies including: •Goal 1: A well-developed contiguous, healthy, and ecologically resilient citywide urban forest; and •Goal 2: Re-generated native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with a focus on native species and habitat. Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan Completed in 2019, the Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan provides a guidance framework to integrate GSI measures into the City’s urban landscape to properly manage and treat stormwater at its source, decreasing water quality impacts to local creeks, the Baylands, and the San Francisco Bay. Integration of GSI measures is critical for the Plan Area to address the current lack of open spaces, and high amount of imperviousness. Chapter 4 of the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (GSI) specifies in the Developed Project Location Prioritization Criteria, that projects located within one of the key development areas should receive a higher priority than projects located outside one of these areas. Public Art Master Plan Completed in November 2016, the mission of the plan is to ensure that new public art reflects Palo Alto’s people, diverse neighborhoods, the innovative and global character of its businesses and academic institutions, and the beauty of its natural environment. Several of the plan’s objectives are applicable to NVCAP including: •Objective 1: Locate art in unexpected places, such as alleys to provide an element of surprise and whimsy to everyday life. •Objective 2: Integrate impactful, permanently- sited public art projects in business areas. •Objective 3: Install public art in neighborhoods for residents to enjoy on a daily basis. •Objective 4: Use art to promote environmental stewardship and sustainability. Create partnerships with Environmental Services and local regional agencies to integrate public art into environmental projects. •Objective 5: Commission artists or artist/design teams to create specific public art plans for areas of Palo Alto where development is taking place. IN T R O D U C T I O N 21 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 67     Relationship Between the NVCAP and Other City Plans and Ordinances The NVCAP implements the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and provides more detailed programs and policies for the specifically defined NVCAP. These policies and programs are consistent with those found in the Comprehensive Plan but address the unique characteristics of NVCAP. The NVCAP provides the zoning for the area, supplementing Title 18 Zoning of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). In the case of a conflict between the CAP and the PAMC, the CAP prevails. References to the PAMC are to the PAMC as amended from time to time, unless otherwise noted. Regulatory Compliance The Plan was prepared in accordance with CEQA, and any state applicable law. The NVCAP guides all development within the Plan Area and will require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency and to implement the development regulations and land uses established in this CAP. The CAP is adopted under the authority of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which designates Coordinated Area Plans as a tool to guide land use and development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 1.4 22 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 68     Regional and Statewide Planning Approximately 70% of the Plan Area is located within the California Avenue PDA, which was selected based on excellent access to transit, the proximity of the existing California Avenue Business District, and the availability of underutilized parcels of land. Therefore, NVCAP is subject to both regional and state legislation, developed and adopted to ensure new development within PDAs are supporting compact, equitable transit-oriented communities. Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) regional Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) policy update seeks to support the region’s transit investments by creating communities around transit stations and along transit corridors that not only support transit ridership, but that are places where Bay Area residents of all abilities, and income levels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live, work and access services, such as education, childcare, and healthcare. The TOC policies would apply to PDAs that are served by fixed-guideway transit such as the California Avenue Station (Caltrain). PDAs that comply with these TOC policies are eligible for grant funding administered by the MTC. Jurisdictions adopting these policies would be required to implement the following: •New Residential Development: a minimum density of 50 units/net acre or higher and an allowable maximum density of 75 units/net acre or higher. •New Commercial Office Development: a minimum density of 2 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or higher and an allowable maximum density of 4 FAR or higher. •Parking Management Requirements: no minimum parking requirement allowed. At the time of plan adoption, the City has not adopted the TOC policy. Assembly Bill 2097 (AB2097) The California State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 that eliminates minimum parking requirements for all uses/development, (except hotels) within a half- mile of public transit. This bill affects all properties within the NVCAP. The new requirements went into effect on January 1, 2023, ahead of the adoption of the NVCAP. 1.5 IN T R O D U C T I O N 23 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 69     The Community Process The NVCAP was informed by a multi-year planning process, which prioritized a robust and authentic community process, and invited a diversity of voices from both city departmental agencies and community stakeholders to shape the future of the Plan Area. 1.6 Figure 20 A worksession during the NVCAP working group meeting Over the course of the planning process, City staff and consultants conducted extensive community outreach, providing numerous opportunities for public engagement and meaningful input. Stakeholders, decision-makers, residents, and other community members have volunteered their time to thoughtfully consider the challenges and opportunities afforded by this project and contribute to the evolving plan ideas. As part of the planning process, three draft alternatives were developed for the NVCAP. The draft alternatives take into account feedback provided by: (1) the NVCAP Working Group, (2) feedback from community members provided at community workshops, (3) analyses and information provided by the City’s consultant team to City staff and leadership. City Council deliberated and selected a preferred scenario. This community process led to the development of the draft plan including the vision and design framework included in Chapter 2. 24 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 70     2 The City of Palo Alto conducted: Spotlight: Community Workshops 17 NVCAP Working Group Meetings 2 Online Surveys 6 Stakeholder Group Meetings Meetings with Decision-Makers City Council Historic Resources Board (HRB) Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Architectural Review Board (ARB) IN T R O D U C T I O N 25 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 71     The NVCAP Working Group Consistent with PAMC 19.10.030 and to ensure significant and meaningful community engagement, the City Council appointed a 14-member Working Group (WG). The WG was made up of 14 individuals and two alternates. The group’s composition represented a diversity of interests and expertise, including homeowners and renters, people of different ages and cultural backgrounds. The WG included: •Residents (rents and property owners) living within the Plan Area boundaries or the greater North Ventura neighborhood. •Business owners and local employees working or owning a business within the Plan Area boundaries or nearby (mix of small and larger businesses). •Property owners (large and small properties). •City residents with expertise in urban design, housing development, environmental planning, transportation, or land economics. •Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) member. •Architectural Review Board (ARB) member. •Parks and Recreation Commission member. Over the course of 17 meetings held from 2018 to 2020, the WG reviewed and provided feedback on existing conditions, planning alternatives, and other information related to the planning area. The WG created a vision statement for the Plan Area which is summarized below: ‘The Working Group envisions the Plan Area to replicate a European square with open plaza, colorful public art, beautiful landscaping with green open spaces and lots of public amenities such as benches, trails, and bike paths. The building designs should fit well within the existing context, between three and six stories, interconnected with pedestrian and bicycle paths. The bustling plaza should have lots of local-serving retail uses such as cafes, small local markets, and theaters, which encourage lively foot traffic. The Plan Area also should provide diverse housing opportunities, with minimum intrusion from automobile traffic.’ City Department Partnerships The planning process was informed by representatives from the City of Palo Alto to ensure the plan was aligned with foundational city plans, projects, and programs. The departments represented include Planning & Development, Transportation, Public Works, Utilities, and Community Services. 1.6 Figure 21 A sketch session and report back during the NVCAP working group meeting 26 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 72     The Community Workshops Two community workshops were held to share ideas, respond to study results, and weigh in on the vision and emerging policies of the plan. The first community workshop was held in February 2019. The community feedback helped to frame the basis of the proposed draft plans. The City hosted the second community workshop on February 27, 2020. The workshop solicited input on the three draft plan alternatives and endeavored to identify community priorities on various topics. Community Surveys Staff prepared two online community surveys (April 2020 and October 2020) to solicit input from the members of the community. The surveys aimed to reach community members unable to attend the workshops. An online questionnaire on the draft alternatives was created by staff to solicit input from the community at-large in October 2020. About 30 community members responded. The majority of the participants preferred Alternative 3, supporting higher residential densities and heights, allowing small office footprints. There was general agreement on the proposed transportation improvements, and parks and open space proposals. Opinions varied over preservation of the cannery building. Some preferred removal of old cannery building for better and efficient use of the existing space, while others supported partial retention. Project Website To augment the community engagement efforts, the city hosted a robust project website that served as the primary online portal for community engagement. It included information on project updates, upcoming events, updated summaries of workshops and staff reports. Public Noticing / Mailing List Notices of all public hearings and WG meetings were published in accordance with the regulations set forth by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and City regulations. Additionally, an extensive emailing list consisting of over 430 interested community members has been developed and maintained by City staff and is used for disseminating information to all interested individuals. Stakeholder Group Meetings Stakeholder groups including property owners, commercial tenants, area residents, Palo Alto Unified School District and affinity groups/ advocates (affordable housing representatives, bicycle groups, environmental representatives, etc.) were identified early in the NVCAP process and their input was gathered through a series of six meetings. Staff also presented to the Palo Alto Unified School District Committee on December 2018, on February 20, 2020, and on October 15, 2020. Palo Alto Unified School District Board Members indicated an interest to site a new school to serve new families conceived in the draft alternatives. The City is supportive of working together to understand student yield from proposed typologies and suitable sites. During the development and public review of alternatives, City staff have continued discussions with stakeholders, such as property owners and affordable housing advocates to gather their feedback on evolving policy ideas and aspects of the alternatives. Decision Maker Meetings Since the initiation of the NVCAP planning work in October 2018, City staff have provided several updates to the following boards: City Council, Historic Resources Board (HRB), Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Figure 22 A presentation during a community workshop IN T R O D U C T I O N 27 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 73     The Vision 2 2.1 Preferred 2.2 Land Use 2.3 Ground Floor Edges 2.4 Mobility 2.5 Ecology and Sustainability 2.6 Urban Form Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 74     The North Ventura Coordinated Area Preferred Plan endorsed by Palo Alto City Council sets forth a flexible, aspirational vision to guide growth and investment to support a transit oriented, mixed-use, mixed-income, and walkable neighborhood. The vision frameworks described in the following pages illustrates the desired physical form delivered incrementally over time which: •Honors the storied history and unique character of the North Ventura neighborhood; •Understands the needs of current residents and puts forward near-term solutions to current challenges; •Establishes a long-term framework for desired growth so more people can call North Ventura home; and •Invests in community infrastructure to support an equitable, resilient, and sustainable Palo Alto. Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 75     2.1 Preferred Plan Figure 23 The NVCAP Preferred Plan SEAMLESS CONNECTION TO CALTRAIN ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDINGS RESPECTING EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ENHANCED MULTI-MODAL INTERSECTIONS 30 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 76     GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FRIENDLY STREETS ENHANCED URBAN FOREST COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE CELEBRATING HISTORY NATURALIZED MATADERO CREEK ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS AND HABITAT STREET-ACTIVATING BUILDINGS TH E V I S I O N AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS 31 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 77     2.2 Land Use Development Potential by Land Use NVCAP aims to achieve the following targets for these land uses within the Plan Area: •Allow up to 530 new dwelling units; •2.25 acres of public open space; •16,600 square feet of commercial development including existing and new local retail and professional services; and Table 3 Existing and Future Development Potential by Land Use Land Use Existing Future Residential (units) 142 units 672 units Parks (acres)0 acres 2.25 acres Office (sq.ft.)744,000 sq.ft.466,000 sq.ft. Retail (sq.ft.)111,200 sq.ft.103,700 sq.ft. Figure 24 NVCAP Land Use Framework Legend Medium Density Mixed-Use Active Ground Floor Required High Density Mixed-Use Low Density Mixed-Use Retail Required Low Density Residential High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Project Boundary Open Space Public Facilites Area* *Exact acreage and dimensions for the public park and affordable housing site within the public facilities area will be determined at a later date. 32 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 78     TH E V I S I O N 33 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 79     2.2 Residential The NVCAP land use framework is principally focused on supporting a variety of housing options and price points to support Palo Alto residents at different stages of life. Residential density will depend on its location within the Plan Area. For example, mixed use mid- rise development will be encouraged along commercial corridors whereas townhomes will be encouraged adjacent to existing residential development. The land use designations listed below are calibrated for a wide range of multi-family housing typologies: High-Density Mixed Use The high-density mixed-use designation is located along the southern segment of El Camino Real. The designation is intended to support 5 to 6 story mid-rise apartment buildings. This designation requires active uses for ground floor frontages with retail requirements at specific nodes along El Camino Real, to support its role as a regional commercial corridor. The designation requires that upper stories be residential. Medium-Density Mixed Use The medium-density mixed-use designation is located on the northern segment of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The designation is intended to support 4 to 5 story mid-rise apartment buildings. This designation requires active uses for ground floor frontages with retail requirements at specific nodes along El Camino Real, to support its role as a regional commercial corridor. The designation requires that upper stories be residential. Project Goals Housing and Land Use Add to the City’s supply of multi- family housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed-use, transit- accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. Figure 25 Example of High-Density Mixed Use in Palo Alto Figure 26 Example of Medium-Density Mixed Use in Palo Alto 34 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 80     Low-Density Mixed Use The low-density mixed-use designation serves as a transition between the high-density mixed- use area and the low-density residential areas located in the interior of the Plan Area. The designation area is also located along Ash Street and Lambert Avenue, to support mid- to-low-rise multi-family development near the proposed public park. Active ground floor uses are encouraged but not required. Residential is required on the upper floors. High-Density Residential The high-density residential designation is located in areas such as the 395 Page Mill surface parking lot to support the long-term goal of supporting additional affordable housing in the Plan Area. The designation requires that both the ground floor and upper floors are residential use. Limited retail may be permitted. Medium-Density Residential The medium-density residential designation is located at the 340 Portage site to support the long-term goal of supporting additional housing in the Plan Area. The designation requires that both the ground floor and upper floors are residential use. Limited retail may be permitted The designation is intended to support a mix of townhouses and mid-rise apartments. Allowable heights are calibrated to support sensitive structures such as the Cannery building. Figure 27 Example of Low-Density Mixed Use in Palo Alto Figure 28 Example of High Density Residential in Palo Alto Figure 29 Example of Medium Density Residential in Palo Alto Low-Density Residential The low-density residential designation is calibrated to both facilitate new housing development while also being sensitive to existing single-family neighborhood fabric, located along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue. This area of existing single-family homes has been designated as an area of stability and will not experience a significant degree of change. Figure 30 Example of Low Density Residential in Palo Alto TH E V I S I O N 35 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 81     2.2 Figure 31 The Cloudera Galactic HQ is located at 395 Page Mill Road Land Use Classification Anticipated Density (DU/AC) Maximum Height (FT)FAR Active Use Requirements Allowed Zoning Districts High-Density Mixed Use 61-100 55*3.0:1 Required NV-MX3 Medium-Density Mixed-Use 31-70 45*2.0:1 Required NV-MX2 Low-Density Mixed Use 3-17 35*0.5:1 Encouraged NV-MX1 High Density Residential 61-100 55*3.0:1 None NV-R4 NV-PF Medium Density Residential 16-30 36*1.5:1 None NV-R3 Low Density Residential 1 or 2 units/lot 30 0.45:1 None NV-R2 NV-R1 Public Facilities and Open Space n/a n/a n/a n/a NV-PF Table 4 Proposed Land Use, FAR, and Active Use Requirements Affordable Housing To bolster the City’s affordable housing program, new residential projects across the Plan Area would require 20% inclusionary below market rate (BMR) for-sale townhouses, 15% inclusionary BMR for-sale condominiums and rental projects. In accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), in-lieu fees may be paid in certain circumstances. Proposed 100% below-market-rate (BMR) projects in the NVCAP are eligible for an additional height bonus through either the State Density Bonus or the City’s Housing Incentive Program. * 100% Affordable Housing is eligible for an additional 33 feet. Open Space This land use designation is located in the southeastern corner of the Plan Area. This will include the proposed 2.25 acre public open space as well as the re-naturalization of the Matadero Creek between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue. Existing Uses Existing land uses are permitted to remain in place and continue operations. Existing buildings or land uses which become nonconforming as a result of the new zoning and land use classifications are governed by the provisions in the Zoning Code regarding nonconforming buildings and uses. Certain limits are established for repairs, additions, restoration, expansion, and occupancy after an extended vacancy. 36 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 82     TH E V I S I O N 37 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 83     2.3 Ground Floor Edges The street level is the most important interface between a building and the public realm. Each development should define and animate the street level, exploring active uses, transparency, and engaging design. Figure 32 NVCAP Ground Floor Edges Framework Required Retail Edge Office Edge Required Active Edge Encouraged Active Edge Residential Edge Project Boundary Legend For design standards and guidelines, go to: Chapter 5: Buildings REQUIRED RETAIL EDGE 38 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 84     REQUIRED RETAIL EDGE TH E V I S I O N 39 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 85     2.3 Active Uses To create a pedestrian-friendly environment and visual interest on the ground floors of buildings, new development within the high-density and low-density mixed-use designations will provide active uses on frontages facing a public right-of- way, greenway, or park, to the degree feasible. Retail or retail-like uses are required at specific frontages facing El Camino Real and encouraged along Park Boulevard. By requiring ground floor commercial uses at select nodes along prominent corridors, NVCAP is supporting the ability for residents to walk to everyday services and subsequently reduce the number of cars on the road. Active uses include but are not limited to the following: •Neighborhood-serving retail which provides goods and services that people would frequently use to take care of their personal and household needs. Examples include grocery stores, drug stores, restaurants, dry cleaners, hair salons, etc. •Professional Offices with regular customers such as dentists that are 5,000 sq. ft. or less. •Public Uses including a community room and daycare. •Building lobbies. •Spaces accessory to residential uses, such as fitness rooms, workspaces, leasing offices, shared kitchens, and mail rooms. •Building frontage for mechanical equipment, transformer doors, parking garage entrances, exit stairs, and other facilities necessary to the operation of the building are excluded from this requirement. Figure 33 Building lobbies and other accessory spaces to residential uses are considered active uses. 40 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 86     Retail Frontage Where ground floor retail is required within the Plan Area, an urban edge should be created to foster healthy street life. This includes storefronts with tall floor to ceiling heights to foster visibility and transparency for homegrown businesses. Traditional retail such as food and beverage establishments are a subset of active uses. Residential Frontage Residential stoops, porches, patios, terraces, and frontage courts create a social edge to a neighborhood street. When set back by a small distance and vertically above the sidewalk grade, they can also ensure privacy at a comfortable social distance for a residential unit. Figure 34 Neighborhood-serving retail along major boulevards like El Camino Real. Figure 35 Residential stoops should be set back and elevated to provide privacy for residents. TH E V I S I O N 41 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 87     2.4 Mobility The envisioned mobility framework for the NVCAP will provide an array of high-quality mobility options on safe, low-stress, and visually interesting streets. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be designed for people of all ages and abilities, and accessible paths to transit will include wayfinding signage and other amenities. Streets and intersections will be designed to prioritize local circulation and access and to encourage low vehicle speeds. The planned improvements will be fully integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure seamless connections for all users. Figure 36 NVCAP Mobility Framework Major Intersection Improvements Minor Intersection Improvements Bus Stops Traffic Signals Priority Streets Secondary Streets Tertiary Streets Private Connection First Mile / Last Mile Connections California Avenue Caltrain Pedestrian and Bicycle Streets Project Boundary Potential Location for Mobility Hub Park Trail For design standards and guidelines, go to: Chapter 3: Public Realm Chapter 4: Streets Legend Vehicular Movement Woonerf Vehicular Street on Private Property Surface Parking 42 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 88     TH E V I S I O N 43 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 89     2.4 Pedestrian Realm A well-designed, integrated pedestrian network is a vital component of the NVCAP. The mobility framework prioritizes a fully connected, ADA- accessible sidewalk network throughout the neighborhood. Wide, tree-lined sidewalks will foster a people-first environment, where all ages and abilities can move safely and conveniently throughout the neighborhood. Portage Avenue, Park Boulevard, and Olive Avenue will become priority walking routes to the California Avenue Caltrain Station and the bus stops along El Camino Real to ensure convenient alternatives to driving. In addition to established public sidewalks, the Plan envisions publicly accessible private paths to bridge existing gaps. Project Goals Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Connections Create and enhance well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain Station, Park Boulevard, and El Camino Real. Connected Street Grid Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. Figure 37 NVCAP Pedestrian Network Publicly accessible shared path on private property Pedestrian path Woonerf External pedestrian connections Project Boundary Legend 44 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 90     Spotlight: The Portage Avenue Woonerf Central to the vision for a re-imagined North Ventura neighborhood is a shared street, or “woonerf,” along Portage Avenue. Woonerf (“street for living”) is a Dutch term for an integrated, common space shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed motor vehicles. They typically have no curbs or sidewalks, and vehicles are slowed by trees, planters, parking areas, and other traffic calming devices in the street. In addition to becoming a great space for walking and bicycling, the Portage Avenue woonerf can provide a placemaking space for community gatherings, events, retail, and other flexible uses. Figure 38 View of the Bell Street Woonerf in Seattle, Washington TH E V I S I O N 45 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 91     Bike Network The NVCAP will feature a high-quality, “low- stress” bikeway network that will be comfortable for people of all ages and abilities to use. The proposed network will be integrated into the citywide network to ensure safe, convenient connections to the adjacent neighborhoods. This will be achieved by selecting bicycle facilities that prioritize safety and comfort based on vehicle speeds and volumes, and with intersections that have appropriate bike-specific crossing treatments and traffic control. Wayfinding signage and ample bicycle parking are also integral elements of the network. The bicycle network will support a range of users, including the future integration of scooters, e-bikes, and other micromobility devices. The low-stress bike network will include separated bicycle lanes on busier streets, bicycle boulevards on calmer neighborhood streets, and well-designed intersections throughout the project Plan. Shared-Use Paths are off-street, two-way bikeways physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and used by people bicycling, walking, and other non-motorized users. Separated Bike Lanes are dedicated bikeways that combine the user experience of a multi- use path but are located on a street. They are physically distinct from the sidewalk and separated from motor vehicle traffic by physical objects such as parked vehicles, a curb, green stormwater infrastructure, or posts. 2.4 Buffered Bike Lanes provide dedicated on-street space for bicyclists delineated with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane. Bicycle Boulevards are streets with low vehicle volumes and speeds, designated and designed to prioritize bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures to discourage vehicle cut-through trips and include safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterials. Figure 39 Bike Facility Degree of Separation Gateway Intersections The intersections surrounding the Plan Area will be enhanced to improve access, safety, and connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. This is particularly important for pedestrian and bicycle safety, as the current intersections’ designs largely prioritize vehicular speed and access. New design guidance and signal technology advancements offer options for improved intersection interactions between people walking, biking, and driving. In particular, intersections on the bicycle network with a high potential for conflicts between bicycles and vehicles must be designed thoughtfully. 46 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 92     Street From To Bike Facility El Camino Real Page Mill Road Lambert Avenue Separated and/or Buffered Bike Lane along segment Ash Street Page Mill Road Olive Avenue Shared Use Path Portage Avenue Lambert Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Park Boulevard Page Mill Road Lambert Avenue Buffered Bike Lanes Page Mill Road El Camino Real Park Boulevard Separated or Buffered Bike Lanes Olive Avenue El Camino Real Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard with Wide Sidewalks Portage Avenue El Camino Real Ash Street Shared Use Path or Bicycle Boulevard Ash Street Park Boulevard Woonerf or Shared Use Path Figure 40 NVCAP Bike Network Framework Table 5 Bicycle Facility Classifications TH E V I S I O N Separated Bike Lane Publicly Accessible Shared Paths on Private Property Woonerf Bike Boulevard External Bike Connections Project Boundary Legend Shared Paths 47 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 93     2.4 Transit The success of transit is strongly dependent upon the level of convenience that is offered to the patron. Currently, the North Ventura neighborhood contains two transit stops: a mid- block stop located at El Camino Real and Portage Avenue and a far-side stop located at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The mobility framework focuses on designing intuitive, accessible, and safe routes to transit through priority pedestrian and bike streets, wayfinding signage to navigate to Caltrain, enhanced bus stop amenities for passengers, and a mobility hub along Portage Avenue. Vehicles Circulation and Parking The mobility framework serves the needs of existing and future development with vehicle and parking strategies aimed to prioritize local circulation and access, encourage low speeds, and determine right-sized parking capacity. To support local access and mitigate cut-through traffic, the Plan proposes to convert Ash Street from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue into a one- way southbound street. Olive Avenue from Ash Street to El Camino Real will remain a two-way street. Vehicular traffic on the woonerf on Portage Avenue is permitted but should be discouraged. Vehicle circulation in this area will be primarily for access to buildings located on the woonerf. Acacia Avenue from Ash Street to Park Boulevard will be a private aisle for accessing residential frontage on Acacia Avenue for parking and unloading. In compliance with AB-2097, no parking minimums are to be set as the neighborhood is near a Caltrain Station. However, there will also be no parking maximums, allowing the neighborhood to follow a market-based regulatory approach. No new surface parking is proposed, and new parking supply should be implemented on the ground or basement levels of new buildings. Where new buildings are not proposed, existing surface parking spaces are to remain to support remaining commercial offices. Street parking is to remain in front of single-family homes on Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue, with no new street parking proposed along new developments. Street parking near intersections should be restricted to ensure large vehicles and emergency vehicles are able to safely make turns. To support the new ground-floor retail and active use frontage in new buildings, short-term parking should be implemented on the ground or basement levels of the new developments. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies TDM strategies can be effective at encouraging fewer trips made by single-occupancy vehicles (SOV). An effective TDM Plan ensures that alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or other forms of shared mobility, are made available to site occupants and nearby community members. TDM enhancements have additional benefits beyond reducing SOV trips, including: •Improving the environment by reducing traffic congestion and air quality impacts produced by new development. •Improving transportation circulation and safety conditions for community members •Quality of life enhancements that improve the public realm. Major Intersection Improvements Minor Intersection Improvements Traffic Signals Project Boundary Vehicular Movement Vehicular Street on Private Property Surface Parking Vehicular Street Legend 48 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 94     Spotlight: Mobility Hub Mobility hubs are places in a community that bring together public transit, bike share, car share and other sustainable transportation modes. The MTC Mobility Hub Program has identified the North Ventura neighborhood as a candidate for a mobility hub. This neighborhood’s proximity to the proposed public park, the California Avenue Caltrain Station, and bus stops on El Camino Real provides important connections to regional transit and micromobility pathways. The neighborhood mobility hub is proposed at the intersection of Portage Avenue and El Camino Real. This location is ideal given its proximity to varying active frontage uses as well as the proposed woonerf. Proposed amenities could include: • Transit shelters and waiting areas. • Bicycle parking facilities. • Shared mobility (bike share, scooter share, etc.) access points. • Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. • Designated parking for car share services. • Real-time travel information signage and interactive displays. • Area maps and bulletins promoting local amenities and events. • Monitoring systems to measure ridership, mobility, security, and public life metrics. • Digital and physical wayfinding tools. Figure 41 NVCAP Vehicle and Parking Framework TH E V I S I O N 49 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 95     2.5 Ecology and Sustainability NVCAP’s ecological framework takes direct inspiration from the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, putting forward design strategies that collectively expands the definition of sustainability. This framework goes beyond mitigation, adaptation, and resilience, but grounded in regeneration – identifying opportunities for renewal, restoration, carbon sequestration, and growth of the natural environment. The future streets, parks, natural areas, and buildings will restore and enhance habitat and pollinator pathways, flood protection and stormwater management, cleaner air and cleaner water, and healthier habitats for current and future generations. Figure 42 NVCAP Ecology and Sustainability Framework For design standards and guidelines, go to: Chapter 3: Public Realm Chapter 4: Streets Chapter 5: Parks Chapter 6: Buildings GREEN ROOFS 50 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 96     Figure 42 NVCAP Ecology and Sustainability Framework GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ENHANCED URBAN FOREST ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDINGS COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE CELEBRATING HISTORY NATURALIZED MATADERO CREEK ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS AND HABITAT POLLINATOR PATHWAYS TH E V I S I O N 51 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 97     2.5 Public Park Located in the southeast corner of the Plan Area, NVCAP proposes to transform a 2-acre surface parking lot into a new 2.25 acre public park. The proposed naturalization of Matadero Creek between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue serves as the organizing framework for the park’s design and neighborhood destination, inviting Palo Alto residents, employees, and visitors to enjoy access to recreational activities, habitat, and inclusive community programming. Shared multi-use pathways weave through the Park, providing access to the Creek and seamless connections to the citywide pedestrian and bicycle network, ensuring that the park is a beloved city asset that can be enjoyed by the entire community. The primary entrance to the park is along the new Portage Avenue woonerf directly across from the historic Palo Alto Cannery, creating an iconic activity node. The curbless design of the proposed Portage Avenue woonerf supports a natural extension of the park to the renovated Cannery building. Project Goals Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. Figure 43 A conceptual design for the future public park SAFE CONNECTION TO BOULWARE PARK COMMUNITY GARDENS MULTI-USE OPEN SPACE ACTIVE ZONES OBSERVATION DECK 52 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 98     Matadero Creek NVCAP proposes to re-naturalize a section of the Matadero Creek, removing the existing U-shaped concrete channel and replacing it with a widened, natural channel. The goals of a renaturalization project are to provide community benefits, re-establish riparian ecosystem habitat, and avoid adverse impacts on hydraulic performance and flood risks. The NVCAP Preferred Plan1 supports a widened natural corridor with an area available for riparian plantings, creative landscape architecture design, and increased recreation access. This concept includes replacing the Lambert Avenue bridge with a longer span and widening the creek channel from approximately 30 feet wide to 100 feet wide. 1. City of Palo Alto Council Meeting, January 10, 2022 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/ agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-coun- cil-agendas-minutes/2022/20220110/20220110p- ccsm-linked-updated.pdf Green Stormwater Infrastructure As an integral part of the Plan Area’s ecological and sustainability framework, the public realm consists of a coordinated network of multi- functional landscapes that effectively manage stormwater, create pollinator pathways, mitigate the urban heat island effect, and create usable public spaces for all to enjoy. Figure 44 An example of a restored creek in San Luis Obispo, CA. Figure 45 An example of green stormwater infrastructure integrated with street furnishings. TH E V I S I O N 53 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 99     2.6 Urban Form NVCAP’s Urban Form framework champions the design of buildings that are respectful neighbors, human-scaled, and embrace the street. New development will respond to the surrounding context such as building up to El Camino Real while creating a gentle transition to quieter residential portions of the neighborhood. Figure 46 NVCAP Urban Form Framework 55’ 45’ 30’ / 35’ / 36’ Open Space Project Boundary Priority Corridors Maximum Development Potential Building Height Stepdowns Area of Stability For design standards and guidelines, go to: Chapter 6: Buildings Legend STEP DOWN TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES 54 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 100     Figure 46 NVCAP Urban Form Framework TH E V I S I O N RESPECT THE CANNERY MAXIMIZE HEIGHT ALONG MAJOR CORRIDORS 55 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 101     2.6 Allowable Heights Allowable building heights establish a consistent, urban character; protect access to sunlight and views, and appropriately frame the public realm. Allowable heights are calibrated to enable taller buildings along major corridors while requiring lower heights to respect single family houses and the roof datum of notable structures such as the 340 Portage Cannery building. Setbacks Building setbacks create a transitional zone between the building face and the sidewalk, where active uses can spill out or residential users can experience public life at a comfortable social distance. Additionally, rear and side setbacks are utilized to ensure the necessary buffering between new development and existing single- family residential and high-value habitat areas. Project Goals Urban Design, Design Guidelines, and Neighborhood Fabric Develop human-scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Design for living ― Residential Figure 47 Internal streets have height allowances that are conducive with missing middle housing like townhomes.For more information on setback requirements design standards and guidelines, go to: Chapter 4: Streets Chapter 6: Buildings 56 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 102     Figure 48 Urban form design standards requires setbacks and stepbacks for new development that is adjacent to single family zoning. TH E V I S I O N 57 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 103     3.1 The Sidewalk Zone 3.2 Traffic Lanes and Intersections 3.3 Green Stormwater Infrastructure 3.4 Paving 3.5 Exterior Lighting 3.6 Wayfinding 3.7 Public Art The Public Realm 3 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 104     The public realm is a connective tissue of streets, parks, plazas, and natural spaces that weaves throughout the neighborhood, serving as an organizing framework for future development while fostering inclusive, experience- rich spaces for the entire Palo Alto community. Building on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Urban Design Vision, the Plan Area’s public realm will ‘serve as centers for public life with gathering places, bicycle and pedestrian access, safety- enhancing night-time lighting and clear visual access, and, in some cases, small- scale retail uses such as cafes.’ The standards and guidelines layout a planned, intentional, well-designed public realm network that works in unison to achieve multiple goals: •Aesthetically pleasing, context- appropriate streets that enhance residents’ quality of life and Palo Alto’s reputation as ‘a gracious residential community.’ •A comprehensive multi-modal network that provides equitable access to clean, safe, and reliable mobility options and seamlessly connects to the larger citywide transportation network. •Open spaces that blend people places with green stormwater infrastructure to provide new social gathering outdoor rooms while showcasing climate-positive design. Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 105     3.1 The Sidewalk Zone The Sidewalk Zone is described in Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.24 – Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards, which delineates the sidewalk zone into three distinct zones: Frontage, Sidewalk, and Street. Definitions: Frontage: a zone along building frontages for active edge uses such as seating, signage, and merchandising. Frontage zone treatments can include private setbacks to widen the sidewalk as necessary. Sidewalk: a zone that includes both the pedestrian clear zone and the landscape/ furniture zone. The pedestrian clear zone is an unobstructed accessible path of travel for pedestrians. The landscape/furniture zone accommodates elements such as trees, lighting, furnishing, and green stormwater infrastructure. Street: a zone that includes the non-vehicle travel lane portion of the roadway such as on- street parking, bus stops, and parklets. Standards: The following standards are in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.24.020: 3.1.1 Sidewalk Width Where site conditions allow, public sidewalks shall have a minimum of at least 12 feet. This can be met with a combination of the pedestrian clear zone and the landscape/furniture zone, provided the pedestrian clear path shall be no less than eight (8) feet. Publicly accessible private sidewalks or walkways, with landscape strips, connecting through a development parcel shall have a minimum of six (6) feet. Project Goal Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. 3.1.2 Sidewalk Zone Features All improved streets shall allow the following features within the sidewalk zone: •Pedestrian Clear •Landscape and Furniture •Street Trees, Green Stormwater Infrastructure, and Plantings •Street Lighting •Seating •Bike Parking •Public Art •Outdoor Dining •Bus Shelters •Utilities 3.1.3 Street Zone Features All improved streets shall allow the following features within the street zone: •On Street Parking •Bike Lanes •Drop-Off Zones •Parklets •Bus Stops 60 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 106     3.1.4 Frontage Zone Features All new development with a ground floor commercial use shall allow the following features within the frontage zone: •Sidewalk Dining •Outdoor Displays •Public Art •Seating •Trees / Plantings •Green Stormwater Infrastructure All new development with a ground floor residential use shall allow the following features within the frontage zone: •Stoops •Porches •Front Yards •Trees and Plantings •Green Stormwater Infrastructure PU B L I C R E A L M Frontage Zone Pedestrian Clear Landscape and Furniture Sidewalk Zone Street Zone Figure 49 The Sidewalk Zone For more information on street standards and guidelines, go to: Chapter 4: Streets 61 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 107     3.2 Traffic Lanes and Intersections The neighborhood is bounded on the west and north by two major vehicular roads: El Camino Real, a major arterial, and Oregon Expressway, an street designed to move higher volumes of vehicles quickly and efficiently. However, most streets within the Plan Area are classified in the Comprehensive Plan as local/ collectors, designed to calm traffic and give pedestrians priority in terms of scale and facility. The plan is aligned with the recommendations of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) which states that narrower lane widths such as 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on street safety without impacting traffic operations. Definitions: Traffic Lanes: Within the public right-of-way and outside of the sidewalk zones are the traffic lanes. According to 10.04.180 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a “Traffic Lane means that portion of any roadway, either marked or unmarked, being not less than eight and one-half feet in width.” The traffic lanes are intended to support safe and efficient vehicular traffic. Standards: 3.2.1 Local Street Traffic Lane Width All vehicle traffic lanes on local streets shall have a width of 10 feet. 3.2.2 California Fire Code All roadway configurations shall comply with the California Fire Code. This includes the following: •Roadway widths shall accommodate aerial fire apparatus set up at strategic locations for buildings over 27 feet tall. • Walkable pathways shall be a minimum of 16 feet wide and support fire apparatus weights if vehicle traffic circulation is being restricted. 3.2.3 Crosswalk Treatments All crosswalk surfacing and treatments shall follow the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifications. 3.2.4 Intersection Enhancements All intersection enhancements shall select from the following toolbox: •High visibility marked crosswalks. •Raised crosswalks. •Advance stop bars and yield lines. •Daylighting to improve sightlines by removing parking adjacent to the intersection. •ADA-accessible, bi-directional curb ramps. •Curb extensions or bulb-outs. •Bicycle detention and markings to indicate the position and path for bicyclists to cross the intersection. •Traffic signals. •Accessible pedestrian signals at intersections with clear markings, audio, and braille messaging. •Leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections for pedestrians to establish their presence in the crosswalks before vehicles proceed. •Green Stormwater Infrastructure Guidelines: 3.2.5 Artful Intersections To enhance the aesthetics and vibrancy of the roadway, key intersections and crosswalks should be evaluated for the inclusion of public art, such as unique pavers, intersection murals, or crosswalk artwork, where appropriate. 62 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 108     Figure 50 Proposed improvements to El Camino Real, Hansen Way, and Portage Avenue will support a safe, low-stress, multi-modal street environment. High visibility marked crosswalks Bicycle detention and markings Traffic signals ADA curb ramps Accessible pedestrian signalsADA Ramps Bicycle Lanes Sidewalks Legend PU B L I C R E A L M 63 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 109     3.3 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Project Goal Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. As an integral part of the Plan Area’s ecological network, the public realm will consist of a coordinated network of green stormwater infrastructure intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan’s vision to “provide ecological and health benefits and a source of beauty for residents. Palo Alto will strive for clean air and clean water.” Inspired by natural systems, the following standards and guidelines for green stormwater infrastructure and the urban forest are aimed at creating multi-functional landscapes that: •Effectively manage stormwater. •Create pollinator pathways. •De-pave unnecessary hardscaped areas to mitigate the urban heat island effect. •Create usable outdoor rooms which are an extension of parks and plazas. Definition: Diameter at Breast Height or DBH: a standard method of expressing the diameter of the trunk or bole of a standing tree. DBH is one of the most common methods to measure trees. Green Stormwater Infrastructure: infrastructure built into our urban environment to collect, slow, and clean stormwater runoff through the use of natural processes. Species Name Common Name Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) Acer Macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple 11.5” or more Calocedrus Decurrens California Incense Cedar Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak Quercus Douglasii Blue Oak Quercus Kelloggii California Black Oak Quercus Lobata Valley Oak Sequoia Sempervirens Coast Redwood 18” or more Standards: 3.3.1 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Green Stormwater Infrastructure shall adhere to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and other stormwater design and maintenance requirements and specifications. 3.3.2 Protected Street Trees Any locally native mature tree measuring 15” or more DBH shall be protected. Use Table 7 for locally native protected species trees shall be protected and Table 8 for trees exempt for protection. Table 6 Local native protected tree species 64 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 110     Species Name Common Name List Category Alnus rhombifolia White Alder High Water Use Alnus rubra (alnus oregona)Red Alder High Water Use Araucaria Columnaris (A. cookii)New Caledonian Pine High Water Use Betua spp Birch Species High Water Use Metasequoia Glyptostroboides Dawn Redwood High Water Use Populus Trichocarpa (P. Balsamifera)Black Cottonwood High Water Use Populus x Canadensis Carolina Poplar High Water Use Salix spp. Willow Species High Water Use Acaia Dealbata Silver Wattle Invasive, Cal-IPC Acacia Melanoxylon Blackwood Acacia Cal-IPC, PlantRight Ailanthus Altissima Tree-of-Heaven Invasive, Cal-IPC Cotoneaster spp.Cotoneaster Species Invasive, Cal-IPC Crataegus Monogyna English Hawthorn Cal-IPC, Plant Right Elauagnus Angustifolia Russian Olive Invasive, Cal-IPC Eucalyptus Camaldulensis Red Gum Cal-IPC, PlantRight Eucalyptus Globulus Blue Gum Cal-IPC, PlantRight Fraxinus Uhdei Evergreen Ash Fruit Ficus Carica Edible Fig Invasive, Cal-IPC Ilex Aquifolium English Holly Cal-IPC, PlantRight Melaleuca Quinquenervia Cajeput Tree State of CA Myoporum Laetum Ngaio Tree Cal-IPC, PlantRight Olea Europaea European Olive Cal-IPC, PlantRight Phoenix Canariensis Canary Island Date Palm Cal-IPC, PlantRight Populus spp.Poplar, Cottonwood Downy Fruit Prunus Cerasifera Cherry Plum Cal-IPC, PlantRight Robinia Pseudoacacia Black Locust Cal-IPC, PlantRight Schinus Terebinthefolius Brazilian Pepper Invasive, Cal-IPC Washingtonia Robusta Mexican Fan Palm Invasive, Cal-IPC Table 7 Trees to be exempt from protection PU B L I C R E A L M 65 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 111     3.3 Standards: 3.3.3 Tree Species Selection Property owners shall consult with the City’s urban forestry division staff to determine the appropriate street tree. 3.3.4 Street Tree Spacing In accordance with Chapter 13.24.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, All street trees shall be planted within the city easement in coordination with existing utilities. 3.3.5 Pollinator Pathways The adopted Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation Master Plan identifies Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard as Pollinator Pathways. Street design for these streets shall integrate native plantings (e.g. riparian, grassland, or oak woodland), and specific habitat plantings to support pollinators such as hummingbirds and butterflies. Guidelines: 3.3.6 Tree Spacing Sidewalks should include at least one tree for every 30 feet of sidewalk length. 3.3.7 Double Row of Trees Where space allows, either on private setbacks or within the sidewalk zones, the planting of a second row of street trees is encouraged. 3.3.8 Seasonal Interest Select a planting palette that provides seasonal interest, such as autumn colors. Seasonal interest should not be prioritized over enhancing biodiversity. 3.3.9 Tree Species Criteria Tree species should be selected based on a combination of their aesthetics and their ecological performance benefits including the following considerations: •California native trees •Biodiversity amongst street trees •Drought tolerance •Non-invasive •Proven long-term durability •Tolerance of urban conditions such as compacted soils and air pollution •Resistance to disease •Branching structure that will provide a shade structure •Ability to adapt to predicted future temperature increases related to climate change •Non-fruiting and free of significant seed pods •Wind tolerance •Habitat value 3.3.10 Stormwater Runoff In addition to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and city-specific design and maintenance requirements, all new Green Stormwater Infrastructure should adhere to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s reports and work products for materials, precedents, and methods. The integration of green stormwater infrastructure when planting trees should always be considered. 66 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 112     Figure 51 Planting a double row of trees along the sidewalk and frontage zone creates connected canopy for a pleasant pedestrian experience, improves neighborhood aesthetics, and fosters ecological corridors. PU B L I C R E A L M 67 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 113     3.4 Paving Paving is a key component that will help define the character, connectivity, and identity of the North Ventura neighborhood’s varied streets and open spaces. A hierarchy of paving materials on streets like El Camino Real, Portage Avenue, and Park Boulevard can help create clear wayfinding and contributes aesthetically to the neighborhood. Standards: 3.4.1 City Standards All street paving shall meet City of Palo Alto Sidewalk Standards and be approved by the city engineer or designate. 3.4.2 Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) Materials that reduce the urban heat island effect by using pavement with a Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of 29 or higher shall be selected for use. Guidelines: 3.4.3 Responsible Material Use Paved areas should be made of sustainable paving materials, including recycled, local, and sustainable sourced materials. Consider opportunities for the reuse of demolition waste from the site. 3.4.4 Accent Paving at Intersections Street improvement projects should install accent paving at key intersections and raised crossings. 3.4.5 Portage Avenue Special Paving The Portage Avenue Woonerf should incorporate a special paving pattern. The use of contrasting, tactile, and high-quality paving that distinguishes the bike lanes and vehicle lanes with a curbless street that prioritizes pedestrians, gathering and spill-over activities is encouraged. 3.4.6 El Camino Real Special Paving In coordination with Caltrans and VTA, the segment of El Camino Real within the neighborhood should incorporate a special paving pattern that reflects its position as a Grand Boulevard. The paving material should extend into the private setback along active ground floor uses to create a more comfortable and welcoming public space for adjacent businesses. 3.4.7 Pervious Paving for Green Stormwater Infrastructure Large hardscaped areas such as parking areas, sidewalks, and driveways could utilize types of pervious pavements to reduce ponding, recharge groundwater, and prevent stormwater pollution. Figure 52 Light colored pavement reduces the urban heat island effect. For more information on intersections go to: Chapter 7: Implementation 68 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 114     3.5 Exterior Lighting Adequate exterior lighting should be provided in all dedicated open spaces and along all streets and greenways to ensure clear wayfinding and safe pedestrian passage. Lighting design also has an opportunity to support habitat and mitigate light pollution, allowing current and future generations to be able to look up and clearly see the night sky. Standards: 3.5.1 City Standards All exterior light fixtures in the right-of-way shall meet City of Palo Alto standards and be approved by the City. 3.5.2 Full Shielded Fixtures All exterior light fixtures shall be fully shielded to minimize glare, light trespass, and light pollution throughout the neighborhood. 3.5.3 Dark Sky Compliant Exterior light fixtures shall meet or exceed applicable energy-efficiency standards while adhering to recommended kelvin temperature specified by the International Dark Sky Association to prevent negative health impacts on humans and wildlife. 3.5.4 Key Pedestrian Routes and Scale Lighting shall reinforce key active transportation streets and all lighting shall be scaled to the pedestrian and bicycle experience. 3.5.5 Safety Lighting shall allow facial recognition along paths of travel. Lighting shall not create glare or “hot spots” that would inhibit visual accessibility. Guidelines: 3.5.6 Habitat Areas If lighting is appropriate in the proposed public park adjacent to the Creek and sensitive habitat areas, light fixtures should be equipped with motion sensors or timers to not disrupt the circadian rhythms of wildlife. 3.5.7 Retail / Active Use Areas Lighting along El Camino Real and Portage should incorporate signature fixtures and a variety of special lighting types such as catenary string lights to reinforce an experience-rich street life. Figure 53 Dark sky compliant exterior light fixtures helps mitigate light pollution and the health of both humans and wildlife. PU B L I C R E A L M Credit: Edgar Zacarias via Foursquare 69 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 115     3.6 Wayfinding The design and integration of wayfinding is an effective tool that can celebrate the neighborhood’s history, foster a sense of place, and support clear and predictable navigability for residents, employees, and visitors. Standards: 3.6.1: Caltrans Standards Roadway signage shall comply with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and California Sign Specifications. 3.6.2: City Standards Active Transportation signage shall adhere to the Design Standards included in the City of Palo Alto’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Guidelines: 3.6.3: Shared Use Signage Curbless streets such as Portage Avenue Woonerf should have signage that indicates the delineation of the right of way for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. Shared trails within the public park should include signage indicating the shared use area at pedestrian and bicycle eye level. 3.6.4: Celebrate the Cannery and Other Landmarks Signage and wayfinding that is not required to adhere to Caltrans and City standards should take cues from neighborhood landmarks like the Cannery by correlating graphically and emulating a consistent color and material palette. 3.6.5: Neighborhood Maps and Directional Signage Area-specific maps and directional signage that highlights nearby destinations along pedestrian pathways should be installed at major gateways into the neighborhood. 3.6.6: Mile Markers and Educational Placards The use of mile markers and educational and interpretive placards can be placed along the trails along Matadero Creek to inform visitors about the re-naturalization process and subsequent ecological benefits. Figure 54 Neighborhood map and directional signage are effective wayfinding tools for visitors to the NVCAP. For more information on wayfinding go to: Chapter 7: Implementation 70 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 116     3.7 Public Art Building on the City’s legacy of commissioning iconic public art within urban centers like Downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue, the integration of new and diverse public art can contribute significantly to the sense of place within the neighborhood. This plan is aligned with the City of Palo Alto’s Public Art Master Plan’s guiding principles which state that Palo Alto’s public art will: •Be distributed citywide, focusing on areas where people gather and in unexpected places that encourage exploration; •Represent a broad variety of artistic media and forms of expression; •Enhance City infrastructure, transportation corridors, and gateways; •Include both permanent and temporary artworks; •Strive for artistic excellence; •Be maintained for people to enjoy. Guidelines: 3.7.1 Location of Public Art Public art should be located at major social engagement areas such as the proposed public park and the Cannery Building, along transportation corridors such as El Camino Real, Portage Avenue, and Park Boulevard, and at major gateway moments announcing that you are entering the neighborhood. Figure 55 The location of public art such as Passages by Susan Zoccola should be located at the public park, major transportation corridors and major gateways. PU B L I C R E A L M 71 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 117     4.1 Park Boulevard 4.2 Olive Avenue 4.3 Ash Street 4.4 Acacia Avenue 4.5 Pepper Avenue 4.6 Portage Avenue 4.7 Lambert Avenue 4.8 El Camino Real 4.9 Page Mill Road 4.10 Publicly Accessible Private Streets Streets 4 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 118     Vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, and visually interesting streets will be the setting for the future of the North Ventura neighborhood. With generous and active sidewalks, traffic calming devices, and low-stress bicycle facilities, the street network will provide a variety of options to travel safely and conveniently through the neighborhood. Building on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the plan supports the implementation of the transportation chapter’s vision to,‘build and maintain a sustainable network of safe, accessible and efficient transportation and parking solutions for all users and modes, while protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Palo Alto. Programs will include alternative and innovate transportation processes, and the adverse impacts of automobile traffic on the environment in general and residential streets in particular will be reduced. Streets will be safe, attractive and designed to enhance the quality and aesthetics of Palo Alto neighborhoods. Palo Alto recognizes the regional nature of its transportation system, and will be a leader in seeking regional transportation solutions, prioritizing Caltrain service improvements and railroad grade separations.’ The following street sections are intended to illustrate the long term vision of the NVCAP mobility network. The design of the new streets will be built out over time. Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 119     4.1 Park Boulevard Park Boulevard is a priority north-south bicycle and pedestrian street that connects the NVCAP Plan Area to the California Avenue Caltrain Station and terminates at the California Avenue Business District. The street emphasizes multi- modal transportation with wide pedestrian sidewalks, bi-directional buffered bike lanes, and a two-way flow of vehicles is maintained. Park Boulevard is designated as a citywide pollinator pathway, the design of the street prioritizes a connected canopy of trees and a lush, landscaped streetscape to support the health and comfort of both people and wildlife. East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash St r e e t Ash St r e e t Oli v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone 4.5 Feet Bicycle Facility Separated Buffered Bike Lanes 5 Feet Bike Lane 2-3 Feet Buffer Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet One Lane in Each Direction Parking / Loading No On-Street Parking Frontage / Setback Western Edge: 20 Feet from Property Line Eastern Edge: 5 Feet from Property Line Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Park Boulevard. 4.1.1 Street Design Guidelines: 4.1.2 Widen the Pedestrian Throughway It is encouraged to extend the width of the standard pedestrian throughway on the western edge into the frontage zone to support a more generous pedestrian realm. 4.1.3 Streetscape Elements Streetscape elements should include: •Street trees that can create a connective canopy at full maturity •Lighting and wayfinding that provides a neighborhood branding/identity opportunity •Seating/rest areas for residents and commuters •Green Stormwater Infrastructure in the setbacks, landscape/furniture zone, and if space allows, the separated buffered bike lane. Standards: Table 8 Park Boulevard Street Design 74 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 120     Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 10’2’ 59’ 10’5’8’20’4.5’2’5’4.5’8’5’ Clear Walkway Bike Lane Drive Lane Bike LaneDrive Lane Clear Walkway Tree Bed Tree BedBu f f e r Bu f f e r Setback ST R E E T S Figure 56 Typical Park Boulevard Section 75 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 121     4.2 Olive Avenue Olive Avenue is a priority east-west pedestrian and bicycle street that creates a direct link between the commercial activity on El Camino Real with the multi-modal mobility on Park Boulevard. Olive Avenue has two distinct street designs: Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street, the street is configured to accommodate comfortable sidewalks and two-way vehicle travel lanes. Due to the low traffic volumes and speeds on Olive Avenue, the street is designated as a bicycle boulevard which allows cyclists to ride with traffic. The setback on the northern edge of the street is 20 feet to protect the existing green stormwater infrastructure along the 395 Page Mill property. East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash St r e e t Ash St r e e t Ol i v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d 1 2 Between Ash Street and El Camino Real, the street remains a two-way street. Due to the low traffic volumes and speeds on Olive Avenue, the street is designated as a bicycle boulevard which allows cyclists to ride with traffic. The on-street parking on both sides of the street is maintained. Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 3 Feet Southern Edge: 4 Feet Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard 10 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Lane in Each Direction Parking / Loading 2 Lanes of On-Street Parking Frontage / Setback Northern Edge: 20 Feet (Existing Bioswale) Southern Edge: 12.5 Feet from Property Line Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Olive Avenue except for properties that are abutting Park Boulevard or Ash Street. Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 3 Feet Southern Edge: 4 Feet Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard 10 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Lane in Each Direction Parking / Loading 2 Lanes of On-Street Parking Frontage / Setback Northern Edge: 12.5 Feet from Property Line Southern Edge: 10 Feet from Property Line Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Olive Avenue except for properties that are abutting El Camino Real or Ash Street. 4.2.1 Street Design Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street Between Ash Street and El Camino Real12 Standards: Table 9 Olive Avenue Street Design 76 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 122     Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 59’ 20’8’8’12.5’ On-Street ParkingDrive Lane 10’ Clear Walkway Olive Avenue (Between Park and Ash, Looking towards East) Drive Lane 10’ Existing Bio Retention Setback Tree Bed 4’8’8’ Tree Bed 3’ On-Street Parking Clear Walkway Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 8’12.5’8’10’ Clear Walkway Olive Avenue (Between Ash and ECR, Looking towards East) 8’ SetbackSetback 59’ 8’ On-Street ParkingDrive Lane 10’ Drive Lane 10’ Tree Bed 4’ Tree Bed 3’ On-Street Parking Clear Walkway ST R E E T S Figure 57 Typical Olive Avenue section between Park Boulevard and Ash Street Figure 58 Typical Olive Avenue section between Ash Street and El Camino Real 1 2 77 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 123     4.3 Ash Street Ash Street is a quiet, predominately residential street, which provides a critical north-south connection throughout the Plan Area. A desired pedestrian connection across Olive Avenue to Acacia Avenue will provide seamless access from Page Mill Road to public park, Matadero Creek, and existing community amenities such as Bouleware Park. Ash Street has two distinct street designs: Between Page Mill Road and Olive Avenue, the street is converted from a two-way street to a one-way southbound street. This change prevents northbound traffic on El Camino Real from using the neighborhood as a cut-through to travel eastbound on Page Mill Road. The western edge of the street features a wide shared-use path for pedestrians and northbound cyclists. East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash St r e e t Ash St r e e t Ol i v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d 1 2 Between Olive Avenue and Lambert Avenue, the street segment is designed with bi-directional sidewalks and vehicle lanes. The vehicle travel lanes are also designated as bicycle boulevards, where cyclists share the road with vehicles. Pedestrian Clear Zone Western Edge: Shared Use Path: 12 Feet Eastern Edge: 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Western Edge: 5 Feet Eastern Edge: 5 Feet Bicycle Facility Southbound: Bicycle Boulevard 10 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Southbound Lane Frontage / Setback Western Edge: Maximum 5 Feet from Property Line Eastern Edge: Maximum 5 Feet from Property Line Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Ash Street except for properties that are abutting Page Mill or Olive Avenue. Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Western Edge: n/a Eastern Edge: 4 Feet Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard: 10 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Lane in Each Direction Frontage / Setback Maximum 5 Feet from Property Line Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Ash Street except for properties that are abutting Portage Avenue, Lambert Avenue or Acacia Avenue. 4.3.1 Street Design Between Page Mill Road and Olive Avenue Between Acacia Avenue and Lambert Avenue12 Standards: Table 10 Ash Street Street Design 78 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 124     Setback 5’8’ Clear Walkway 4’ Tree BedSetbackSetbackSetback Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Exi s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 5’5’10’5’12’ Shared Path Shared Lane Tree Bed 8’ Clear Walkway Ash Street (Between Page Mill and Olive, Looking towards North) 10’5’10’ Clear Walkway Shared Lane Shared Lane Ash Street (Between Olive and Lambert, Looking towards North) 5’ 40’40’ Tree Bed 8’ Setback 5’8’ Clear Walkway 4’ Tree BedSetbackSetbackSetback Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 5’5’10’5’12’ Shared Path Shared Lane Tree Bed 8’ Clear Walkway Ash Street(Between Page Mill and Olive, Looking towards North) 10’5’10’ Clear Walkway Shared Lane Shared Lane Ash Street (Between Olive and Lambert, Looking towards North) 5’ 40’40’ Tree Bed 8’ ST R E E T S Figure 59 Typical Ash Street section between Page Mill Road and Olive Avenue Figure 60 Typical Ash Street section between Acacia Avenue and Lambert Avenue 1 2 79 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 125     4.4 Acacia Avenue Acacia Avenue is an east-west street, primarily serving as service street for the Plan Area. The street extends from El Camino Real to Ash Street, at which point it becomes a private driveway for the 340 Portage site. The street design for the segment between Ash Street and El Camino Real consists of bi-directional pedestrian sidewalks along with two-way vehicle lanes. On-street parking is maintained on the southern edge of the street. East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash St r e e t Ash St r e e t Ol i v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 4 Feet Southern Edge: n/a Bicycle Facility n/a Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Lane in Each Direction Parking / Loading Southern Edge: 1 Lane of On- Street Parking Frontage / Setback Maximum 5 Feet from Property Line Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Acacia Avenue except for properties that are abutting El Camino Real or Park Boulevard. 4.4.1 Street Design Standards: Between Ash Street and El Camino Real Table 11 Acacia Avenue Street Design 80 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 126     10’8’10’ Clear Walkway Drive Lane Drive Lane 8’ Clear Walkway 8’ On-Street Parking 48’ Setback Setback Tree Bed 4’ Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 5’5’ Acacia Street (Looking towards East) ST R E E T S Figure 61 Typical Acacia Avenue Section 81 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 127     4.5 Pepper Avenue Pepper Avenue is a slow residential street, extending from El Camino Real to Ash Street. The street design supports existing residents with wide, tree-lined sidewalks and two-way traffic lanes. On-street parking is maintained on either side. East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash St r e e t Ash St r e e t Ol i v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 5 Feet Southern Edge: 5 Feet Bicycle Facility n/a Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Lane in Each Direction Parking / Loading 2 Lanes of On-Street Parking Frontage / Setback Minimum 3.5 Feet Maximum 12.5 Feet from Property Line Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Pepper Avenue except for properties that are abutting Ash Street. 4.5.1 Street Design Standards: Between Ash Street and El Camino Real Table 12 Pepper Avenue Street Design 82 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 128     Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 55’ 10’4.5’8’ Clear Walkway Drive Lane Tree Bed 12.5’ Setback On-Street Parking Pepper Ave (Looking towards East) 5’3.5’10’4.5’8’ Clear Walkway Drive Lane Tree Bed 12.5’ Setback On-Street Parking 5’3.5’ ST R E E T S Figure 62 Typical Pepper Avenue Section 83 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 129     4.6 Portage Avenue Portage Avenue is a priority east-west bicycle and pedestrian street which becomes a critical citywide link from Park Boulevard connecting the California Avenue Caltrain and Business District to the existing bicycle infrastructure on Hansen Way to the Stanford Research Park. Portage Avenue has two distinct street designs: Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street is the Portage Avenue woonerf, ‘the front door’ for the public park and the Cannery building. The woonerf, which will be a publicly accessible private street is an integrated, curbless street, shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed vehicles. On-street parking will be integrated where possible to support visitors to the public park. The street incorporates outdoor furnishings such as trees, planters, green stormwater infrastructure and seating to ensure this space fosters community gatherings, events, retail, and other flexible uses. The city may consider a shared-use path on Portage Avenue. East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash St r e e t Ash St r e e t Ol i v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d 1 2 Between Ash Street and El Camino Real, Portage Avenue takes on a more typical street configuration. The street design includes two sidewalks with a wide furnishing zone on the northern edge of the street. Two-way traffic lanes are retained with on-street parking on the southern edge of the street. Due to the low traffic volumes and speeds, this segment of Portage is designated as a bicycle boulevard, where cyclists share the road with vehicles. Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 15 Feet Southern Edge: 8’ Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard 10 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet Frontage / Setback Northern Edge: Maximum 5 Feet from Property Line Southern Edge: n/a Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Portage Avenue except for properties that are abutting Park Boulevard. Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 15 Feet Southern Edge: n/a Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard 10 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet 1 Lane in Each Direction Parking / Loading Southern Edge: 1 Lane of On- Street Parking Frontage / Setback Maximum 5 Feet from Property Line Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Olive Avenue except for properties that are abutting El Camino Real. 4.6.1 Street Design Standards: Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street Between Ash Street and El Camino Real12 Table 13 Portage Avenue Street Design 84 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 130     Setback Setback Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 10’8’10’ Clear Walkway Shared Lane Shared Lane 8’ Clear Walkway 15’ Tree Bed Portage Avenue (Between Ash and ECR, Looking towards East) 8’ On-Street Parking 59’ 5’5’ 10’8’10’ Clear Walkway Shared Lane Shared Lane 8’ Clear Walkway 15’ Tree Bed / Outdoor rooms Portage Avenue (Between Ash and ECR, Looking towards East) 8’ Street Life / Flower beds 59’ Setback Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 5’ ST R E E T S Figure 63 Typical Portage Avenue section between Park Boulevard and Ash Street Figure 64 Typical Portage Avenue section between Ash Street and El Camino Real 1 2 85 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 131     4.6 Guidelines: Streetscape elements of the Portage Avenue woonerf include: •A row of street trees on either side of the main travel way to designate pedestrian priority areas adjacent to building frontages •Signage emphasizing the presence of pedestrians and bicyclists •Textured or permeable pavement designed to slow vehicle speeds and provide stormwater management benefits •Pedestrian-scale lighting •Seating areas •Landscaping and green stormwater infrastructure •Design elements that highlight the community’s vision or character •Public art that will enhance the pedestrian experience and reflect the community’s unique character. 4.6.2 Streetscape Elements 86 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 132     ST R E E T S Figure 65 Streetscape elements like double row of trees, textured pavement, pedestrian scale lighting , and seating encourages a low-carbon, welcoming neighborhood environment. 87 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 133     East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash Str e e t Ash St r e e t Ol i v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d 4.7 Lambert Avenue Lambert Avenue is improved on the northern half of the existing street to enhance the pedestrian experience along the edge of the NVCAP site boundary. The existing vehicular travel lane is narrowed, and on-street parking is eliminated to make space for a wider pedestrian thoroughfare and generous furnishing zone for enhanced bio- retention area and dense canopy trees. Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Rig h t o f W a y C e n t e r l i n e Setback 10’7.5’10’ Clear Walkway Drive LaneTree Bed Lambert St. (Looking towards East) 27.5 3’20’ Shared Path Planter Bed 26’ 3’ Planter Bed Publically Accessible Private Streets Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 10’16’ Shared Path Green Setback 5’ 22’ Pedestrian Clear Zone Northern Edge: 10 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 7.5 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes Westbound Lane 10 Feet Frontage / Setback Northern Edge: Maximum 5 Feet Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Lambert Avenue except for properties that are abutting Park Boulevard or El Camino Real. 4.7.1 Street Design Standards: Between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real1 Figure 66 Typical Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Section Table 14 Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Design 88 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 134     East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash Str e e t Ash St r e e t Ol i v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d 4.8 El Camino Real El Camino Real is improved on the eastern half of the existing street. New development is required to setback by 5 feet in order to provide a wider pedestrian sidewalk and furnishing zone to support a more comfortable pedestrian experience. The configuration of the roadway will be determined in coordination with Caltrans independently of the NVCAP. Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 4’ Tree Bed El Camino Real (Looking towards South) 12’ 8’ Clear Walkway 5’ Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 4’ Tree Bed Page Mill Rd (Looking towards West 12’ 8’ Clear Walkway 5’ ST R E E T S Pedestrian Clear Zone Eastern Edge: 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Eastern Edge: 4 Feet Frontage / Setback Minimum 5 Feet Maximum 10 Feet Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on El Camino Real. 4.8.1 Street Design Standards: Between Page Mill Road and Lambert Avenue1 Figure 67 Typical El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Section Table 15 El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Design 89 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 135     Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 4’ Tree Bed El Camino Real (Looking towards South) 12’ 8’ Clear Walkway 5’ Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Setback 4’ Tree Bed Page Mill Rd (Looking towards West 12’ 8’ Clear Walkway 5’ East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash St r e e t Ash St r e e t Ol i v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d 4.9 Page Mill Road Page Mill Road is improved on the southern half of the existing street to enhance the pedestrian experience along the edge of the NVCAP Plan Area boundary. New development will provide a wider pedestrian sidewalk and furnishing zone to support a more comfortable pedestrian experience. In order to provide a consistent width, the setback for new development will vary based on existing site conditions. The configuration of the roadway will be determined in coordination with Santa Clara County. Pedestrian Clear Zone Southern Edge: 8 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Southern Edge: 4 Feet Frontage / Setback Southern Edge: Minimum 5 Feet Building Entries New development shall provide a primary entry or entries on Page Mill road except for properties that are abutting Park Boulevard or El Camino Real. 4.9.1 Street Design Standards: Between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real1 Figure 68 Typical Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Section Table 16 Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Design 90 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 136     ST R E E T S This page is intentionally left blank 91 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 137     East West No r t h So u t h Park B o u l e v a r d Ash St r e e t Ash St r e e t Ol i v e A v e n u e Ac a c i a A v e n u e Po r t a g e A v e n u e Pe p p e r A v e n u e El Cam i n o R e a l Pa g e M i l l R o a d 4.10 Publicly Accessible Private Connections New publicly accessible connections on private property are intended to support greater porosity and walkability throughout the Plan Area. These connections can break up large ‘super-blocks’ and provide alternative routes for residents to move through the Plan Area. These connections include mid-block paseos in between the Cannery building, pedestrian pathways within the rear setback of new development along El Camino Real, and pedestrian pathways through the 395 Page Mill property. Pedestrian Clear Zone Shared Use Path: 20 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone 3 Feet Vehicle Travel Lanes 26 Feet Emergency Vehicle Access Building Entries New development shall provide a secondary entry or entries on mid-block paseos. Pedestrian Clear Zone Shared Use Path: 12 Feet Landscape / Furniture Zone Rear Green Buffer : 10 Feet Frontage / Setback Rear Setback: Minimum 22 Feet Building Entries New development shall provide a secondary entry or entries on real setback pathways. 4.10.1 Street Design Standards: Mid-Block Paseo Rear Setback Pathway12 Table 17 Mid-Block Paseo Design Table 18 Rear Setback Pathway Design For more information on public easements go to: Chapter 7: Implementation 92 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 138     ST R E E T S Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Rig h t o f W a y C e n t e r l i n e Setback 10’7.5’10’ Clear WalkwayDrive LaneTree Bed Lambert St. (Looking towards East) 27.5 3’20’ Shared Path Planter Bed 26’ 3’ Planter Bed Publically Accessible Private Streets Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 10’16’ Shared Path Green Setback 5’ 22’ Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e Rig h t o f W a y C e n t e r l i n e Setback 10’7.5’10’ Clear Walkway Drive LaneTree Bed Lambert St. (Looking towards East) 27.5 3’20’ Shared Path Planter Bed 26’ 3’ Planter Bed Publically Accessible Private Streets Ex i s t i n g P r o p e r t y L i n e 10’16’ Shared Path Green Setback 5’ 22’ Figure 69 Typical mid-block connection section Figure 70 Typical rear setback connection section 93 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 139     5.1 Public Park 5.2 Matadero Creek Parks and Open Space 5 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 140     NVCAP’s ecological framework takes direct inspiration from the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, putting forward design strategies that collectively expand the definition of sustainability beyond mitigation, adaptation, and resilience, but grounded in regeneration – identifying opportunities for renewal, restoration, carbon sequestration, and growth of the natural environment. The future streets, parks, natural areas, and buildings will restore and enhance habitat and pollinator pathways, and provide flood protection and stormwater management, cleaner air and cleaner water, and healthier habitats for current and future generations. The Ecological Framework includes the following: •Public Park •Matadero Creek Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 141     5.1 Public Park Located in the southeast corner of the Plan Area, the public park is a proposed 2.25-acre public open space. The proposed naturalization of Matadero Creek between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue will serve as the organizing framework for the park’s design and neighborhood destination, inviting Palo Alto residents, employees, and visitors to enjoy access to recreational activities, habitat, and inclusive community programming. Bounded by the proposed Portage Avenue woonerf and Park Boulevard, the proposed public park is seamlessly integrated into the adopted citywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. The curbless design of the proposed Portage Avenue woonerf supports a natural extension of the park, directly connecting to the restored Cannery Building. Standards: 5.1.1 Park Acreage and Dimensions Public park shall be located according to Figure 60. 5.1.2 Circulation All multi-use paths shall form a continuous path connecting all points of entry as illustrated in Figure 60. Programmed spaces shall connect to the Plan Area mobility network via multi-use paths. The multi-use paths network shall create a safe connection across Lambert Street to Boulware Park. The minimum width of the multi-use path shall be 12 feet. 5.1.3 Park Gateways The park shall have five points of entry to connect with the pedestrian and bike mobility network around the park. The character of these gateways to the park is further outlined in Figure 60. 5.1.4 Utilities Electrical service, potable water, and sewer supply shall be provided to accommodate varied events such as movie nights, festivals to serve small park structures; and along the park trails and the Picnic Area. Refer to Chapter 7 for additional information regarding utilities. 5.1.5 Design Approval Once the park becomes a project, the design of the park shall go through the typical City review process including review by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Project Goals Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. 96 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 142     Figure 71 Location of Park Gateways and Circulation Paths Park Gateways Access to park SAFE CONNECTION TO BOULWARE PARK COMMUNITY GARDENS MULTI-USE OPEN SPACE ACTIVE ZONES OBSERVATION DECK Viewing shed Legend PA R K S 97 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 143     Guidelines: 5.1.6 Programming Active Park programming may include but is not limited to a dog park, outdoor fitness area, natural habitat area, community garden, or amphitheater. In addition to active programming, park design should accommodate passive uses such as reading and picnicking. When siting park elements, consider types of activity, periods of use or vacancy, availability of sun or shade, and the differing needs of a diverse range of visitors such as small children, adult athletes, and dog owners. The park should include amenities to support the commercial environment on Portage Avenue such as flexible seating areas, social gathering spaces, play spaces, and public art. Surrounded by development on more than one side, the program elements should be designed to be protected from wind and down-drafts from buildings with strategic tree planting and thoughtful siting of passive programming. 5.1.7 Native Plantings Where possible, pollinator friendly native plants should be incorporated. 98 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 144     Figure 72 An example of passive park programming Figure 73 An example of active park programming PA R K S 99 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 145     5.2 Matadero Creek The Matadero creek will be fully naturalized between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue. The flood channel is widened to a 100 feet riparian corridor serving maximum geomorphic form and ecological function. Leading with resilience in mind, the design offers the creek the capability to convey 100-year flood events. Standards: 5.2.1 Creek Buffer The creek section between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue is buffered by a 100 feet riparian corridor. The Matadero creek riparian corridor shall have a naturalized buffer of 100 feet measured from the mid-point of the creek alignment. To determine the defined parameters for the buffer floodwalls, further City coordination is required. 5.2.2 Circulation The riparian corridor shall maintain public access on both sides of the creek front and be designed to embrace the Matadero creek as a central feature. Lambert Avenue bridge is replaced with a new bridge spanning 100 feet. The bridge shall be located as shown in Figure 63. It shall align with the first mid-block paseo parallel to Park Boulevard on the 340 Portage site and connect Portage Avenue and Lambert Avenue. 5.2.3 Wind Protection As the riparian corridor is 10 feet lower than the surrounding terrain, it should be designed to be protected from wind and down-drafts from surrounding areas with strategic tree planting and thoughtful design of the shared trail routes. 5.2.4 Ecology Impervious surfaces shall be prohibited in the 100 foot buffer as per Figure 65. Plant selections shall reinforce the native and surrounding ecology and promote habitat development. 5.2.5 Gateways Gateways to the corridor shall be at the following key intersections. See Figure 65. Sloped walks, terraces, stairs, or ramps for bicycle and pedestrian circulation shall be a key feature at these gateways, integrated with the flood wall designed to connect across the 10 feet grade change between the public park and the Matadero creek riparian corridor. This will ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists can access both the park and the riparian trail. Gateway access to multi-use paths shall be designed to be ADA accessible to traverse the 10 feet grade change from the public park to the creek. Project Goals Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. 100 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 146     PA R K S Figure 74 The location of the Matadero Creek buffer, circulation, and gateways 100 FEET RIPARIAN CORRIDOR 10 FEET GRADE DROP NATURALIZED CREEK Riparian Corridor Gateways NO IMPERVIOUS SURFACES IN 100 FEET BUFFER Shared Path PUBLIC ACCESS ALONG CREEK Riparian Corridor Buffer Boundary Legend 101 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 147     Figure 75 The Matadero Creek Channel is currently a constrained concrete trapezoidal channel. 5.2.6 Floodwalls Concrete retaining walls shall be designed to allow for vegetation. Refer to Chapter 7 for additional information regarding floodwalls. 5.2.7 Utilities Electrical service and potable water shall be provided along the trails. Guidelines: 5.2.8 Public Art Gateways may integrate public art/structures indicate major entry points, when appropriate. 5.2.9 The Matadero Creek Bridge Observation areas should be integrated with the design of the new bridge. Educational placards should inform the public on the re-naturalization of Matadero Creek.For more information on utilities, go to: Chapter 7: Implementation 102 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 148     PA R K S Figure 76 A naturalized creek has the opportunity to provide multi-use trails and habitat areas. 103 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 149     6.1 Building Heights and Massing 6.2 Retail and Active Frontage 6.3 Portage Avenue Frontage 6.4 Residential Frontage 6.5 Sustainable Design Buildings 6 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 150     NVCAP’s urban form framework champions the design of buildings that are respectful neighbors, human-scaled, and embrace the street. New development will respond to the surrounding context such as building up to El Camino Real while creating a gentle transition to quieter residential portions of the neighborhood. This chapter provides guidance on the desired future built form and sets aspirations for how new buildings will contribute to the character of the NVCAP as it continues to be developed incrementally over time. The key factors that contribute to good building architecture: building mass and bulk appearance; pedestrian-friendly design of the ground level, and visual interest created by architectural articulation, the materiality of the building, and sustainable design. The standards and guidelines have been organized to address these key elements under the following headings: •Building Heights and Massing •Building Frontages •Sustainable Design Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 151     6.1 Building Heights and Massing Building form and massing have a crucial role in forming NVCAP’s built environment as a framework for a comfortable and exciting public realm. Massing strategies reflected in NVCAP’s architecture make associated building uses more legible and well-organized. Massing regulations such as allowable building heights and stepbacks will support the gradual transition from taller buildings along El Camino Real to quieter, residential parts of the neighborhood. Standards: 6.1.1 Building Heights All new development shall conform to Figure 78 for maximum allowable building heights. 6.1.2 Affordable Housing Height Bonus Through the City’s Housing Incentive Program or the State Density Bonus, 100% below market rate projects shall be eligible for additional bonus height (up to 33 feet). 6.1.3 Stepdown to Single-Family Residential Based on the development standards of a adjacent zoning district, new development shall stepdown to existing single family residential. Refer to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as setback and stepback requirements on side or rear lot lines shall vary based on zoning. 6.1.4 Utilities Overhead public utilities shall be buried for buildings with roof edge heights over 27 feet tall. Guidelines: 6.1.5 Cannery Building Roof Datum Any adaptive re-use projects directly adjacent to the Cannery should match the structure’s 36 foot roof datum. Re a r P r o p e r t y L i n e 60 Degree Stepdown for Clear Daylight Zone Single-Family Residential Da y l i g h t P l a n e High/Medium Density Mixed-Use Figure 77 An example of a daylight plane requirement for mixed-use development stepping down to single family residential neighborhoods. 106 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 152     BU I L D I N G S Figure 78 Allowable Height Map 107 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 153     6.2 Retail and Active Use Frontage Ground floor retail and other active uses enliven and activate streetscapes, enhancing the public interface between new buildings and the sidewalk. Within the Plan Area, the highest concentration of retail and active uses are located along El Camino Real. These ground floor spaces are designed to accommodate a wide variety of commercial spaces including local shops, cafes, maker spaces, co-working spaces, and professional services. The following uses qualify as active: •Neighborhood-serving retail that provides goods and services that people would frequently use to take care of their personal and household needs. Examples include grocery stores, drug stores, eating and drinking establishments, dry cleaners, hair salons, etc. •Professional services with regular customers such as dentists that are 5,000 sq. ft. or less; •Public uses including a community room and daycare; •Building lobbies; •Spaces accessory to residential uses, such as fitness rooms, workspaces, leasing offices, shared kitchens, mail rooms, and Class I bicycle parking facilities with direct access to the sidewalk or street. •Building frontage for mechanical equipment, transformer doors, parking garage entrances, exit stairs, and other facilities necessary to the operation of the building are excluded from this requirement. Standards: 6.2.1 El Camino Real Active Frontage Ground floor active uses shall be required along all new development fronting El Camino Real. Refer to Section 2.3 for a map of ground floor edges. 6.2.2 Ground Floor Retail Height Ground floor retail floor to ceiling height shall be a minimum of 15 feet. 6.2.3 Objective Standards For Corner Conditions, Primary Entries, Façade Design, and Transparency, new development shall adhere to Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.24 Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards. Guidelines: Figure 79 Retail ground floors provides adequate floor to ceiling heights, transparency, and signage. 108 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 154     6.2.4 Park Boulevard Ground floor active uses should be encouraged for new development fronting Park Boulevard. 6.2.5 Storefront Frontages Storefronts should create a fine grain of variety along each street frontage, expressing the unique identity of each tenant. Where active uses or retail frontages are required or located, the following design standards shall apply: •Exterior windows on the ground floor shall use transparent glazing to the extent feasible. Low-e glass or minimal tinting to achieve sun control is permitted, provided the glazing appears transparent when viewed from the ground level. •Window coverings are not permitted on the ground floor during typical business hours. Where operations preclude transparency (e.g., theaters) or where privacy requires window coverings, sidewalk-facing frontage shall include items of visual interest including displays of merchandise or artwork; visual access shall be provided to a minimum interior depth of 3 feet. 6.1.5 Outdoor Rooms Outdoor rooms notched into the ground floor should be lined with active retail uses and have ample space for spillover for outdoor dining, murals, and retail displays. BU I L D I N G S Figure 80 Ground floors can create notches of outdoor rooms to allow for lively spillover of retail. Figure 81 Active ground floors provide openness, transparency and a connection to the street. 109 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 155     6.3 Portage Avenue Frontage The Portage Avenue Park Frontage Zone represents a human-scaled pedestrian environment punctuated by active programming that enlivens the woonerf along public park. Uses along this frontage will be excellent locations for outdoor dining, and a backdrop for activities at public park. Standards: 6.3.1 Ground Floor Entries Entries shall be flush at sidewalk grade and shall have a minimum of four (4) active doorways per 200 linear feet. Guidelines: 6.3.2 Balconies and Terraces The inclusion of balconies and terraces should be encouraged along the streetwall above the ground floor in the park frontage zone to take advantage of views of the public park and to allow greater programmatic and visual connection between uses in the buildings and the park. 6.3.2 Respect the Cannery Development along Portage Avenue adjacent to the Cannery should emulate the Cannery, taking cues from the materiality and fenestration, and roof datum. Figure 82 Ground floors treatments can emulate the materiality, fenestration, and roof datum of historic structures. 110 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 156     6.4 Residential Frontage The residential ground floor level is characterized by the lower intensity of activity, generally fronting onto streets that are quieter in character, and serves to foster neighborhood connection. Individual residential entries and stoops are an effective way to activate the street and create greater opportunities for social interaction. At the same time, they should provide a sense of privacy and comfortable social distance from the sidewalk. Standards: The following standards are in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.24.020 (Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards): 6.4.1 Ground Floor Entries Entries must be raised above sidewalk grade based on the setback condition from the property line. Ground floor residential units shall have entries with direct, individual access onto a public right of way, open space, or easement. Guidelines: 6.4.2 Stoops Residential units should provide a stoop to create a social distance from the street; home office units are not required to have stoops and may be entered at grade. The design of stoops should balance the need to create privacy for the unit occupant and allow visual connection with the street. Areas between stoops should be planted and can be an opportunity to integrate Green Stormwater Infrastructure. BU I L D I N G S Figure 83 Ground floor residential stoops can provide privacy for residents and neighborhood beautification and Green Stormwater Infrastructure. 111 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 157     Sustainable Design Palo Alto has long been a leader in sustainability, making impressive progress towards reducing its carbon impacts, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and resource consumption. In October 2022, Palo Alto City Council passed an ambitious carbon neutrality by 2030 goal, building on the City’s existing goal of cutting emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030. The following standards and guidelines are intended to support the City’s larger climate action goals to ensure a sustainable and resilient future. Standards: 6.6.1 California Green Building (CALGREEN) Standards Code New development shall adhere to Chapter 16.14 California Green Building Standards Code. As stated in the code, all newly constructed residential buildings must meet CALGREEN Tier 2 requirements. 6.6.2 Bird-Safe Building Design All new mixed-use development that has facades exceeding 30 percent glazing shall utilize bird- safe design strategies. Applicants shall choose from the following materials list: A. Fritted Glass - Ceramic dots or ‘frits’ can be silk-screened, printed, or otherwise applied to the glass surface. This design element, useful primarily for new construction, can also improve solar heat gain control and reduce glare. B. Etched Glass – Glass etching on the surface of the glass can be achieved through acidic, caustic, or abrasive substances. The etched markers should be on the outside surface. C. UV Coated Glass – Some birds can see into the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum of light, a range largely invisible to humans. UV-reflective and/ or absorbing patterns (transparent to humans but visible to birds) are frequently suggested as a solution for many bird collision problems. This approach is not appropriate for situations where the glazing is back lit. E. Permanent Stencils or Frosting - Frosted glass is created by acid etching or sandblasting transparent glass. Frosted areas are translucent, but different finishes are available with different levels of light transmission. An entire surface can be frosted, or frosted patterns can be applied. F. Exterior Apparatus - Fixed exterior screens, grilles, netting, louvers, fins or mullions can effectively reduce visible reflections, provide insulation from strike impact, reduce solar heat gain, reduce glare and provide weather protection. 6.5 Project Goals Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. 112 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 158     Guidelines: 6.6.3 Minimize Heat Gain Building facades should be designed to balance solar access with the need to control heat gain. This could include the following: •Shade windows with architectural features that add visual interest by creating textural variations. •Architectural elements that should be used on south-facing facades. •Fixed shading features, which are designed with a range of projection and spacing dimensions that minimize heat gain and composed with visually pleasing rhythms to avoid monotonous building facades. •Perforated horizontal overhang •Awnings that are well integrated with the overall building façade, especially for retail on the ground floor. •Sliding and folding perforated panels/shutters that double as privacy screens for outdoor private spaces such as balconies and terraces overlooking El Camino Real. •Trellis, Vegetation on windows and green walls allow for minimizing heat gain while additionally bolstering the overall concept of ecological design. BU I L D I N G S •Egg crate façades are not only effective in minimizing heat gain but can create privacy while providing structural supports for planter beds etc. •Shrubs and tree shade wherever possible should augment façade design to minimize heat gain. •Use of low-solar-transmittance glazing to reduce solar gain. •Use window treatments to reduce solar gain. •Reflective and Light-colored outer surfaces can minimally address heat gain but should be employed in combination with the other façade and roof treatments. 113 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 159     6.6.4 Daylighting and Natural Ventilation Buildings should be designed to maximize the use of daylighting for all inhabited interior spaces to provide a high-quality indoor environment, reduce overall energy consumption and reduce exposure to artificial lighting which can negatively impact human health. Buildings that allow for natural ventilation reduce energy consumption for heating and cooling and provide a higher-quality indoor environment. Consideration should be given to optimizing floor plates and unit layouts to allow for cross ventilation. 6.6.5 Roofs Where building roofs are free of solar panels or other sustainability infrastructure, they should be designed to include systems such as vegetated roof covers, plants, green stormwater infrastructure, and roofing materials with high albedo surfaces to reduce heat island effect and slow rainwater runoff. Building roofs should be designed to create usable recreational spaces. Rooftop shading structures mounted with solar panels can maximize the effective use of roof area. Pockets of green roof can help furnish these recreational spaces, and resist heat gain while also serving the concept of ecological design. 6.5 Figure 84 Building roofs can be multi-purpose including providing additional outdoor space for residents. 114 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 160     6.6.6 Renewable Energy Buildings should provide “solar ready” infrastructure such as solar panel standoffs, conduit, and roof water spigots that minimize the cost and effort of adding solar capacity later, as per the California Green Building Standards Code. 6.6.7 Visibility New development should incorporate visible elements of sustainability such as green roofs, shading devices or photovoltaic panels into the fabric of the building, to make visible the building’s energy saving features. New development should include interpretive signage to explain the features of the building which promote sustainability, and to educate visitors and occupants how their behavior can make an impact on overall building performance. BU I L D I N G S Figure 85 Visible elements of sustainability can include design features such as celebrating secure bike parking. 115 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 161     7.1 Entitlement Process 7.2 Environmental Review 7.3 Transportation Infrastructure 7.4 Transportation Demand Management 7.5 Utilities and Infrastructure 7.6 Matadero Creek Civil Infrastructure 7.7 Funding and Financing Strategy 7.8 Implementation Actions Implementation 7 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 162     The implementation of the NVCAP will require action by the public, City departments, regional agencies, and private property owners. The City will take the lead in coordinating areawide actions and establishing funding mechanisms for public investment in programs and capital projects. However, private investment through the architecture, landscaping, and maintenance of individual development projects will be a significant determinant of the look and feel of the Plan Area. Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 163     7.1 Entitlement Process Entitlement Process Development projects in NVCAP typically require two phases of review and approval: the planning/ zoning entitlement phase and the building permit phase. Planning / Zoning Entitlements Phase During the entitlement phase, developers of proposed projects submit applications for review by Planning staff and relevant City departments to determine whether the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, this Coordinated Area Plan, and other associated regulatory requirements, including the Zoning Ordinance. At a minimum in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code 19.10, a Coordinated Development Permit is necessary prior to construction or exterior alteration. Uses that are permitted by-right in a zoning district may only require administrative review by Planning staff. More complex development projects are reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and/ or City Council. Specifics are further outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the recent changes in State Law related to affordable housing may alter the City’s processing and approval procedures. Applicants are advised to consult with the Planning and Development Services Department staff prior to project submittal. Planning fees are required at formal project submittal to the Planning and Development Services Department. Building Permits Phase Following the approval of all required planning entitlements, developers submit detailed building permit applications, which are reviewed by several departments including Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department prior to approval and permit issuance. The payment of building permit fees, and other development impact fees is required prior to issuance of a building permit. 118 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 164     Environmental Review (CEQA) IM P L E M E N T A T I O N This Coordinated Area Plan is accompanied by the Supplement to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 7.2 EIR Findings The EIR includes an Initial Study that concluded that impacts to the following resources would be less than significant: PLACEHOLDER FOR NOW. The Draft EIR also concluded that impacts to the following resources would be less than significant: PLACEHOLDER FOR NOW. Finally, the Draft SEIR identified PLACEHOLDER FOR NOW. As a result, individual projects consistent with the coordinated area plan PLACEHOLDER FOR NOW. 119 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 165     7.3 Transportation Infrastructure The envisioned street network for the NVCAP will provide an array of high-quality mobility options throughout the site. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be designed for people of all ages and abilities, and accessible paths to transit will include wayfinding signage and other amenities. Streets and intersections will be designed to prioritize local circulation and access, and to encourage low vehicle speeds. The planned improvements will be fully integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure seamless connections for all users. The mobility elements described in this section include the following: •Pedestrian realm •Bike network •Gateway intersections •Transit access •Vehicle circulation and parking •Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies Pedestrian Realm A well-designed, integrated pedestrian network is a vital component of the NVCAP. This section outlines a range of design strategies for a safe, attractive, and inviting public realm. It includes pedestrian-focused recommendations for: •Street design •Public realm elements (landscaping, amenities, etc.) •First/Last mile transit connections Pedestrian-Friendly Street Design The NVCAP includes a fully connected, ADA- accessible sidewalk network throughout the project site. Intersections will be enhanced with appropriate crossing treatments and traffic control to maximize pedestrian safety and access. Specific design treatments for the intersections within the NVCAP are provided in Section 7.4: Gateway Intersections. As vehicle volumes and speeds are key factors of the pedestrian experience, a series of traffic calming interventions are described in Section 7.6: Vehicle Circulation and Parking. Local disability organizations can provide resources to ensure both neighborhood and city-wide design guidelines are inclusive of all community members and reflect best practices. 120 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 166     Public Realm and Pedestrian Amenities Central to the vision for a re-imagined North Ventura neighborhood is a shared street, or “woonerf,” along Portage Avenue. Woonerf (“street for living”) is a Dutch term for an integrated, common space shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed motor vehicles. They typically have no curbs or sidewalks, and vehicles are slowed by trees, planters, parking areas, and other obstacles in the street. In addition to becoming a great space for walking and bicycling, the Portage Avenue woonerf can provide a placemaking space for community gatherings, events, retail, and other flexible uses. Design elements of the Portage Avenue woonerf include: •A row of street trees on either side of the main travel way to designate pedestrian priority areas adjacent to building frontages. •Signage emphasizing the presence of pedestrians and bicyclists. •Textured or permeable pavement designed to slow vehicle speeds and provide stormwater management benefits. •Pedestrian-scale lighting •Seating areas •Landscaping and Green Stormwater Infrastructure •Design elements that highlight the community’s vision or character. Other public realm and pedestrian amenities that should be included throughout the neighborhood include: •Visually inviting and maintained ground floor frontage. •Drought-resistant landscaping that is aligned with City guidelines. •Trees and other forms of shade to provide refuge from the sun. •Green Stormwater Infrastructure, such as permeable pavement, bioretention and other types. •Pedestrian-scaled lighting •Signage and wayfinding, with designs unique to North Ventura that reflect landmark destinations in the neighborhood, to provide navigation to key destinations. •Flexible and fixed street furniture •Public art installations that will enhance the pedestrian experience and reflect the community’s unique character. First/Last Mile Transit Connections Safe and accessible walking routes to the California Avenue Caltrain Station and the bus stops along El Camino Real are a key strategy to provide convenient alternatives to driving. Currently, the two direct walking and bicycling routes to the California Avenue Caltrain Station are via El Camino Real and Park Boulevard. El Camino Real’s auto-oriented design deters many people from walking or bicycling alongside it. While there are long term plans to transform the street, opportunities to enhance the route along Park Boulevard should be pursued in the near- term. Recommendations include: •Pedestrian-scaled lighting •Wider sidewalks •Wayfinding signage •Buffered bike lanes •Collaborating with developers to restrict new curb cuts, close old ones, and design for activated ground floor frontages. In addition, installing a signalized crosswalk at Page Mill Road/ Ash Street will open another accessible route to the Caltrain Station. IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 121 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 167     Bike Network The NVCAP will feature a high quality, “low- stress” bikeway network that will be comfortable for people of all ages and abilities to use. The proposed network will be integrated into the citywide network to ensure safe, convenient connections to the adjacent neighborhoods. This will be achieved by selecting bicycle facilities that prioritize safety and comfort based on vehicle speeds and volumes, and with intersections that have appropriate bike-specific crossing treatments and traffic control. Wayfinding signage and ample bicycle parking are also integral elements of the network. The bicycle network will support a range of users, including scooters, e-bikes, and other micromobility devices. The low-stress bike network will include separated bicycle lanes on busier streets, bicycle boulevards on calmer neighborhood streets, and well-designed intersections throughout the project plan. Opportunities for shared-use paths and a woonerf are also identified. Shared-Use Paths are off-street two-way bikeways physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and used by people bicycling, walking, and other non-motorized users. Separated Bike Lanes are dedicated bikeways that combine the user experience of a multi- use path but are located on a street. They are physically distinct from the sidewalk and separated from motor vehicle traffic by physical objects such as parked vehicles, a curb, or posts. Buffered Bike Lanes provide dedicated on-street space for bicyclists, delineated with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane. Bicycle Boulevards are streets with low vehicle volumes and speeds, designated and designed to prioritize bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures to discourage vehicle cut-through trips and include safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterials. Support Facilities Facilities that support bicycle travel should be incorporated at various locations throughout the NVCAP. These include: •Wayfinding signage along the bicycle network that provides information on routes, destinations, and distances. •Bicycle parking: expand the availability of sidewalk bicycle parking, secure long-term bicycle parking, and install end-of-trip facilities at transit stops along El Camino Real and at the California Avenue Caltrain Station. These may be in the form of outdoor bicycle racks, indoor or outdoor bicycle lockers, or indoor bicycle parking cages for each tenant. •Shower facilities and lockers at places of employment. Gateway Intersections The intersections surrounding the NVCAP site will be enhanced to improve access, safety, and connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. This is particularly important for pedestrian and bicycle safety, as the current intersections’ designs largely prioritize vehicular speed and access. New design guidance and signal technology advancements offer options for improved intersection interactions between people walking, biking, and driving. In particular, intersections on the bicycle network with a high potential for conflicts between bicycles and vehicles must be designed thoughtfully. The design toolbox for NVCAP intersection enhancements includes: •High visibility, marked crosswalks •Raised crosswalks •Advance stop bars and yield lines •Daylighting to improve sightlines by removing parking adjacent to the intersection •ADA-accessible, bi-directional curb ramps •Curb extensions or bulb-outs 7.3 122 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 168     •Bicycle detection and markings to indicate the position and path for bicyclists to cross the intersection •Traffic signals •Accessible pedestrian signals at intersections with clear markings, audio, and Braille messaging •Leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections for pedestrians to establish their presence in the crosswalks before vehicles proceed. Figure 86 Map of Conceptual Gateway Intersection Design Improvements IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 123 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 169     North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Document: January 2023 7  Daylighting to improve sightlines by removing parking adjacent to the intersection  ADA-accessible, bi-directional curb ramps  Curb extensions or bulb-outs  Bicycle detection and markings to indicate the position and path for bicyclists to cross the intersection  Traffic signals  Accessible pedestrian signals at intersections with clear markings, audio, and Braille messaging  Leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections for pedestrians to establish their presence in the crosswalks before vehicles proceed Site-specific recommendations are provided for each intersection. 1. El Camino Real/Page Mill Road The intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road will be redesigned with specific transit, pedestrian and bicycle elements. The eastbound right turn slip lane from Page Mill Road to El Camino Real will be demolished, tightening the turning radius, and thereby reducing vehicular turn speeds and pedestrian crossing distances. Separated bicycle lanes will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on El Camino Real, and they will also receive dedicated signal phasing to reduce conflicts with right-turning vehicles when crossing Page Mill Road. Red pavement markings will also indicate that buses can use the right-turn lanes to proceed forward across the intersection to far side bus stops with new transit boarding islands. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road The intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road will be redesigned with specific transit, pedestrian and bicycle elements. The eastbound right turn slip lane from Page Mill Road to El Camino Real will be removed, tightening the turning radius, and thereby reducing vehicular turn speeds and pedestrian crossing distances. Separated bicycle lanes will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on El Camino Real, and they will also receive dedicated signal phasing to reduce conflicts with right-turning vehicles when crossing Page Mill Road. Red pavement markings will also indicate that buses can use the right-turn lanes to proceed forward across the intersection to far side bus stops with new transit boarding islands. Figure 87 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road Conceptual Intersection Design ADA Ramp Bus Lane Sidewalk Bicycle Lane Legend 1 7.3 124 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 170     ADA Ramp Bus Lane Sidewalk Bicycle Lane Legend El Camino Real and Olive Avenue The intersection of El Camino Real and Olive Avenue will be redesigned with high visibility marked crosswalks and bicycle elements will be painted across all approaches. While a traffic signal is not proposed for this intersection, other strategies should be explored to ensure improved pedestrian access and safety across El Camino Real. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Document: January 2023 8 2. El Camino Real/Olive Avenue A traffic signal is planned for this intersection to improve pedestrian access and safety across El Camino Real. High visibility marked crosswalks will be painted across all approaches. The signal timing will be coordinated with nearby intersections. 3. El Camino Real/Portage Avenue/Hansen Way Both slip lanes entering and exiting Hansen Way from El Camino Real will be closed and redesigned to include a dedicated bicycle cut-out to cross El Camino Real. Separated bicycle lanes will provide dedicated space to cyclists along El Camino Real. The existing northbound bus stop will be relocated to the far side of Portage Avenue with dedicated boarding islands separating transit users from cyclists. All existing crosswalks will be repainted to be high visibility, and the existing crosswalk at Portage Avenue will be straightened across El Camino Real. Portage Avenue is currently proposed to be bicycle boulevard and woonerf. Alternatively, a two-way bikeway on Portage Avenue from Park Boulevard to El Camino Real may alter the final design of this intersection. Figure 88 El Camino Real and Olive Avenue Conceptual Intersection Design ADA Ramp Sidewalk Bicycle Lane Legend 2 IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 125 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 171     El Camino Real and Portage Avenue / Hansen Way Both slip lanes entering and exiting Hansen Way from El Camino Real will be closed and redesigned to include a dedicated bicycle cut-out to cross El Camino Real. Separated bicycle lanes will provide dedicated space to cyclists along El Camino Real. The existing northbound bus stop will be relocated to the far side of Portage Avenue with dedicated boarding islands separating transit users from cyclists. All existing crosswalks will be repainted to be high visibility, and the existing crosswalk at Portage Avenue will be straightened across El Camino Real. Portage Avenue is currently proposed to be bicycle boulevard and woonerf. Alternatively, a two-way bikeway on Portage Avenue from Park Boulevard to El Camino Real may be included in the final design of this intersection. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Document: January 2023 8 2. El Camino Real/Olive Avenue A traffic signal is planned for this intersection to improve pedestrian access and safety across El Camino Real. High visibility marked crosswalks will be painted across all approaches. The signal timing will be coordinated with nearby intersections. 3. El Camino Real/Portage Avenue/Hansen Way Both slip lanes entering and exiting Hansen Way from El Camino Real will be closed and redesigned to include a dedicated bicycle cut-out to cross El Camino Real. Separated bicycle lanes will provide dedicated space to cyclists along El Camino Real. The existing northbound bus stop will be relocated to the far side of Portage Avenue with dedicated boarding islands separating transit users from cyclists. All existing crosswalks will be repainted to be high visibility, and the existing crosswalk at Portage Avenue will be straightened across El Camino Real. Portage Avenue is currently proposed to be bicycle boulevard and woonerf. Alternatively, a two-way bikeway on Portage Avenue from Park Boulevard to El Camino Real may alter the final design of this intersection. Figure 89 El Camino Real, Hansen Way, Portage Avenue Conceptual Intersection Design ADA Ramp Sidewalk Bicycle Lane Legend 3 7.3 126 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 172     ADA Ramp Sidewalk Bicycle Lane Lambert Avenue and Ash Street A raised crosswalk with advance yield lines will be located on the east side of the intersection. This will provide a direct connection for the proposed path along Matadero Creek between John Boulware Park and the proposed park on the NVCAP site. The segment of Ash Street adjacent to Boulware Park is being removed and will become a part of the park. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Document: January 2023 9 4. Lambert Avenue/Ash Street A raised crosswalk with advance yield lines will be located on the east side of the intersection. This will provide a direct connection for the proposed path along Matadero Creek between John Boulware Park and the proposed park on the NVCAP site. 5. Park Boulevard/Portage Avenue This intersection is the primary access point into the woonerf along Portage Avenue. The intersection will be stop-controlled and have high visibility crosswalks on all approaches. A bike box on the northbound leg of Park Boulevard will provide a space for bicyclists to turn left onto the woonerf. “North Ventura” gateway signage should be installed at the entrance to the woonerf. Figure 90 Lambert Avenue and Ash Street Conceptual Intersection Design ADA Ramp Sidewalk Matadero Creek Legend 4 IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 127 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 173     Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue This intersection is the primary access point into the woonerf along Portage Avenue. The intersection will be stop-controlled and have high visibility crosswalks on all approaches. A bike box on the northbound leg of Park Boulevard will provide a space for bicyclists to turn left onto the woonerf. “North Ventura” gateway signage should be installed at the entrance to the woonerf. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Document: January 2023 9 4. Lambert Avenue/Ash Street A raised crosswalk with advance yield lines will be located on the east side of the intersection. This will provide a direct connection for the proposed path along Matadero Creek between John Boulware Park and the proposed park on the NVCAP site. 5. Park Boulevard/Portage Avenue This intersection is the primary access point into the woonerf along Portage Avenue. The intersection will be stop-controlled and have high visibility crosswalks on all approaches. A bike box on the northbound leg of Park Boulevard will provide a space for bicyclists to turn left onto the woonerf. “North Ventura” gateway signage should be installed at the entrance to the woonerf. Figure 91 Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue Conceptual Intersection Design ADA Ramp Sidewalk Bicycle Lane Legend 5 7.3 128 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 174     ADA Ramp Sidewalk Bicycle Lane Legend Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard Page Mill Road/Park Boulevard was recently redesigned as part of the construction of adjacent development. While vehicle volumes are currently quite low there today, they are projected to increase over time. To support the transition to a more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly neighborhood, additional safety treatments such as leading pedestrian intervals, advance stop bars, and a “bike box” for northbound Park Boulevard may be considered. Page Mill Road and Ash Street A hybrid beacon or full traffic signal and a marked crosswalk should be installed at this location to support pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Page Mill Road. Santa Clara County to determine if a signal or crossing is feasible. IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 129 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 175     Transit Access The North Ventura neighborhood contains two transit stops: a mid-block stop located at the southeast boundary of the site at El Camino Real/ Portage Avenue; and a far side stop located at the southwest boundary of the site at Page Mill Road/ El Camino Real. Four transit operators are located within the site boundaries and an approximately 15-minute walk surrounding the site boundaries: •VTA local and regional bus service, with connections to the California Avenue Caltrain Station, the Palo Alto VA Hospital, the Milpitas BART station, and Eastridge Transit Center in San Jose •AC Transit Dumbarton Express regional bus service between Palo Alto and the Union City BART station •Caltrain regional rail service at the California Avenue station, connecting Palo Alto to San Francisco and San Jose •Stanford Marguerite local shuttle service between the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and Research Park •Palo Alto provides on-demand shuttle service within the City of Palo Alto. Plans to enhance transit access within the North Ventura neighborhood focus on designing intuitive, accessible, and safe routes to transit. Recommendations include: •Wayfinding signage •Enhanced bus stop amenities for passengers •A mobility hub along Portage Avenue Wayfinding Signage Major destinations and their distance, available transit service and other transportation options should be clearly noted on signage throughout the neighborhood. Where possible, signage should reflect a design unique to North Ventura that reflects landmark destinations in the neighborhood. Mediums such as paint, art installations, and other location markers can also be used to communicate relevant information. An informational kiosk may be installed as part of the proposed mobility hub. Bus Stop Amenities Guidance from VTA and AC Transit will ensure that neighborhood bus shelters reflect agency- wide design standards and the latest industry best practices. In accordance with AC Transit’s Multimodal Corridor Guidelines and VTA’s Better Bus Stop Program, the contextually appropriate bus stop enhancements and amenities include: •Bus shelters protecting riders from the elements •Energy-efficient lighting to ensure visibility and enhance safety •Comfortable seating •Digital signage with real-time information informing riders of available service •Posted information with route information and service schedules, available in English, Spanish, and other locally prevalent languages as well as Braille placards •Audio capabilities to communicate real-time information to hearing-impaired riders 7.3 130 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 176     Portage Avenue Mobility Hub Mobility hubs are places in a community that bring together public transit, bike share, car share and other Sustainable transportation modes. The MTC Mobility Hub Program has identified the North Ventura neighborhood as a candidate for a mobility hub. This neighborhood’s proximity to Matedero Park, the California Avenue Caltrain Station, and bus stops on El Camino Real provides important connections to regional transit and micromobility pathways. The neighborhood mobility hub is proposed along Portage Avenue between El Camino Real and the intersection of Portage Avenue and Ash Street. This location is ideal given its proximity to varying active frontage uses as well as the proposed woonerf. The mobility hub will be able to accommodate a range of active transportation and micromobility options. Given the site’s half-mile distance to Caltrain, the mobility hub would be classified as a “suburban or rural hub” according to the site typologies outlined in MTC’s Mobility Hub Implementation Playbook. The available amenities and the design of the mobility hub should reflect the following principles as outlined by MTC and the City’s design guidelines: •Sustainable access and mobility to encourage mode shift. Proposed amenities include: •Transit shelters and waiting areas •Bicycle parking facilities •Shared mobility (bike share, scooter share, etc.) access points •Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure •Designated parking for car share services High-quality customer experience to create a positive experience for transit riders. Interventions such as improving the ease of fare payment through kiosks and vending machines would be the responsibility of transit operators (AC Transit and VTA). Additional improvements relating to information access can also improve the customer experience. •Access to information to improve transit ease of use and customer experiences. Proposed amenities include: •Real-time travel information signage and interactive displays •Area maps and bulletins promoting local amenities and events •Monitoring systems to measure ridership, mobility, security, and public life metrics •Digital and physical wayfinding tools IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 131 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 177     Vehicle Circulation and Parking The proposed vehicle and parking strategies aim to prioritize local circulation and access, encourage low speeds, and determine right-sized parking capacity. Circulation To support local access and mitigate cut- through traffic, Ash Street from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue is proposed to become one- way southbound. This change will help prevent northbound traffic on El Camino Real from using the neighborhood as a cut-through to travel eastbound on Page Mill Road. Vehicular traffic on the woonerf on Portage Avenue is permitted but should be discouraged. Vehicle circulation in this area will be primarily for access to buildings located on the woonerf. Acacia Avenue from Ash Street to Park Boulevard will be a private aisle for accessing the parking garage for research and development use per the 340 Portage Avenue development as well as residential frontage on Acacia Avenue for parking and unloading. Traffic Calming Measures Traffic calming measures such as speed humps and raised crosswalks to maintain low vehicle speeds are recommended along Olive Avenue and Lambert Avenue. A chicane, which is an offset curve to the road, is recommended for Pepper Avenue. To prioritize local circulation and access, encourage low vehicle speeds, and to accommodate emergency vehicles, travel lanes within the NVCAP are recommended to be a maximum of 10 feet wide where possible. To keep traffic volumes on Portage Avenue at a minimum to provide a low stress environment for bicyclists and pedestrians, vehicle entrances to the Portage Avenue woonerf on Park Boulevard and Ash Street should be only wide enough to accommodate one vehicle at a time. Trees or landscaping can be used to create this bottleneck to restrict the flow of vehicles. 7.3 132 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 178     Parking In compliance with AB-2097, no parking minimums are to be set as the neighborhood is near a Caltrain Station. However, there will also be no parking maximums, allowing the neighborhood to follow a market- based regulatory approach. No new surface parking is proposed, and new parking supply should be implemented on the ground or basement levels of new buildings. Where new buildings are not proposed, existing surface parking spaces are to remain to support remaining commercial offices. Street parking is to remain in front of single- family homes on Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue, with no new street parking proposed along new developments. Street parking near intersections should be restricted to ensure large vehicles and emergency vehicles are able to safely make turns. To support the new ground-floor retail and active use frontage in new buildings, short-term parking should be implemented on the ground or basement levels of the new developments. In coordination with jurisdictional partners on the future re-configuration of El Camino Real, ground-level short-term parking should be located along El Camino Real where the highest concentration of retail and active uses is located. Concentrating short-term parking along El Camino Real reduces vehicle volumes traveling throughout the neighborhood, supporting a low- volume environment within the neighborhood. Additional parking management strategies include: •Preferred parking for carpools •Parking time limits •Unbundled Parking •Shared parking locations •Carshare memberships and designated parking spots Once the NVCAP is adopted, City staff will explore the following: •Evaluate as needed future parking strategies to maintain parking availability such as a parking benefit district, pricing options, time-of-day restrictions, residential parking permits, and shared parking. •If hourly pricing is used, then the parking strategy should create targets such that 85% of the spaces are used at any time or such that 15% of the parking supply is available at any time. •Unbundling commercial parking or require the parking to be made to the public. •Parking pricing or a parking benefit district could help support on-demand transit, transportation demand management measures, active transportation investments, transit pass programs, etc. IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 133 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 179     7.4 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies TDM strategies can be effective at encouraging fewer trips made by single-occupancy vehicles (SOV). An effective TDM plan ensures that alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or other forms of shared mobility, are made available to site occupants and nearby community members. TDM enhancements have additional benefits beyond reducing SOV trips, including: •Improving the environment by reducing traffic congestion and air quality impacts produced by new development •Improving transportation circulation and safety conditions for community members •Quality of life enhancements that improve the public realm In addition to alignment with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, various local and State regulations require TDM planning as part of new development activities. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) under Regulation 14 Rule 1 requires that all employers with 50 or more full-time employees provide commuter benefits. State legislation, such as SB 743, requires that certain activities within the City enforce VMT reduction targets, including the design of City impact fee programs and project approval under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition to the development of a TDM plan, North Ventura will need to comply with any City VMT mitigation or performance monitoring and reporting efforts. Program T1.2.3 of the Comprehensive Plan also recommends that any TDM strategies established by proposed development along the El Camino Real Corridor achieve a 30 percent minimum reduction below ITE rates in peak hour motor vehicle trips. Any assumptions and metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of TDM strategies, and for calculating the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by site-specific activities, should be in alignment with adopted city- wide guidance. Resources such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures Handbook can provide guidance on the metrics for evaluating VMT reduction strategies. Recommendations The purpose of including TDM strategies in the NVCAP is to optimize the use of programs that encourage and incentivize alternatives to driving- alone trips. Employers and major residential developments within the North Ventura neighborhood are already eligible to become members of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA). The PATMA provides resources for eligible members, such as free transit passes, rideshare coupons, bicycle trip incentives, and telework guidance. The PATMA can also provide resources for conducting an annual employee commuter survey to gather information on travel behavior. While not required, an on-site TDM coordinator for major employers or residential developments could also support existing PATMA efforts and work with major employers or residential developments to offer additional TDM strategies. 134 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 180     This page is intentionally left blank IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 135 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 181     7.4 Strategy Description Responsible Entity Active Transportation Shared bike or scooter service Conventional or electric, docked or dockless bikes and scooters can increase first-/ last-mile connections and offer alternative transportation Third party operators City staff to determine regulations, applicable geo- fencing Bicycle support facilities Supportive facilities such as short-/long-term bicycle parking, showers, and lockers that increase active transportation trips Developer Major employers or residential tenants Shared Mobility Car share For people who do not own cars, car share can offer vehicle access without significantly increasing GHG emissions and necessary parking. Vehicles can be provided to tenants of certain buildings, or through designated parking spaces such as dedicated on- street spots noted with signage. Third party operators City staff to determine regulations Shuttle service and new stops With increased residential and employment density, additional shuttle stops may be necessary. Major employers or residential developments in the area may also operate shuttle service that would serve the neighborhood. The upcoming City on- demand shuttle service may also necessitate additional designated stops. Stanford shuttle operator City shuttle operator Major employers or residential tenants offering shuttles Parking Electric vehicle charging facilities Encourage electric vehicle usage to decrease GHG emissions by providing necessary charging facilities Developer Table 19 TDM Strategies Menu 136 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 182     Strategy Description Responsible Entity Transportation Program Coordination Membership in the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) Joining the PATMA can provide developers, major employers, or residential tenants with access to transportation resources available for community members. The PATMA also works closely with the City to offer events and other relevant programming. Developer and/or tenants (employers, residential) Carpool resources Resources for organizing neighborhood carpools to nearby major activity centers Developer and/or tenants (employers, residential)* Active transportation incentives Resources such as bike/ scooter share coupons, or bicycle purchase subsidies can encourage active transportation Developer and/or tenants (employers, residential)* Shared mobility incentives Resources such as rideshare discounts, carshare discounts, free or subsidized transit passes can decrease trips made by a single occupancy vehicle Developer and/or tenants (employers, residential)* Promotional materials on transportation offerings (flyers, emails, websites, etc.) Resources advertising alternative modes of transportation can raise awareness to people who primarily rely on their car Developer and/or tenants (employers, residential)* Bulletin boards or kiosks displaying transportation alternatives Participation in City- wide events encouraging alternative modes of transportation Encouraging major employers, residential developments, and community members to participate in City-wide events, such as the annual Bike to Wherever Day, can expose people to alternative modes of transportation Developer and/or tenants (employers, residential)* *If responsible entities decides to join, PATMA can be a facility/ resource provider. IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 137 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 183     7.5 Utilities and Infrastructure This analysis was prepared to provide an overview of the utility infrastructure that serves the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) area, identify existing infrastructure constraints, and provide recommendations as determined during review of the proposed NVCAP land-use plan. As an existing, developed area, the NVCAP area is served by existing utilities. The future NVCAP development will increase water demand and sewer generation. This may require upgrades to aging infrastructure and/or new utilities to meet the needs of the increased development intensities. The existing conditions are described in detail in the Infrastructure Report prepared by BKF Engineers, dated December 10, 2018. Development Program Summary The existing program consists of multiple land- use types, including commercial, multi-family residential, research/office park, light industrial, single family residential, and neighborhood commercial. Specifically, the existing NVCAP area includes 142 residential units and approximately 870,000 sf of commercial area. The future development program consists of 672 residential units and approximately 615,000 sf of commercial area. This is an increase of 530 residential units and a decrease of approximately 255,000 sf of commercial area. Along with the residential and commercial work, 2 acres of park land is proposed for the development including the renaturalization of Matadero Creek. Utility Infrastructure Storm Drainage Storm drainage facilities in and around NVCAP are owned and maintained by the City of Palo Alto’s Department of Public Works. The Palo Alto models, provided as part of the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan1, split the storm drain system into three parts. The entirety of NVCAP is contained within the Matadero Creek Watershed, which consists of 55 linear miles of pipe (greater than 12-inches in diameter) and four pump stations. The Matadero Creek watershed drains to the San Francisco Bay. Per City of Palo Alto’s records, the storm drain pipes around NVCAP were installed between the 1950’s and the 1960’s, with the exception of the pipes running through the site (between Ash Street and Park Boulevard), which were built in the 1990’s. The City of Palo Alto Storm Drain Master Plan by Schaaf & Wheeler concluded the following about the drainage systems within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan: The Matadero watershed analysis for a 10-year storm event shows flooding occurs at 694 of the 1,373 nodes. The model predicts less than 6 inches of flooding at 353 nodes; between 6 inches and 12 inches of flooding occur at 129 nodes; and more than 12 inches of flooding will occur at 212 nodes. The Matadero watershed analysis above shows that flooding occurs at multiple locations within the NVCAP area during a 10-year storm event and that existing pipes on Page Mill Road and Portage Avenue lack the capacity for a 10- year storm event. The Storm Drain Master Plan recommends multiple capital improvement projects (CIP) be performed near the NVCAP area. Recommended CIP improvements include upgrades to the Oregon Expressway Pump Station and upsizing pipes on Page Mill Road and Portage Avenue. Further discussion with City staff is needed to determine if any of these CIP projects have already been implemented or scheduled. Implementation of these capital improvement projects will improve storm drain capacity compared to existing conditions. However, individual developers within the NVCAP area may be required to upgrade storm drain infrastructure near their project to further improve performance of the storm drain system. 1 City of Palo Alto, Storm Drain Master Plan, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, June 2015138 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 184     Stormwater Management Redevelopment within the NVCAP area is subject to the Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). The third reissuance of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, or MRP 3.0, was adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board in May 2022. MRP 3.0 includes significant changes and additional stormwater management requirements which are outlined in Provision C.3. These requirements become effective July 1, 2023. Under MRP 3.0, parcel-based development or redevelopment is considered a Regulated Project (i.e., triggers requirements) if it will create or replace 5,000 square feet (sf) or more of impervious area. This includes any impervious surface, sidewalk, or street frontage that is created or replaced in the public right-of-way as part of a project. The 5,000 sf threshold also applies to new roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes. For redevelopment projects, the “50% Rule” applies as noted in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) guidance. Projects that alter or replace less than 50 percent of existing impervious surface need to treat stormwater runoff only from the portion of the site that is redeveloped. Projects that alter or replace 50 percent or more of the existing impervious surface are required to treat runoff from the entire site. It is likely that all horizontal and vertical development projects within the NVCAP area will trigger the Regulated Project criteria and be required to comply with MRP Provision C.3. requirements. Projects will need to implement stormwater management measures that collect and treat stormwater runoff from all onsite impervious areas prior to discharge into the City storm drain system. If a Regulated Project creates or replaces less than 50% of the impervious surface within an existing road or public right of way, stormwater runoff from only the new portion of the road must be included in the treatment system design. If runoff from that portion of the road cannot be separated from runoff from the rest of the road, the runoff from the entire surface draining onto the reconstructed portion must be treated. If a project disturbs 50% or more of the existing roadway, the entire road surface must be included in the treatment system design. Treatment measures may include bioretention areas, flow-through planters, or facilities for capture and use of stormwater such as cisterns. With the incorporation of C.3. treatment measures on a project by project basis, dedication of at least two acres of park space, and proposed renaturalization of Matadero Creek, the future NVCAP development is expected to reduce the total impervious surface at the site. This will result in a net decrease of stormwater flow to the City storm drain system and creeks. Implementation of green stormwater infrastructure measures, such as bioretention areas and pervious pavement, within the public streets in the North Ventura area will also slow and reduce runoff to the storm drain system. Wastewater Treatment The City of Palo Alto owns and operates the existing sanitary sewer mains within and surrounding the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan.2 The project’s wastewater will be treated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant that is operated by the City of Palo Alto in partnership with the City of Mountain View, City of Los Altos, East Palo Alto Sanitary Sewer District, Town of Los Altos Hills and Stanford University. The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan currently consists of sanitary sewer mains within each public road and between the dead end of Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard. These existing sewer mains vary in size from 6” to 15”. There are also two parallel sewer mains in Olive Avenue-one 15” and one 8”, which connect to two parallel sewer mains in Park Avenue (one 12” and one 15”). The City of Palo Alto’s Wastewater Map shows that there will be upgrades to existing sanitary sewer mains along the NVCAP perimeter, in El Camino Real, Page Mill Road and Lambert Avenue. According to the City of Palo Alto Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan 2016- 2020, improvements to the existing wastewater infrastructure around the site were implemented in 2018. 2 City of Palo Alto, Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, City of Palo Alto Wastewater Ops, 2016 IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 139 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 185     BKF prepared wastewater generation projections based on the proposed NVCAP land-use and densities. The City of Palo Alto Water Gas & Wastewater Utility Standards state that the proposed wastewater demand shall be based off of the Peak Base Wastewater Flow (PBWF). PBWF is the Average Base Wastewater Flow (ABWF) multiplied by a peaking factor between one and four. ABWF is the average dry weather wastewater flow contributed from residential, commercial and industrial users for the proposed development. The ABWF is calculated using unit flow rates shown in Table 1-1 in The City of Palo Alto Water Gas & Wastewater Utility Standards Section 2730 Wastewater Design and Construction Standards and also shown in Table 20. DRAFT B. Wastewater Treatment The City of Palo Alto owns and operates the existing sanitary sewer mains within and surrounding the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan2. The project’s wastewater will be treated at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant that is operated by the City of Palo Alto in partnership with the City of Mountain View, City of Los Altos, East Palo Alto Sanitary Sewer District, Town of Los Altos Hills and Stanford University. The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan currently consists of sanitary sewer mains within each public road and between the dead end of Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard. These existing sewer mains vary in size from 6” to 15”. There are also two parallel sewer mains in Olive Avenue-one 15” and one 8”, which connect to two parallel sewer mains in Park Avenue (one 12” and one 15”). The City of Palo Alto’s Wastewater Map shows that there will be upgrades to existing sanitary sewer mains along the NVCAP perimeter, in El Camino Real, Page Mill Road and Lambert Avenue. According to the City of Palo Alto Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan 2016-2020, improvements to the existing wastewater infrastructure around the site were implemented in 2018. BKF prepared wastewater generation projections based on the proposed NVCAP land-use and densities. The City of Palo Alto Water Gas & Wastewater Utility Standards state that the proposed wastewater demand shall be based off of the Peak Base Wastewater Flow (PBWF). PBWF is the Average Base Wastewater Flow (ABWF) multiplied by a peaking factor between one and four. ABWF is the average dry weather wastewater flow contributed from residential, commercial and industrial users for the proposed development. The ABWF is calculated using unit flow rates shown in Table 1-1 in The City of Palo Alto Water Gas & Wastewater Utility Standards Section 2730 Wastewater Design and Construction Standards and also shown below. Table 1-1 in The City of Palo Alto Water Gas & Wastewater Utility Standards Section 2730 Wastewater Design and Construction Standards Wastewater generation estimates for the existing and proposed developments are calculated based on the City’s design standards. Wastewater generation estimates are summarized below and account for the entire 2 City of Palo Alto, Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, City of Palo Alto Wastewater Ops, 2016. 7.5 Table 20 Unit Flow Rates for ABWF, GWI, and RDI in the City of Palo Alto Water, Gas, & Wastewater Utility Standards Section 2730 Wastewater Design and Construction Standards 140 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 186     DRAFT NVCAP area. Wastewater generation rates for both the existing and proposed conditions were compared in order to understand the impact the development will have on the existing wastewater infrastructure. The results are summarized in Table X.X below: Table X.X- Existing and proposed wastewater generation for the NVCAP site The proposed NVCAP development will have an average base wastewater flow (ABWF) of approximately 197,000 gallons per day (GPD), a net increase of 46,000 GPD compared to existing conditions. Peak wastewater flow will increase from 416 GPM to 546 GPM, a net increase of 130 GPM. The future NVCAP redevelopment will increase sewer flows compared to existing conditions. According to the City of Palo Alto Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan 2016-2020, improvements to the existing wastewater infrastructure around the site were implemented in 2018. For future projects within the NVCAP area, developers will need to conduct an analysis to determine if the local City infrastructure can accommodate project flows, or if additional improvements to sewer infrastructure are required. BKF to check with the City on what analyses are typically used to assess if a project’s increased sewer flows trigger an upgrade. C. Potable Water and Fire Water The City of Palo Alto’s water comes from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water Supply System (RWS), operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This water supply consists almost entirely of Sierra Nevada snowmelt delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. The water demand for the developed site was calculated by using the assumption that wastewater generation is 95% of water demand for the site. The proposed water demand for the site is summarized in Table X.X below: Table X.X- Proposed water demand for the NVCAP site Wastewater generation estimates for the existing and proposed developments are calculated based on the City’s design standards. Wastewater generation estimates are summarized below and account for the entire NVCAP area. Wastewater generation rates for both the existing and proposed conditions were compared in order to understand the impact the development will have on the existing wastewater infrastructure. The results are summarized in Table 21. The proposed NVCAP development will have an average base wastewater flow (ABWF) of approximately 197,000 gallons per day (GPD), a net increase of 46,000 GPD compared to existing conditions. Peak wastewater flow will increase from 416 GPM to 546 GPM, a net increase of 130 GPM. The future NVCAP redevelopment will increase sewer flows compared to existing conditions. According to the City of Palo Alto Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan 2016-2020, improvements to the existing wastewater infrastructure around the site were implemented in 2018. For future projects within the NVCAP area, developers will need to conduct an analysis to determine if the local City infrastructure can accommodate project flows, or if additional improvements to sewer infrastructure are required. BKF to check with the City on what analyses are typically used to assess if a project’s increased sewer flows trigger an upgrade. Table 21 Existing and proposed wastewater generation for the NVCAP site IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 141 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 187     7.5 Potable Water and Fire Water The City of Palo Alto’s water comes from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water Supply System (RWS), operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This water supply consists almost entirely of Sierra Nevada snowmelt delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. The water demand for the developed site was calculated by using the assumption that wastewater generation is 95% of water demand for the site. The proposed water demand for the site is summarized in Table X.X. Using the same assumption that existing wastewater generation is 95% of existing water demand, the existing peak water demand for the site is 438 GPM. The proposed development will result in a peak flow demand increase of 139 GPM, from 438 GPM to 577 GPM. The SFPUC has adequate supplies to meet its contractual obligation to the wholesale customers (City of Palo Alto) of 184 MPG, through the year 2030. The City has an ISG of 17.07 MGD (or 19,118 SFY). The water distribution system is operated by the City of Palo Alto Public Works. DRAFT NVCAP area. Wastewater generation rates for both the existing and proposed conditions were compared in order to understand the impact the development will have on the existing wastewater infrastructure. The results are summarized in Table X.X below: Table X.X- Existing and proposed wastewater generation for the NVCAP site The proposed NVCAP development will have an average base wastewater flow (ABWF) of approximately 197,000 gallons per day (GPD), a net increase of 46,000 GPD compared to existing conditions. Peak wastewater flow will increase from 416 GPM to 546 GPM, a net increase of 130 GPM. The future NVCAP redevelopment will increase sewer flows compared to existing conditions. According to the City of Palo Alto Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan 2016-2020, improvements to the existing wastewater infrastructure around the site were implemented in 2018. For future projects within the NVCAP area, developers will need to conduct an analysis to determine if the local City infrastructure can accommodate project flows, or if additional improvements to sewer infrastructure are required. BKF to check with the City on what analyses are typically used to assess if a project’s increased sewer flows trigger an upgrade. C. Potable Water and Fire Water The City of Palo Alto’s water comes from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water Supply System (RWS), operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This water supply consists almost entirely of Sierra Nevada snowmelt delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. The water demand for the developed site was calculated by using the assumption that wastewater generation is 95% of water demand for the site. The proposed water demand for the site is summarized in Table X.X below: Table X.X- Proposed water demand for the NVCAP site The NVCAP area consists of existing water mains within the public streets (and between the dead end of Acacia Avenue and Park Boulevard), varying in size from 6” to 12”. The network of piping within NVCAP will need to be evaluated for adequacy on a project by project basis. It is likely that the existing 6” water mains are not able to provide sufficient flow and pressure to meet required fire demands for new construction. Depending on the actual building heights, locations, densities, and construction types, water mains may need to be replaced and upsized to meet fire flow requirements. Table 22 Proposed water demand for the NVCAP site 142 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 188     Recycled Water No recycled water is currently available in the study area. BKF to confirm with City if there is any intent to extend recycled water to this area. BKF to also check if the City has or wants to implement any requirements for new developments to be “recycled water ready” (dual plumbed, site irrigation, etc.). Electrical Utilities Based on the Electrical and Fiber Optic Service Maps provided by the City of Palo Alto (Figures 16 and 17), there are existing electrical and fiber optic lines serving NVCAP. The existing electrical utilities consist of both overhead and underground lines. There are overhead electric lines serving existing buildings on each road within the NVCAP project boundaries. Based on the City of Palo Alto’s 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program, the NVCAP project site is not within an area that the City plans on undergrounding between now and 2023. However, as part of individual development projects’ conditions of approval, the City may require projects to underground all overhead electric lines along their street frontage. The majority of the existing electrical utilities, including a 60KV electric line and a fiber optic backbone line, run along Lambert Avenue and Park Boulevard to an existing substation, “Park Boulevard Substation” at the corner of Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue. The Park Boulevard Substation is not within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. It should be noted that proposed horizontal development will need to address how critical infrastructure will either be maintained or relocated. The underground 60kV lines on Lambert cannot be relocated. Existing equipment that won’t be moved still needs to be accessible for maintenance and clearance requirements need to be met. The utility substation on Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue will need to be fully accessible during construction. Gas Based on the existing underground Map provided by the City of Palo Alto to BKF Engineers on October 29, 2018, there are multiple gas mains servicing the NVCAP project site. The existing gas mains vary in size from 2” to 4”, and run within every public street in the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 143 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 189     7.6 Matadero Creek Civil Infrastructure Definition: Tailwater Condition: the receiving water elevation (or pressure) at the final discharge point of a stormwater management system. The Matadero Creek Channel is maintained by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water). The portion of Matadero Creek running through the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan is contained within a concrete trapezoidal channel, which was built in 1990 from El Camino Real to the Caltrain tracks. NVCAP proposes in concept to renaturalize a section of Matadero Creek that is within the Plan Area. There is an existing concrete flood control channel that flows south to north through the Plan Area. This creek corridor is constrained by existing infrastructure and urban development. The proposed renaturalization would remove the existing U-shaped concrete channel and replace it with a widened, natural channel. The goals of a renaturalization project are to provide community benefits, re-establish riparian ecosystem habitat, and avoid adverse impacts on hydraulic performance and flood risks. The NVCAP Preferred Plan3 supports a widened natural corridor with area available for riparian plantings, creative landscape architecture design, and increased recreation access. This concept is described in detail as Concept 3 in the Matadero Creek Conceptual Alternative Analysis1 prepared by WRA, Inc. This concept includes replacing the Lambert Avenue bridge with a longer span and widening the creek channel from approximately 30 feet wide to 100 feet wide. As described by WRA in Section 9.4 of the Matadero Creek Conceptual Alternative Analysis4: Hydraulic modeling indicates that Concept 3 would increase water surface elevations 3 City of Palo Alto Council Meeting, January 10, 2022. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-min utes/2022/20220110/20220110pccsm-linked-updated.pdf 4 Matadero Creek Conceptual Alternative Analysis, WRA Inc., 2020 in some portions of the project reach by as much as one foot, but decrease water surface elevations upstream of El Camino Real by roughly 0.5 feet. Increases in water surface elevation between El Camino Real and Park Boulevard may be mitigated by floodwalls and no adverse effect would occur further upstream. Concept 3 appears to be feasible from a hydraulics perspective. Where the Matadero Creek channel runs through NVCAP (Figure 93), the existing site has several existing outfalls connected to the channel, with sizes varying from 12” storm drain inlet connections up to 60” storm drain mains. Local stormwater runoff is collected in a series of storm drain pipes and discharged at these outfall locations. Due to the widening of the creek channel, the existing outfalls will need to be relocated or otherwise accommodated in place. Hydraulic modeling by WRA indicates that water surface elevations in some portions of the project may increase by up to one foot. Further investigation will be required to assess if the increased tailwater condition at the creek will adversely impact performance of the outfalls and connected, upstream storm drain infrastructure. An additional study will also be needed to confirm that hydraulic performance at the Park Blvd culvert and Lambert Bridge is acceptable and not worse than the existing condition. The creek widening will require replacement of the Lambert Avenue bridge with a longer span. Currently, a City water main is supported by the existing bridge and spans over the concrete channel. This utility will be impacted by the proposed bridge improvements and will need to be relocated onto the new bridge structure. Service to nearby properties will need to be identified to determine if these properties will be impacted. There are also overhead electrical lines that are supported by poles on either side of the channel. Future development in this area will need to be coordinated with the Valley Water to ensure adequate measures are implemented to reduce impact to the existing channel, and to ensure the project meets Valley Water standards. 144 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 190     DRAFT Figure X.X - Existing Matadero Creek Channel NVCAP proposes in concept to renaturalize a section of Matadero Creek that is within the Plan area. There is an existing concrete flood control channel that flows south to north through the Plan area. This creek corridor is constrained by existing infrastructure and urban development. The proposed renaturalization would remove the existing U-shaped concrete channel and replace it with a widened, geomorphic bankfull channel. The goals of a renaturalization project are to provide community benefits, re-establish riparian ecosystem habitat, and avoid adverse impacts on hydraulic performance and flood risks. The NVCAP Preferred Plan supports a widened natural corridor with area available for riparian plantings, creative landscape architecture design, and increased recreation access. This concept is described in detail as Concept 3 in the Matadero Creek Conceptual Alternative Analysis3 prepared by WRA Inc. This concept includes replacing the Lambert Avenue bridge with a longer span and widening the creek channel from approximately 30 feet wide to 100 feet wide. As described by WRA in Section 9.4 of the Matadero Creek Conceptual Alternative Analysis: Hydraulic modeling indicates that Concept 3 would increase water surface elevations in some portions of the project reach by as much as one foot, but decrease water surface elevations upstream of El Camino Real by roughly 0.5 feet. Increases in water surface elevation between El Camino Real and Park Boulevard may be mitigated by floodwalls and no adverse effect would occur further upstream. Concept 3 appears to be feasible from a hydraulics perspective. Where the Matadero Creek channel runs through NVCAP, the existing site has several existing outfalls connected to the channel, with sizes varying from 12” storm drain inlet connections up to 60” storm drain mains. Local stormwater runoff is collected in a series of storm drain pipes and discharged at these outfall locations. Due to the widening of the creek channel, the existing outfalls will need to be relocated or otherwise accommodated in place. Hydraulic modeling by WRA indicates that water surface elevations in some portions of the project may increase by up to one foot. Further investigation will be required to assess if the increased tailwater condition at the creek will adversely impact performance of the outfalls and connected, upstream storm drain infrastructure. Additional study will also be needed to confirm that hydraulic performance at the Park Blvd culvert and Lambert Bridge is acceptable and not worse than the existing condition. 3 Matadero Creek Conceptual Alternative Analysis, WRA Inc., 2020. DRAFT Figure X.X-Storm Drain Outfalls to Matadero Creek Channel The creek widening will require replacement of the Lambert Avenue bridge with a longer span. Currently, a City water main is supported by the existing bridge and spans over the concrete channel. This utility will be impacted by the proposed bridge improvements and will need to be relocated onto the new bridge structure. Service to nearby properties will need to be identified to determine if these properties will be impacted. There are also overhead electrical lines that are supported by poles on either side of the channel. Future development in this area will need to be coordinated with the SCVWD to ensure adequate measures are implemented to reduce impact to the existing channel, and to ensure the project meets SCVWD standards. Figure 92 The Matadero Creek Channel Today along Ash Street Figure 93 Storm Drain Outfalls to Matadero Creek Channel IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 145 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 191     7.7 Funding and Financing Strategy The NVCAP specifies new public infrastructure and amenities required to support the emergence of a walkable, transit-oriented, mixed- use neighborhood. The funding and financing strategy identifies the primary categories of capital improvement projects included in the NVCAP, and describes applicable funding and financing sources and mechanisms for constructing those projects. Major Project Categories The public infrastructure and amenity improvements identified in the NVCAP fall into five primary categories consisting of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, streetscape, parks and open space, green stormwater infrastructure, and the re-naturalization of Matadero Creek. Funding and Financing Sources and Mechanisms A variety of potential funding sources and financing mechanisms exist for implementing the improvements identified in the NVCAP. This section describes these sources and mechanisms and their potential uses within the Plan Area. In many cases, multiple funding sources will need to be combined to pay for specific projects. Although the terms “funding” and “financing” are often used interchangeably, there is an important distinction between the two terms. “Funding” typically refers to a revenue source such as a tax, fee, or grant that is used to pay for an improvement. Some funding sources, such as impact fees, are one-time payments, while others, such as assessments, are ongoing payments. “Financing” involves borrowing from future revenues by issuing bonds or other debt instruments that are paid back over time through taxes or fee payments, enabling agencies to pay for infrastructure before the revenue to cover the full cost of the infrastructure is available. Potential funding for improvements includes a mix of developer contributions (both required and negotiated, such as via the 340 Portage development agreement), City resources, outside grants, and district-based tools. Funding Source Category Examples Developer Contributions Development Standards CEQA Mitigations Impact / In-Lieu Fees Negotiated Agreements City Resources General Fund Capital Improvement Plan User Fees Outside Grants Regional, State, and Federal Grants District-Based Tools Special Assessment District Community Facilities District Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District Table 23 Funding Source Categories and Examples 146 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 192     Developer Contributions Development Standards: Each new development project will contribute to the NVCAP’s implementation by meeting requirements regulating each project’s land uses, height, density, setbacks, parking requirements, street frontage improvements, pedestrian access, and other requirements specified in the NVCAP. These standards are adopted in the City’s zoning ordinance and must be satisfied for a project to be granted approval. Reimbursement Agreements: If a developer is required to provide additional infrastructure capacity or amenities to serve the entire district, a reimbursement agreement can be established to receive payments from later developers who benefit from these early improvements. This allows for areawide cost- sharing. CEQA Mitigations: Developers may be required to contribute to environmental mitigation measures, both for areawide needs and for their specific development projects. Impact / In-Lieu Fees: Impact fees are one-time fees imposed on new developments to pay for improvements and facilities that either serve the new development or reduce the impacts of the project on the existing community. Fee revenues cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies in infrastructure. The City of Palo Alto already has citywide impact fees for Housing, Community and Public Safety Facilities, Traffic, Parks, and Public Art. All development projects within the Plan Area must meet citywide impact and in-lieu fee requirements. Negotiated Agreements: Community benefits are developer contributions that exceed the baseline features required under development standards, environmental mitigation measures, and impact fees. Community benefits agreements are negotiated with developers individually in exchange for additional development rights. As noted earlier in the NVCAP, a development agreement negotiation is underway for the 340 Portage Avenue site. The developer proposes to provide more than three acres of land for a new public park surrounding Madero Creek and one acre for affordable housing, in addition to monetary contributions to both park improvements and the city’s affordable housing fund. City Resources: General Fund: General Fund revenues include property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and other revenues that are primarily used to pay for ongoing municipal services and operations. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): Infrastructure projects identified in the NVCAP are candidates for inclusion in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, which identifies a range of specific funding sources for capital improvement projects throughout the City of Palo Alto. For example, sanitary sewer and water main replacement projects and fiber optic backbone extensions within the NVCAP area are included in the Fiscal Year 2023 CIP, which plans expenditures for 2023-2027. User Fees: User fees and rates include the fees charged for the use of public infrastructure or goods. It may be possible to use a portion of user fee or rate revenue toward financing the costs of new infrastructure, but user fees are unlikely to be a major source of funding for implementation of the NVCAP. IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 147 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 193     Outside Grants Various federal, state, and regional grant programs distribute funding for public improvements. Because grant programs are typically competitive, grant funds are an unpredictable funding source, and the City of Palo Alto must remain vigilant in applying for grants to implement the NVCAP. Unique grant funding opportunities may become available due to the area’s designation as a Priority Development Area by the Association of Bay Area Governments, and because most of the Plan Area is within ½ mile of a Caltrain station— enabling access to funds directed to transit- oriented locations. However, access to grant funds may be contingent on adopting land use policies that comply with MTC’s Transit-Oriented Communities policy, with particular impacts on the Mobility Hubs and One Bay Area grants describe below. Listing of the former cannery at 340 Portage Avenue in the California Register of Historical Resources may allow that private property to become eligible for State and Federal historic preservation grants and loans, which are not detailed in the table below. However, the more significant preservation benefit would likely be associated with tax incentives, such as the Mills Act, that encourage the private property owner to preserve the resource. These grants and incentives would not be available if alterations to the property make it ineligible for listing. The following table describes outside grant funding sources that may be applicable to public capital improvements as of the passage of the NVCAP; this is not an exhaustive list, however, and new grant funding programs will open during the implementation of the NVCAP. 7.7 Table 24 Examples of Potential Regional or County Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements Program Adminstering Agency Description Eligible Capital Projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open Space Storm Drainage and Flood Control Regional or County Mobility Hubs MTC The Mobility Hubs program funds projects in designated mobility hubs that connect services and infrastructure that promote the use of mobility options besides private vehicles. This includes connecting public transit, bike and pedestrian facilities, and bike or car share facilities. x x x Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) Regional Program: Bicycle Facilities Grant Program Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) The TFCA program, administered by the BAAQMD, funds projects that reduce vehicle emissions. Sixty percent of funds collected go to the TFCA Regional Fund for competitive grants. Eligible projects must demonstrate air quality benefits and reduction of emissions from motor vehicles. One sub-program within the TFCA Regional Fund is the Bicycle Facilities Grant Program, which funds the construction of new bikeways and the installation of new bike parking facilities. x Santa Clara County Measure B: Bicycle and Pedestrian Program VTA Measure B was passed by Santa Clara County voters in 2016. Measure B authorized a 30-year, half-cent countywide sales tax to invest in transit, highway, and active transportation projects. Measure B includes nine different program areas, one of which is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (BPP). The BPP provides funding for bicycle and pedestrian capital projects and planning studies. Priority is given to projects that connect schools, transit and employment centers, and that fill gaps in existing bike/ped networks. x One Bay Area Grant (round 3) MTC OBAG 3 is MTC’s comprehensive policy and funding framework for distributing federal funding. OBAG 3 includes a Regional Program and a County Program. The county programs includes various competitive sub-programs. x x x Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Program MTC TDA funds are derived from a 1/4 cent of the State’s general sales tax. Article 3 of the TDA makes a portion of these funds available for use on bicycle and pedestrian projects. MTC programs TDA funds in the Bay Area. x 148 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 194     ProgramAdminstering Agency Description Eligible Capital Projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open Space Storm Drainage and Flood Control Regional or County Mobility HubsMTC The Mobility Hubs program funds projects in designated mobility hubs that connect services and infrastructure that promote the use of mobility options besides private vehicles. This includes connecting public transit, bike and pedestrian facilities, and bike or car share facilities. x x x Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) Regional Program: Bicycle Facilities Grant Program Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) The TFCA program, administered by the BAAQMD, funds projects that reduce vehicle emissions. Sixty percent of funds collected go to the TFCA Regional Fund for competitive grants. Eligible projects must demonstrate air quality benefits and reduction of emissions from motor vehicles. One sub-program within the TFCA Regional Fund is the Bicycle Facilities Grant Program, which funds the construction of new bikeways and the installation of new bike parking facilities. x Santa Clara County Measure B: Bicycle and Pedestrian Program VTA Measure B was passed by Santa Clara County voters in 2016. Measure B authorized a 30-year, half-cent countywide sales tax to invest in transit, highway, and active transportation projects. Measure B includes nine different program areas, one of which is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (BPP). The BPP provides funding for bicycle and pedestrian capital projects and planning studies. Priority is given to projects that connect schools, transit and employment centers, and that fill gaps in existing bike/ped networks. x One Bay Area Grant (round 3) MTC OBAG 3 is MTC’s comprehensive policy and funding framework for distributing federal funding. OBAG 3 includes a Regional Program and a County Program. The county programs includes various competitive sub-programs. x x x Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Program MTC TDA funds are derived from a 1/4 cent of the State’s general sales tax. Article 3 of the TDA makes a portion of these funds available for use on bicycle and pedestrian projects. MTC programs TDA funds in the Bay Area. x IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 149 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 195     Program Adminstering Agency Description Eligible Capital Projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open Space Storm Drainage and Flood Control State Infill Infrastructure Grant California Department of Housing and Community Development The Infill Infrastructure Grant program provides fund for infrastructure improvements necessary to enable residential or mixed-use infill development. x x x x Transformative Climate Communities California Strategic Growth Council Proceeds from California’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) program. The TCC provides competitive grants for coordinated, community-led development and infrastructure projects focused on achieving multiple environmental, health, and economic benefits within a given community. Examples of eligible projects include affordable housing, transit, bicycle/pedestrian improvements, and urban green infrastructure. The TCC program prioritizes disadvantaged communities that have been most impacted by pollution, as measured by the CalEnviroScreen index. The TCC program offers Implementation Grants and Planning Grants. x x x x Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities California Strategic Growth Council Proceeds from California’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund the AHSC program. AHSC is a competitive state grant program that promotes infill development and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through transportation and land use change. AHSC encourages combined investments in affordable housing, transit, and active transportation infrastructure, with a majority of funds typically awarded to the affordable housing component of a project. x x x Urban Greening Program California Natural Resources Agency Proceeds from the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund California’s Urban Greening Program. The Urban Greening Program provides competitive funding for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other benefits related to reducing air/water pollution and the consumption of natural resources, and/or to increasing green spaces and green infrastructure. Eligible projects include the enhancement or expansion of neighborhood parks, green streets, urban trails, facilities that encourage active transportation, and other urban heat island mitigation measures. The program prioritizes projects that benefit disadvantaged communities, as determined by the CalEnviroScreen index. x x x x Active Transportation Program (ATP) California Transportation Commission/MTC ATP provides statewide competitive grants for pedestrian and bicycle capital projects. Certain trail projects are also eligible if they meet the requirements of the Recreational Trails Program (RTP), a sub-program within ATP. Beyond the statewide competitive grants, ATP funds are also distributed to MPOs. A minimum of 25% of ATP funds must be allocated to disadvantaged communities. x x x Urban Streams Restoration Program (USRP) California Department of Water Resources The USRP funds projects and provides technical assistance to restore urban streams to a more natural state. Funds used for planning only must be used for projects that will serve disadvantaged communities once completed. Matching funds of 20 percent must be provided unless the grant will benefit a disadvantaged community. Examples of eligible projects include installation of green infrastructure such as bioswales, removing culverts or storm drains, and flood protection enhancements. x Land and Water Conservation Fund California Department of Parks and Recreation The LWCF is a competitive grant program focused on creating new outdoor recreation opportunities for Californians. The program funds the acquisition or the development of recreational space. Eligible projects include the acquisition of land to create a new park, a buffer for an existing park, or a recreational/active transportation trail corridor, or the development of recreational features (e.g. sports fields, dog parks, gardens, open space, etc.) x Table 25 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements 7.7 150 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 196     ProgramAdminstering AgencyDescription Eligible Capital Projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open Space Storm Drainage and Flood Control State Infill Infrastructure GrantCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development The Infill Infrastructure Grant program provides fund for infrastructure improvements necessary to enable residential or mixed-use infill development. x x x x Transformative Climate Communities California Strategic Growth Council Proceeds from California’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) program. The TCC provides competitive grants for coordinated, community-led development and infrastructure projects focused on achieving multiple environmental, health, and economic benefits within a given community. Examples of eligible projects include affordable housing, transit, bicycle/pedestrian improvements, and urban green infrastructure. The TCC program prioritizes disadvantaged communities that have been most impacted by pollution, as measured by the CalEnviroScreen index. The TCC program offers Implementation Grants and Planning Grants. x x x x Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities California Strategic Growth Council Proceeds from California’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund the AHSC program. AHSC is a competitive state grant program that promotes infill development and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through transportation and land use change. AHSC encourages combined investments in affordable housing, transit, and active transportation infrastructure, with a majority of funds typically awarded to the affordable housing component of a project. x x x Urban Greening ProgramCalifornia Natural Resources Agency Proceeds from the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund California’s Urban Greening Program. The Urban Greening Program provides competitive funding for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide other benefits related to reducing air/water pollution and the consumption of natural resources, and/or to increasing green spaces and green infrastructure. Eligible projects include the enhancement or expansion of neighborhood parks, green streets, urban trails, facilities that encourage active transportation, and other urban heat island mitigation measures. The program prioritizes projects that benefit disadvantaged communities, as determined by the CalEnviroScreen index. x x x x Active Transportation Program (ATP) California Transportation Commission/MTC ATP provides statewide competitive grants for pedestrian and bicycle capital projects. Certain trail projects are also eligible if they meet the requirements of the Recreational Trails Program (RTP), a sub-program within ATP. Beyond the statewide competitive grants, ATP funds are also distributed to MPOs. A minimum of 25% of ATP funds must be allocated to disadvantaged communities. x x x Urban Streams Restoration Program (USRP) California Department of Water Resources The USRP funds projects and provides technical assistance to restore urban streams to a more natural state. Funds used for planning only must be used for projects that will serve disadvantaged communities once completed. Matching funds of 20 percent must be provided unless the grant will benefit a disadvantaged community. Examples of eligible projects include installation of green infrastructure such as bioswales, removing culverts or storm drains, and flood protection enhancements. x Land and Water Conservation Fund California Department of Parks and Recreation The LWCF is a competitive grant program focused on creating new outdoor recreation opportunities for Californians. The program funds the acquisition or the development of recreational space. Eligible projects include the acquisition of land to create a new park, a buffer for an existing park, or a recreational/active transportation trail corridor, or the development of recreational features (e.g. sports fields, dog parks, gardens, open space, etc.) x IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 151 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 197     Program Adminstering Agency Description Eligible Capital Projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open Space Storm Drainage and Flood Control State Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Caltrans HSIP is funded by federal aid as a core program and was codified under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Job Act. HSIP seeks to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and injuries on public roads. Funds are eligible for work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, so long as the investment is focused on improving user safety for and addresses a specific safety problem. Non-safety related capital improvements (e.g. landscaping, street beautification) cannot exceed 10 percent of project costs. Caltrans requires that projects be consistent with California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. x x Senate Bill 1: Local Partnership Program (LP) California Transportation Commission SB 1, which was signed into law in 2017, is a $54-billion legislative package to fix and enhance roads, freeways, bridges, and transit across California. Funds are split among numerous programs. SB 1 created the LP program to reward jurisdictions and transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees. The LP program includes a formula allocation as well as a competitive component. Eligible projects include a wide variety of transportation improvements – roads, pedestrian/bicycle facilities, transit facilities, and other improvements to mitigate urban runoff from new transportation infrastructure. For the competitive grant program, funds can only be used for capital improvements. x x x Table 26 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements (Continued) Table 27 Examples of Potential Federal Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements 7.7 Program Adminstering Agency Description Eligible Capital Projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open Space Storm Drainage and Flood Control Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railway Administration, and Federal Aviation Administration The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides over $550 billion for the nation’s infrastructure. Estimated apportionments are available for Fiscal Years 2022 - 2026. Funds are available for a wide array of infrastructure needs including those related to public transit, airports, ports, bridges, water systems, and more. Most of the funds will be distributed through state agencies which will be accessible through a range of state grant programs, whereas other funds will be apportioned directly to urbanized areas, and additional funds will be available through federal grants processes. The State of California is estimated to be apportioned more than $35 billion over five fiscal years, and the San Jose urbanized area, which includes Palo Alto, is expected to be directly apportioned $536 million over this same time period. x x x 152 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 198     ProgramAdminstering AgencyDescription Eligible Capital Projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open Space Storm Drainage and Flood Control State Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) CaltransHSIP is funded by federal aid as a core program and was codified under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Job Act. HSIP seeks to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and injuries on public roads. Funds are eligible for work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, so long as the investment is focused on improving user safety for and addresses a specific safety problem. Non-safety related capital improvements (e.g. landscaping, street beautification) cannot exceed 10 percent of project costs. Caltrans requires that projects be consistent with California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. x x Senate Bill 1: Local Partnership Program (LP) California Transportation Commission SB 1, which was signed into law in 2017, is a $54-billion legislative package to fix and enhance roads, freeways, bridges, and transit across California. Funds are split among numerous programs. SB 1 created the LP program to reward jurisdictions and transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees. The LP program includes a formula allocation as well as a competitive component. Eligible projects include a wide variety of transportation improvements – roads, pedestrian/bicycle facilities, transit facilities, and other improvements to mitigate urban runoff from new transportation infrastructure. For the competitive grant program, funds can only be used for capital improvements. x x x ProgramAdminstering AgencyDescription Eligible Capital Projects Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open Space Storm Drainage and Flood Control Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railway Administration, and Federal Aviation Administration The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides over $550 billion for the nation’s infrastructure. Estimated apportionments are available for Fiscal Years 2022 - 2026. Funds are available for a wide array of infrastructure needs including those related to public transit, airports, ports, bridges, water systems, and more. Most of the funds will be distributed through state agencies which will be accessible through a range of state grant programs, whereas other funds will be apportioned directly to urbanized areas, and additional funds will be available through federal grants processes. The State of California is estimated to be apportioned more than $35 billion over five fiscal years, and the San Jose urbanized area, which includes Palo Alto, is expected to be directly apportioned $536 million over this same time period. x x x IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 153 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 199     7.7 District-Based “Value Capture” Tools Land-based financing tools are typically associated with new real estate development to generate benefit-based special assessment revenues or property tax revenues to finance improvements through bond repayment or paying for improvements over time. District- based tools provide a stable revenue stream while ensuring that properties benefitting from improvements also contribute to those public investments. The table below describes the three primary types of district-based funding and financing tools. Note that assessment districts and community facilities districts primarily capture additional funding from private entities, while the enhanced infrastructure financing district reinvests growth in public property tax revenues within the district. If a district-based tool is utilized, the boundaries do not necessarily need to align with the NVCAP Plan Area boundaries. Table 28 Summary of Major District-Based Value Capture Tools Funding Tools Description Uses Considerations Special Assessment Districts Additional assessment against a range of participants, depending on the type of district and relative benefit received. Examples include: Landscaping and Lighting District, Community Benefit District, Business Improvement District. Most useful for funding ongoing operations and maintenance. Requires simple majority vote of paying stakeholders. Increases costs and risk for paying stakeholders. Stakeholders need to perceive a clear benefit for themselves. Impacts paying stakeholders’ overall ability to support other taxes, fees, and community benefits. Little financial risk to the City or public agencies; could lead to increased tax revenue based on private reinvestment. Additional City staff time to administer districts could offset some gains. Community Facilities District (Mello-Roos) Additional assessment on property, levied and varied based on a selected property characteristic (excluding property value). Financing infrastructure improvements, development of public facilities; also, ongoing operations and maintenance. Requires approval of 2/3 of property owners (by land area) if there are fewer than 12 registered voters residing in the district. Boundaries can include non-contiguous parcels. Fees can be proportionally subdivided and passed on to future property / home owners. Increases costs and risk for landowners and homeowners if fees dissuade buyers or reduce achievable sales prices. Impacts paying stakeholders’ overall ability to support other taxes, fees, and community benefits. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Diverts a portion of future municipal General Fund property tax revenues generated within the district to help fund infrastructure projects. Climate resilience districts are a type of EIFD specifically intended to fund climate projects such as addressing sea level rise. Financing infrastructure improvements, development of public facilities, affordable housing development. Formation and bond issuance does not require a local vote. Does not cost individual property owners additional fees and taxes. Does not divert revenues from schools. Reduces future General Fund revenues by restricting use of the district’s future property tax revenue growth. 154 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 200     Table 28 Summary of Major District-Based Value Capture Tools Funding ToolsDescription Uses Considerations Special Assessment Districts Additional assessment against a range of participants, depending on the type of district and relative benefit received. Examples include: Landscaping and Lighting District, Community Benefit District, Business Improvement District. Most useful for funding ongoing operations and maintenance. Requires simple majority vote of paying stakeholders. Increases costs and risk for paying stakeholders. Stakeholders need to perceive a clear benefit for themselves. Impacts paying stakeholders’ overall ability to support other taxes, fees, and community benefits. Little financial risk to the City or public agencies; could lead to increased tax revenue based on private reinvestment. Additional City staff time to administer districts could offset some gains. Community Facilities District (Mello-Roos) Additional assessment on property, levied and varied based on a selected property characteristic (excluding property value). Financing infrastructure improvements, development of public facilities; also, ongoing operations and maintenance. Requires approval of 2/3 of property owners (by land area) if there are fewer than 12 registered voters residing in the district. Boundaries can include non-contiguous parcels. Fees can be proportionally subdivided and passed on to future property / home owners. Increases costs and risk for landowners and homeowners if fees dissuade buyers or reduce achievable sales prices. Impacts paying stakeholders’ overall ability to support other taxes, fees, and community benefits. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Diverts a portion of future municipal General Fund property tax revenues generated within the district to help fund infrastructure projects. Climate resilience districts are a type of EIFD specifically intended to fund climate projects such as addressing sea level rise. Financing infrastructure improvements, development of public facilities, affordable housing development. Formation and bond issuance does not require a local vote. Does not cost individual property owners additional fees and taxes. Does not divert revenues from schools. Reduces future General Fund revenues by restricting use of the district’s future property tax revenue growth. IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 155 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 201     7.7 Infrastructure Improvements and Applicable Funding Sources The following table describes the applicability of various funding sources to the improvement needs identified in the NVCAP. Funding availability for improvements within the Plan Area will vary based on development activity, economic conditions, and availability of grants. Table 29 Infrastructure Improvements and Applicable Funding Sources in the NVCAP Developer Contributions City Resources District Based Outside Sources Development Standards CEQA Mitiga- tion Impact and In- Lieu Fees Negotiated Agreements General Fund Capital Im- provement Plan User Fees CFD EIFD Special Assess- ment District Grants (Fed- eral, Regional, State) Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure, Streetscape Improvements Public Right of Way Improvements X X X X X X X X X Intersection Improvements X X X X X X X X X Parks and Open Space Land Acquisition X X X X X X Construction of New Parks or Plazas X X X X X X Matadero Creek Re-Naturalization Land Acquisition X X X X X X Construction of New Infrastructure X X X X X X X Utilities District-wide: Stormwater, Water, and Sewer Improvements X X X X X X X X On-site/Project Specific: Stormwater, Water, and Sewer Improvements X X X X 156 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 202     Developer Contributions City Resources District Based Outside Sources Development Standards CEQA Mitiga- tion Impact and In- Lieu Fees Negotiated Agreements General Fund Capital Im- provement Plan User Fees CFD EIFD Special Assess- ment District Grants (Fed- eral, Regional, State) Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure, Streetscape Improvements Public Right of Way Improvements XXXX X X X X X Intersection ImprovementsXXXXX X X X X Parks and Open Space Land AcquisitionXX X X X X Construction of New Parks or Plazas XX X X X X Matadero Creek Re-Naturalization Land AcquisitionXX X X X X Construction of New Infrastructure XX X X X X X Utilities District-wide: Stormwater, Water, and Sewer Improvements XXX X X X X X On-site/Project Specific: Stormwater, Water, and Sewer Improvements XXXX IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 157 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 203     7.8 Implementation Actions Plan policies in the preceding chapters will be implemented by developers, property owners, and the City over the course of the Plan horizon, many because of development applications. However, certain policies require implementation that must be initiated by City staff and/or coordinated with other public agencies. Table 30 summarizes proactive steps needed to implement the NVCAP, agencies responsible for implementation, and the expected timeframe for each action. Related policies and goals from preceding chapters for each implementation action are also referenced. Following Plan Adoption actions are anticipated to completed directly following the adoption of the NVCAP. •Ongoing actions are expected to be implemented throughout the planning period. •Short-term actions are actions that are expected to be completed within 0 to 4 years from plan adoption. •Mid-term actions are anticipated to be implemented within 5 to 9 years from plan adoption. •Long-term actions are expected to be completed between 10 to 20 years from plan adoption. Table 30 Implementation Actions in the NVCAP Implementation Action Number Action Description City Department or Public Agency Responsible Timeframe Land Use and Zoning IM 1 Field questions, facilitate desired project design, and proactively reach out to property owners and local brokers to identify opportunities for investment and lot consolidation and to promote the vision of the Plan. Planning Ongoing Open Space IM 2 Renaturalize Matadero Creek: Take actions to implement a concept for Matadero creek that will fully naturalize (removal of concrete channel) between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue. The flood channel is widened up to a 100 feet riparian corridor serving maximum geomorphic form and ecological function. Multiple Long-Term IM 3 Public Park: Take actions to acquire, plan and implement the vision for a public park adjacent to Matadero Creek. Multiple Long-Term Street Improvements IM 4 Wayfinding Signs: Explore a program to design and implement a wayfinding sign program as an effective tool to celebrate history and provide a clear and predictable navigation for residents, visitors and employees. Multiple Ongoing IM 5 Woonerf: Explore and implement a concept for a woonerf that may either be a private or public/private partnership to implement a concept that integrates vehicular, pedestrian and traffic calming elements for the segment of Portage Avenue between Ash Street and Park Boulevard. Multiple Ongoing Historic Preservation IM 6 Explore within the first year after adoption of the Plan, the initiation of California or National Register and/or local Inventory as appropriate/as determined by Council for the cannery and the Ash office building. Planning Short-Term Parking Management IM 7 Evaluate as needed future parking strategies to maintain parking availability such as a parking benefit district, pricing options, time-of-day restrictions, Residential Parking Permits, and shared parking. Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long- Term IM 8 If hourly pricing is used, then explore a strategy that creates targets such that 85% of the spaces are used at any time OR such that 15% of the parking supply is available at any time. Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long- Term 158 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 204     Table 30 Implementation Actions in the NVCAP Implementation Action Number Action Description City Department or Public Agency Responsible Timeframe Land Use and Zoning IM 1Field questions, facilitate desired project design, and proactively reach out to property owners and local brokers to identify opportunities for investment and lot consolidation and to promote the vision of the Plan. Planning Ongoing Open Space IM 2Renaturalize Matadero Creek: Take actions to implement a concept for Matadero creek that will fully naturalize (removal of concrete channel) between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue. The flood channel is widened up to a 100 feet riparian corridor serving maximum geomorphic form and ecological function. Multiple Long-Term IM 3Public Park: Take actions to acquire, plan and implement the vision for a public park adjacent to Matadero Creek. Multiple Long-Term Street Improvements IM 4Wayfinding Signs: Explore a program to design and implement a wayfinding sign program as an effective tool to celebrate history and provide a clear and predictable navigation for residents, visitors and employees. Multiple Ongoing IM 5Woonerf: Explore and implement a concept for a woonerf that may either be a private or public/private partnership to implement a concept that integrates vehicular, pedestrian and traffic calming elements for the segment of Portage Avenue between Ash Street and Park Boulevard. Multiple Ongoing Historic Preservation IM 6Explore within the first year after adoption of the Plan, the initiation of California or National Register and/or local Inventory as appropriate/as determined by Council for the cannery and the Ash office building. Planning Short-Term Parking Management IM 7Evaluate as needed future parking strategies to maintain parking availability such as a parking benefit district, pricing options, time-of-day restrictions, Residential Parking Permits, and shared parking. Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long- Term IM 8If hourly pricing is used, then explore a strategy that creates targets such that 85% of the spaces are used at any time OR such that 15% of the parking supply is available at any time. Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long- Term IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 159 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 205     Implementation Action Number Action Description City Department or Public Agency Responsible Timeframe IM 9 Explore unbundling commercial parking or require the parking to be made to the public.Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long- Term IM 10 Explore a parking pricing or a parking benefit district that could help support on-demand transit, transportation demand management measures, active transportation investments, transit pass programs, etc. Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long- Term Infrastructure Improvements IM 11 Evaluate water main capacity that may need to be upgraded on a project-by-project basis. It is likely that the existing six-inch (6”) water mains are not able to provide sufficient flow and pressure to meet required fire demands for new construction. Depending on the development project, water mains may need to be replaced and upsized to meet fire flow requirements. Public Works Ongoing IM 12 Paving: Explore including into the Capital Improvement Program designs and implementation at key intersections and raised crossings. Public Works Short-term to long-term Public Art IM 13 Evaluate the placement of public art in relation to the Public Art Master Plan for the NVCAP.Community Services Ongoing IM 14 Explore updating the Public Art Master Plan as necessary to reconcile the vision of the NVCAP.Community Services Mid-Term to Long- Term Mobility IM 15 Publicly accessible shared path on private property: Implement locations indicated within NVCAP by requiring recorded easements over private property when property redevelops. Public Works/Planning Ongoing 7.8 Table 31 Implementation Actions in the NVCAP (Continued) 160 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 206     Implementation Action Number Action Description City Department or Public Agency Responsible Timeframe IM 9Explore unbundling commercial parking or require the parking to be made to the public.Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long- Term IM 10Explore a parking pricing or a parking benefit district that could help support on-demand transit, transportation demand management measures, active transportation investments, transit pass programs, etc. Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long- Term Infrastructure Improvements IM 11Evaluate water main capacity that may need to be upgraded on a project-by-project basis. It is likely that the existing six-inch (6”) water mains are not able to provide sufficient flow and pressure to meet required fire demands for new construction. Depending on the development project, water mains may need to be replaced and upsized to meet fire flow requirements. Public Works Ongoing IM 12Paving: Explore including into the Capital Improvement Program designs and implementation at key intersections and raised crossings. Public Works Short-term to long-term Public Art IM 13Evaluate the placement of public art in relation to the Public Art Master Plan for the NVCAP.Community Services Ongoing IM 14Explore updating the Public Art Master Plan as necessary to reconcile the vision of the NVCAP.Community Services Mid-Term to Long- Term Mobility IM 15Publicly accessible shared path on private property: Implement locations indicated within NVCAP by requiring recorded easements over private property when property redevelops. Public Works/Planning Ongoing IM P L E M E N T A T I O N 161 Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 207     Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 208     Item 3 ATTACHMENT A - Public Draft NVCAP May 2023 (Without Appendices)     Packet Pg. 209     Attachment B – Summary of Existing Conditions Existing Neighborhood Setting & Character The following contains a summary of the existing conditions, opportunities and challenges within the North Ventura area. Land Use & Surroundings The NVCAP area is located within walking distance of the California Avenue Business District and enjoys biking access along one of the City’s primary bicycle corridors on Park Boulevard. It also provides access to transit facilities of regional significance including the California Avenue Caltrain Station, VTA bus routes along the El Camino Real corridor, and the Stanford University Marguerite service. The street network is generally accessible in the east-west direction (terminating at Park Boulevard), but fractured north-south, such that Park Boulevard and El Camino Real are the only continuous streets extending between California and Lambert Avenues. •Existing uses of the site include single-family residential, multi-family residential, office, service and retail. •A channelized portion of the Matadero Creek runs through the southern portion of the site. •The Comprehensive Plan designates a mix of land uses for the Plan Area including multi- family residential, single-family residential, service commercial, neighborhood commercial, light industrial, and research/office. •Much of the Plan Area falls within the California Avenue Priority Development Area (PDA) and is near several key destinations including the California Avenue Caltrain Station, California Avenue retail corridor, and the Stanford Research Park. •The largest parcel in the Plan Area is the former Fry’s site, which is currently zoned as RM- 30. Mobility •Heavy traffic volumes are concentrated along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, which presents crossing difficulties for people walking and biking. •Olive Avenue and Park Boulevard are currently the only streets that provide direct connectivity through the plan area. This disconnected street network limits pedestrian/bike connectivity through the site and lengthens walking and biking distances. •There are significant levels of spare off-street parking capacity available throughout the day. On-street parking reaches 63% at its peak utilization, indicating high levels of spare on-street parking. Multi-Family Housing •Despite strong demand, new multi-family development is challenged by high construction costs and parking requirements. According to developers, increases in density and height in the plan area would lower costs and create economic incentives to develop more housing. Item 3 ATTACHMENT B - Summary of Existing Conditions     Packet Pg. 210     •According to local affordable housing developers, a combination of high costs of land and construction, long approval timelines and declining federal sources of funds, together challenge the feasibility of new affordable projects in Palo Alto. Research & Development (R&D) / Office •Palo Alto is also at the top of the market for R&D tenants, and North Ventura is already a strong location for office and R&D uses. •City policy limits the amount of office and R&D development that can be built in Palo Alto. Retail •The plan area is not a competitive location for large malls and shopping centers due to existing competitive supply, as the area is already well-served by regional malls and other large centers. •The plan area is near the California Avenue district and the Mollie Stone’s/Palo Alto Central, which offer a variety of retail and services for existing and new residents. Item 3 ATTACHMENT B - Summary of Existing Conditions     Packet Pg. 211     North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Project Goals, Objectives, Milestones and Proposed Boundary March 5, 2018 Proposed NVCAP Goals 1.Housing and Land Use Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed use, transit-accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. 2.Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Create and enhance well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. 3.Connected Street Grid Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. 4.Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. 5.Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. 6.Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric Develop human-scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Proposed NVCAP Objectives 1.Data Driven Approach: Employ a data-driven approach that considers community desires, market conditions and forecasts, financial feasibility, existing uses and development patterns, development capacity, traffic and travel patterns, historic/cultural and natural resources, need for community facilities (e.g., schools), and Attachment CItem 3 ATTACHMENT C - Council Adopted Goals & Objectives     Packet Pg. 212     other relevant data to inform plan policies. 2. Comprehensive User Friendly Document and Implementation: Create a comprehensive but user-friendly document that identifies the distribution, location and extent of land uses, planning policies, development regulations and design guidelines to enable development and needed infrastructure investments in the project area 3. Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision Makers: Provide a guide and strategy for staff and decision-makers to bridge the gap between the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and individual development projects in order to streamline future land use and transportation decisions. 4. Meaningful Community Engagement: Enable a process with meaningful opportunities for community engagement, within the defined timeline, and an outcome (the CAP document) that reflects the community’s priorities. 5. Economic Feasibility: A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with specific analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected economic benefits to the City and community. 6. Environmental: A plan that is protective of public health and a process that complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Item 3 ATTACHMENT C - Council Adopted Goals & Objectives     Packet Pg. 213     Attachment D: Summary of Preferred Plan City Council endorsed 01/10/2022 & refined 11/14/2022 (or strikethrough) Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan Housing •530 housing units •Emphasizes townhomes near existing residential; mid-rise residential/mixed-use on corridors and elsewhere in plan area. •Taller mid-rise residential/mixed- use along Park Boulevard adjacent to train tracks. •530 housing units •Emphasizes townhomes on cannery property. Mid-rise residential/mixed- use on corridors and elsewhere in the plan. Affordable housing site adjacent to public park site. Taller mid-rise residential/mixed-use along Park Boulevard adjacent to train tracks. See also “Height/Density and Transitions” Affordable Housing •Include 100% affordable housing height limits based on the minimum height necessary for a five-story retail affordable housing project (e.g., 55’) or a six story non-retail affordable housing project (e.g., 65’). •Require 20% BMR for for-sale townhomes, 15% for for-sale condos, and for rental 15% BMR or use in-lieu fee. (66% of units affordable to households of 80- 100% area median income (AMI) and up to 33% affordable to households 100-120% AMI.) •100% affordable housing height limits determined by state density bonus housing law (33’ above base zoning height limit) •Requires 20% BMR for for-sale townhomes, 15% for for-sale condos, and for rental 15% BMR or use in-lieu fee. (66% of units affordable to households of 80-100% area median income (AMI) and up to 33% affordable to households 100-120% AMI.) See also “Height/Density and Transitions” Height/Density and Transitions •Place higher heights and greater densities on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, where multifamily and residential mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail would be permitted. Transition between higher density/height areas and existing single-family homes through height transitions. •Expand Housing Incentive Program or similar into other areas other than El Camino Real corridor. •Rezones proposed in the plan area to transition from commercial, general manufacturing and residential to residential and residential mixed-use (low, medium, and high density). •Greater heights and densities are located along corridors (El Camino Real, Page Mill and Park Boulevard). Height is limited for cannery building adaptive reuse projects. Height transitions will follow objective standard requirements in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Item 3 ATTACHMENT D - Summary of Preferred Plan Consistency     Packet Pg. 214     Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan •Allow 45 feet transition on El Camino •Raise the height limit along Park Blvd to 55 feet, for residential or residential mixed-use without increasing commercial FAR •Request Staff to evaluate zoning changes that would increase FAR for housing on commercial sites along Park Blvd. and Page Mill Rd. •Height limits range from 30 to 55 feet. •Increase FAR for residential for 395 Page Mill and Park Boulevard. •Limits commercial FAR throughout the plan area. •Housing Incentive Program would enable eligible 100% affordable housing projects to have increased height in accordance with state law (max 33’ above the base zoning limit) and may request waiver of other development standards. Open Space Parks, pedestrian and/or bike connection, landscape setbacks and buffers. Creek option #3, full naturalization. Look for preferred park locations (larger public spaces desired). Park development based on no less than 1.6 acres/1,000 residents to 1.7 acres/1,000 residents. •Includes creek option #3 for full naturalization •Identifies 2.25-acre public park location adjacent to creek Office •Allows existing large-format office floor area to continue. Once demolished, the office space may not be rebuilt. •Would allow new, ground-floor, small, professional office (such as dentist, etc.). (5,000 sf or less) •Define a low-density R&D zone limiting employment density. (not clear on what this means) •Define strict TDM •Plan sites are rezoned and allow limited office space (up to 5,000 sf) per parcel. •Existing office space to continue until demolished, then parcel must conform with underlying zoning requirements. See also “Commercial Parking Ratio.” Retail Would allow ground floor retail. Encourages active-ground floor uses, which can be retail or retail-like. Required on ECR, consider on Park. •Allows ground floor retail and encourages ground floor active uses along Park Boulevard. Requires ground floor active uses along El Camino Real. Item 3 ATTACHMENT D - Summary of Preferred Plan Consistency     Packet Pg. 215     Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan Deed restricted retail required to get 15’ first floor height incentive. Requires ground floor retail along El Camino Real at Portage and Acacia. •Requires minimum ground floor ceiling height (15’) for commercial spaces. 340 Portage (Cannery) Maintains the cannery building and Ash Office Building and allows for 2 possible uses of the buildings: (1) continued use as retail and office space (2) adaptive re-use into housing (transition to housing is a long-term vision). Also permits the construction of housing on remaining portions of the parcel, specifically the two remaining surface parking lots on the property. Ash Building – Creative Arts space (see concept plan, page 180) Expanded setback needed due to creek naturalization – easements and/or acquisition needed. 65 feet for 100% affordable site at 340 Portage without retail, (to include 5 stories of residential, with one level for parking) Staff will review and return with recommendation about designation of 340 Portage Rd as a historical resource •Maintains the cannery building and Ash Office Building and allows for 2 possible uses of the buildings: (1) continued use as retail and office space (2) adaptive re-use into housing (transition to housing is a long-term vision). •Also permits the construction of housing on remaining portions of the parcel, specifically the two remaining surface parking lots on the property. •2.25-acre public park site identified •100% Affordable housing site identified adjacent to the public park site up to 55’. •Implementation measure to explore within the first-year historic designation of the cannery building and the Ash building. •Creative arts is an allowed use in the proposed zoning update. 395 Page Mill Rd (Cloudera) Retain office, parking garage, swale, etc. Allows multifamily housing at moderate density on remaining surface parking lot; allow internal height of 55’. Site is rezoned to high density residential. Allow height up to 55 feet. Residential Parking Ratio •1 space per bedroom, capped at 2 spaces per unit (existing requirement). •(Return to PTC to make recommendations for analysis of •No parking minimums or maximums. •Implementation measure to explore TDM programs and evaluate parking management within the area. Item 3 ATTACHMENT D - Summary of Preferred Plan Consistency     Packet Pg. 216     Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan appropriate parking based on Fehr and Peers study and other studies, and encourage mechanisms to discourage street parking) •No parking minimums & maximums •Define strict TDM and evaluate a city initiated RPP district to protect residential parking Commercial Parking Ratio •Blended standard rate same as Downtown Palo Alto: 1 space per 250 sf. •Exempt first 1,500 sf of ground floor commercial floor area from parking requirement. •No parking minimums & maximums •Define strict TDM •No parking minimums or maximums. •Implementation measure to explore TDM programs and evaluate parking management within the area. Transportation Improvements •Follow concept plan, see attachment A (page 34) from 6/2021 council report •Evaluate removing the woonerf to decrease congestion as an option in the EIR •Plan to follow preferred plan. •EIR to evaluate woonerf impacts. Item 3 ATTACHMENT D - Summary of Preferred Plan Consistency     Packet Pg. 217     ATTACHMENT E – CONSISTENCY WITH NVCAP GOALS & OBJECTIVES Consistency documents can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning- Development-Services/Housing-Policies-Projects/NVCAP Table 1: NVCAP Goals Goals Consistency Housing and Land Use Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed use, transit-accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. Chapter 2.2 (Land Use) Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Create and enhance well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. Chapter 2.4 (Mobility) Connected Street Grid Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. Chapter 2.4 (Mobility) Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. Chapter 2.4 (Mobility) Chapter 2.5 (Ecology and Sustainability) Chapter 3.1 (Sidewalk Zone) Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. Chapter 2.2 (Land Use) Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space) Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric Chapter 2.6 (Allowable heights) Item 3 ATTACHMENT E - Consistency with Goals and Objectives     Packet Pg. 218     Goals Consistency Develop human-scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Table 2: NVCAP Objectives Objectives Consistency Data Driven Approach: Employ a data-driven approach that considers community desires, market conditions and forecasts, financial feasibility, existing uses and development patterns, development capacity, traffic and travel patterns, historic/cultural and natural resources, need for community facilities (e.g., schools), and other relevant data to inform plan policies. •Existing Conditions Report •Matadero Creek Renaturalization Report •Strategic Economic Reports •340 Portage Ave Historic Resource Evaluation •NVCAP Windshield Survey and Preliminary Historic Resource Eligibility Analysis Comprehensive User-Friendly Document and Implementation: Create a comprehensive but user-friendly document that identifies the distribution, location and extent of land uses, planning policies, development regulations and design guidelines to enable development and needed infrastructure investments in the project area. The overall document includes graphics, color, tables organized for optimal readability. Chapter 2 (The Vision), Chapter 3 (Public Realm), Chapter 4 (Streets), Chapter 5 (Parks), Chapter 6 (Buildings), Chapter 7 (Implementation) Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision Makers: Provide a guide and strategy for staff and decision-makers to bridge the gap between the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and individual development projects in order to streamline future land use and transportation decisions. Chapter 2 (The Vision), Chapter 7 (Implementation) Meaningful Community Engagement: Chapter 1 (The Community Process) (1.7) Item 3 ATTACHMENT E - Consistency with Goals and Objectives     Packet Pg. 219     Objectives Consistency Enable a process with meaningful opportunities for community engagement, within the defined timeline, and an outcome (the CAP document) that reflects the community’s priorities. Economic Feasibility: A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with specific analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected economic benefits to the City and community. Strategic Economic Reports Environmental: A plan that is protective of public health and a process that complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.5 (Ecology and Sustainability) Chapter 3.3 (Green Infrastructure) Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space) Chapter 6.5 (Sustainable Design) Item 3 ATTACHMENT E - Consistency with Goals and Objectives     Packet Pg. 220     ATTACHMENT F 18.29 NORTH VENTURA (NV) DISTRICT REGULATIONS 18.29.010 Purpose The purpose of the North Ventura district is to implement the vision and framework of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) through use regulations and development standards. 18.29.020 Applicability of Regulations (a) The North Ventura district shall only be for properties within the NVCAP as identified in Chapter 18.XX and designated as North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan within the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Where designated, the regulations set forth in this chapter shall apply in lieu of the comparable provisions established by the underlying zoning district regulations. (b) Refer to the NVCAP for design guidelines related to streets and buildings in conjunction with the regulations contained within this chapter. 18.29.030 Zoning Map Designation The North Ventura district shall apply to properties designated on the zoning map by the symbol “NV” in front of the zoning district designation. The following zoning districts are intended to create and maintain sites for residential, commercial and mixed-use sites: (a) Single Family Residential District (NV-R1) The NV-R1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children’s play. Minimum site area requirements are established to create and preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide adequate open area, and to encourage quality design. Accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units and accessory structures or buildings are appropriate. Community uses and facilities, should be limited unless no net loss of housing would result. (b) Two Family Residential District (NV-R2) The NV-R2 two-family residence district is intended to allow a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on appropriate sites in areas designated for single-family use or NVCAP by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, under regulations that preserve the essential character of single-family use. Community uses and facilities should be limited unless no net loss of housing would result. (c) Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential District (NV-R3) The NV-R3 medium density multiple-family residential district is intended to create, preserve and enhance neighborhoods for multiple-family housing with site development standards and visual characteristics intended to mitigate impacts on nearby lower density residential districts. Projects at this density are intended for larger parcels that will enable developments to provide their own parking spaces and to meet Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 221     their open space needs in the form of garden apartments or cluster developments. Permitted density in the NV-R3 residence district range from 16 to 30 dwelling units per acre and up to 1.5:1 Floor Area Ratio. (d) High Density Multiple-Family Residential District (NV-R4) The NV-R4 high density multiple-family residential district is intended to create, preserve and enhance locations for apartment living at the highest density deemed appropriate for Palo Alto. The most suitable locations for this district are along major transportation corridors which are close to mass transportation facilities and major employment and service centers. Permitted density in the NV-R4 residence district range from 61 to 100 dwelling units per acre and up to 3.0:1 Floor Area Ratio. (e) Mixed-Use Districts Mixed-use districts are intended to encourage the compatible mix of residential, retail, entertainment, office, service and commercial uses within the framework of a pedestrian-oriented streetscape. The following are three mixed-use districts within the NVCAP. (1) Low Density Mixed-Use District (NV-MXL). The purpose of the NV-MXL district is to allow for small- scale commercial, creative arts and services with limited amount of residential that is compatible with the surrounding development. Permitted density in the NV-MXL district range from three to 17 dwelling units per acre and up to 0.5:1 Floor Area Ratio. (2) Medium Density Mixed-Use District (NV-MXM). The purpose of the NV-MXM district is to allow for a compatible mix of residential and limited commercial. Permitted density in the NV-MXM district range from 31 to 70 dwelling units per acre and up to 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio. Commercial is limited to 0.15:1 Floor Area Ratio. (3) High Density Mixed-Use District (NV-MXH). The purpose of the NV-MXH district is to allow for a mix of retail, restaurant, entertainment and commercial uses on the ground floor with residential on the upper floors, while maintaining a pedestrian-oriented streetscape. It is intended that the active ground floor retail space required will ensure neighborhood-oriented retail and services are provided within walking distance of high density residential. Ground floor uses along El Camino Real is required. Permitted density in the NV-MXH district range from 61 to 100 dwelling units per acre and up to 3.0:1 Floor Area Ratio. (f) Public Facilities District (NV-PF) The NV-PF public facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Within the North Ventura area, an approximate one-acre portion of the NV-PF district may permit a 100% affordable housing project. 18.29.040 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "100% affordable housing project" means a multiple-family housing or mixed-use project in which the residential component consists entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020, available only to households with income levels at or below 120% of the area median income, as defined in Section 16.65.020, and where the average household income does not exceed 60% of the area median income level, except for a building manager's unit. Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 222     (b) “Street yard” means a yard adjoining a street lot line and may also be a front lot line. 18.29.050 Permitted Uses (a) The uses of land allowed by this chapter in each zoning district are identified in the following tables. Land uses that are not listed in the tables are not allowed, except where otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to Regulations in") includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well. TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL & RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required — = Not Permitted LAND USE NV-R1 NV-R2 NV-R3 NV-R4 Subject to Regulations In: ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES Accessory Facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses P P P P 18.40 Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses with more than two plumbing fixtures (but with no kitchen), and more than 200 square feet in size, but excluding second dwelling units CUP ———18.12.080 Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses (no limit on number of plumbing fixtures) —P ——18.10.080 Accessory Dwelling Unit & Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit when accessory to permitted single-family residence P P ——18.42.40 Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted residential uses P P P P 18.42 Horticulture, Gardening, and Growing of food products for consumption by occupants of a site P P P P EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations, excluding any such facility operated as a business for profit ———CUP Private Educational Facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP Religious Institutions CUP CUP CUP CUP PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES Community Centers CUP CUP CUP CUP Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 223     LAND USE NV-R1 NV-R2 NV-R3 NV-R4 Subject to Regulations In: Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excluding construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards. CUP CUP CUP CUP RECREATION USES Neighborhood Recreational Centers ——CUP CUP Outdoor Recreation Services CUP CUP CUP CUP RESIDENTIAL USES Single-Family P P —— Two-Family P P ——18.42.180 Multiple-Family ——P P Residential Care Homes P P P P SERVICE AND RETAIL USES Convalescent Facilities ———CUP Day Care Centers CUP CUP CUP P 18.40.160 Family Day Care Homes Large Family Day Care Small Family Day Care P P P P P P P P Adult Day Care Homes Large Adult Day Care Small Adult Day Care CUP P CUP P P P P P Eating and Drinking Services, except drive-in and take-out services ——P P 18.40.160, 18.29.080(e) Personal Services and Retail Services of a neighborhood-serving nature ——P P 18.40.160, 18.29.080(e) TEMPORARY USES Temporary Uses ——CUP CUP 18.42 TABLE 2: MIXED-USE PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required — = Prohibited Use LAND USE NV-MXL NV-MXM NV- MXH Subject to Regulations In: ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use. P P P 18.40, 18.42 EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES Creative Arts CUP ——18.29.080(g) Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 224     LAND USE NV-MXL NV-MXM NV- MXH Subject to Regulations In: Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations CUP ——18.29.080(g) Private Educational Facilities CUP P P 18.29.080(g) Religious Institutions P P P 18.29.080(g) OFFICE USES Administrative Office Services P P P 18.29.080(a), 18.29.080(g) Medical Offices P P P 18.29.080(a), 18.29.080(g) Professional and General Business Offices P P P 18.29.080(a), 18.29.080(g) PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excluding construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards. CUP CUP CUP 18.29.080(g) RECREATION USES Commercial Recreation CUP CUP CUP 18.29.080(g) Outdoor Recreation Services —CUP CUP RESIDENTIAL USES Multiple-Family P P P Home Occupations P P P 18.42 Residential Care Homes P P P RETAIL USES Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in and take-out services P P P 18.29.080(e), 18.29.080(g), 18.40.160 Retail Services, excluding liquor stores P P P 18.29.080(e), 18.29.080(g), 18.40.160 Liquor stores —P P 18.29.080(g), 18.40.160 SERVICE USES Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels P P P 18.29.080(a) Convalescent Facilities P P P Day Care Centers P P P 18.29.080(e), 18.29.080(g), 18.40.160 Small Family Day Care Homes P P P Large Family Day Care Homes P P P Small Adult Day Care Homes P P P Large Adult Day Care Homes P P P Banks and Financial Services P P P 18.29.080(a), 18.29.080(g) General Business Services P P P 18.29.080(a), 18.29.080(g) Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 225     LAND USE NV-MXL NV-MXM NV- MXH Subject to Regulations In: Hotels —P P 18.16.060(d), 18.40.160 Personal Services P P P 18.29.080(e), 18.29.080(g), 18.40.160 TEMPORARY USES Farmer's Markets —CUP CUP Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities shall remain no more than five years. —CUP CUP TABLE 3: PUBLIC FACILITIES PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required LAND USE NV-PF Subject to Regulations in: ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES Eating and drinking services in conjunction with a permitted use CUP(1) Retail services in conjunction with a permitted use CUP(1) AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE USES Park uses and uses incidental to park operation P PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITY USES All facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the State of California, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School District, or any other governmental agency, or leased by any such agency to another party P Community Centers CUP(1) Utility Facilities CUP RECREATIONAL USES Neighborhood recreation centers CUP(1) Outdoor recreation services CUP(1) Youth clubs CUP(1) RESIDENTIAL USES Multiple-Family P(2) SERVICE USES Art, dance, gymnastic, exercise, or music studios or classes CUP(1) TEMPORARY USES Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 226     LAND USE NV-PF Subject to Regulations in: Temporary parking facilities, provided that such facilities shall remain no more than five years CUP(1) Notes: (1) Provided such use is conducted on property owned by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the State of California, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School District, or any other governmental agency, and leased for said uses. (2) Only a 100% Affordable Housing Project is permitted. 18.29.060 Development Standards (a) The following tables specify the development standards that shall apply to NV district properties. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to Regulations in") includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the development standard; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well. TABLE 1: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (b) The development standards for the NV-R1 district are shown in Table 1. For standards not listed in Table 1, refer to Chapter 18.10, Low Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD Districts) and Chapter 18.12, R-1 Single Family Residential District. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R1 NV-R2 Subject to Regulations In: Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may also apply 18.10.050 Street yard (ft)Pepper: 12.5 Contextual(1) Olive (Between Park & Ash): 12.5 Olive: 10 18.29.020(b) Parking 18.29.070 Notes: (1) Contextual Front Setbacks: See Section 18.12.040(e) for application of contextual front setbacks. TABLE 2: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL & MUTLI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 227     DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R3 NV-R4 Subject to Regulations In: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft2) Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) 8,500 70 100 Minimum Setbacks Street Yard (ft)Park Blvd.: 20 Acacia: 5 Portage: 5 Park Blvd.: 20 Olive Ave.: 20 Olive Ave (Ash to El Camino Real: 12.5 Ash Ave.: 5 18.29.020(b) Interior Side Yards (ft)5 5 Interior Rear Yards (ft)10 10 Maximum Height (ft) Standard 36 55 18.29.100 Portions of a site within 50 feet of a more restrictive residential district or a site containing a residential use in a nonresidential district (measured from property line) 35 Daylight Plane For lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts 18.24.050(b) For lots less than 10,000 ft2 None None Maximum Site Coverage (%) Base 40 45 Additional area permitted to be covered by covered patios or overhangs otherwise in compliance with all applicable laws 5 5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Residential FAR 1.5:1 3.0:1 Maximum Non-residential FAR 0.15:1 0.15:1 18.29.080(e) Total Mixed-Use FAR 1.5:1 3.0:1 Residential Density (net units per acre) Maximum units per acre 30 100 Minimum units per acre 16 31 Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage (%) 30 None Minimum Usable Open Space (ft2 per unit) 150 150 Minimum Common Open Space (ft2 per unit) 75 75 Minimum Private Open Space (ft2 per unit) 50 50 Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 228     DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R3 NV-R4 Subject to Regulations In: Landscape Requirements 18.40.130 Parking 18.29.070 TABLE 3: MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-MXL NV-MXM NV-MXH Subject to Regulations In: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft2) Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) None Required Not required Minimum Setbacks Street Yard (ft)Ash Ave.: 5 Olive Ave.: 12.5 Portage: 0 Pepper: 12.5 El Camino Real: 5 Oregon/Page Mill: 5 Pepper: 12.5 Olive (North side): 12.5 Olive (South side): 10 Ash: 5 Park Blvd: 20 Lambert Ave: 5 Portage Ave: 5 Acacia: 5 Park Blvd: 5 El Camino Real: 5 Oregon/Page Mill: 5 Lambert: 5 Acacia: 5 18.29.020(b) Rear Yard (ft)10 10 for residential portion/none for commercial portion 10 for residential portion/none for commercial portion Rear Yard abutting residential zone district (ft) 10(1)10 10 Interior Side Yard (ft)10(1)5 5 Build-to-lines None Required Permitted Setback Encroachments Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6 ft into the setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features (excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of interior Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 229     DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-MXL NV-MXM NV-MXH Subject to Regulations In: space) may extend up to four (4) ft into the front and rear setbacks and up to three (3) ft into interior side setbacks Maximum Setback (ft)Not applicable El Camino Real: 10 El Camino Real: 10 Maximum Site Coverage (%)50 100 100 Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage (%) 20 5 None Usable Open Space (Private and/or Common) (ft2) 150 per unit 18.29.080(b), 18.16.090 Maximum Height (ft)18.29.100 Standard 35 (2 stories) 45 55 Portions of a site within 150 ft of an abutting NV-R-1, R-1 and NV-R-2 district Not applicable 45 Not Applicable 18.29.080(c) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts 18.24.050(b) Residential Density (net units per acre) Maximum units per acre 17 70 100 Minimum units per acre 3 31 61 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Residential FAR 0.5:1 2.0:1 3.0:1 Maximum Non-residential FAR 0.5:1 0.15:1 0.15:1 18.29.080 Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15:1 0.15:1 0.15:1 18.29.080(e) Total Mixed-Use FAR 0.5:1 2.0:1 3.0:1 Parking 18.29.070 TABLE 4: PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-PF Subject to Regulations In: Minimum Setbacks Street Yard (ft)Portage Ave: 0 Park Blvd: 5 Lambert Ave: 5 18.29.020(b) Rear Yard (ft)10 18.40.140 Side Yard (ft)5 Maximum Site Coverage (%) Multiple-Family Residential Use 100 Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 230     DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-PF Subject to Regulations In: Other Uses 20 Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage (%) Multiple-Family Residential Use Other Uses 0 Not applicable Usable Open Space (Private and/or Common) (ft2) Multiple-Family Residential Use 150 per unit Residential Density (net units per acre)100 Maximum Height (ft) Multiple-Family Residential Use Other Uses 55 18.29.100 Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Multiple-Family Residential Use Other Uses 3.0:1 1.0:1 Parking 18.29.070 Notes: 18.29.070 Parking and Loading In accordance with Assembly Bill 2097 (2022), no minimum automobile parking is required for properties with the (NV) combining district designation except for “hotels” or similar use. There are no maximum parking standards. Other parking standards, such as bicycle parking are contained within Chapter 18.52. 18.29.080 Special Requirements (a) Office Use Restrictions (1) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless any of the following apply to such offices: (A) Have been continuously in existence in that space since DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP, and as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.30(I); (B) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, neighborhood business service, retail services, personal services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP or thereafter; (C) Occupy a space that was vacant on DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP; or (D) Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, and personal services does not decrease. (E) Along El Camino Real, the office use has regular customers such as a dentist or medical office. Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 231     (2) Size Restrictions on Office Uses in the NV District (A) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. (b) Usable Open Space for Mixed-Use Projects (1) Required Usable Open Space: (A) May be any combination of private and common open spaces; (B) Does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space except as provided below); (C) Minimum private open space dimension six (6) feet; and (D) Minimum common open space dimension 12 feet. (c) Height Transitions to Residential Projects (1) When applicable, distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. The 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. (d) Late Night Use and Activities The following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such site abuts or is located within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties. (1) Such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those hours. (e) Ground Floor Commercial Uses (1) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, and eating and drinking establishments. These may also include other active uses such as daycare, building lobbies, spaces accessory to residential uses such as fitness rooms, workspaces, leasing offices, bicycle facilities (Class I) with direct access to the sidewalk. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations, are consistent with 18.29.080(a) and have regular customers such as dentists. (2) Ground floor commercial uses are required for properties with frontage along El Camino Real. (3) Ground floor commercial uses shall have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 15 feet. (4) Retail or retail like at the ground floor is required at the intersections of El Camino Real and Olive Avenue, and El Camino Real and Portage Avenue. (5) Exemptions: i. 100% affordable housing projects are exempt from providing ground floor commercial uses. Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 232     ii. Building frontage for mechanical equipment, transformer doors, parking garage entrances, exit stairs, and other facilities necessary to the operation of the building are excluded from this requirement. (f) Hotel Regulations (1) The purpose of these regulations is to allow floor area for development of hotels more than floor area limitations for other commercial uses, to provide a visitor-serving use that results in an enhanced business climate, increased transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenue, and other community and economic benefits to the city. (2) Hotels, where they are a permitted use, may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1, subject to the following limitations: (A) The hotel use must generate transient occupancy tax (TOT) as provided in Chapter 2.33 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and (B) No room stays more than thirty days are permitted, except where the city council approves longer stays through an enforceable agreement with the applicant to provide for compensating revenues. (3) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to: (A) No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use; and (B) No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to condominium use; and (C) A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building(s); and (D) Where residential condominium use is proposed, room stays for other hotel rooms shall not exceed thirty (30) days. (4) Violation of this chapter is subject to enforcement action for stays more than thirty days not permitted under the provisions of this chapter, in which case each day of room stay more than thirty days shall constitute a separate violation and administrative penalties shall be assessed pursuant to Chapters 1.12 and 1.16. (g) NV-MXL Use Restrictions (1) Total floor area of non-residential permitted and conditionally permitted uses on a lot shall not exceed 5,000 square feet. (h) Storefront Guidelines Where active use and retail frontages are required or located within the NV district on the ground floor, the following design standards shall apply: (1) Exterior windows on the ground floor shall use transparent glazing to the extent feasible. Low-e glass or minimal tinting to achieve sun control is permitted, so long as the glazing appears transparent when viewed from the ground level. Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 233     (2) Window coverings are not permitted on the ground floor during typical business hours. Where operations preclude transparency (e.g., theaters) or where privacy requires window coverings, sidewalk- facing frontage shall include items of visual interest including displays of merchandise or artwork; visual access shall be provided to a minimum depth of three (3) feet. 18.29.090 Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards In addition to the development standards prescribed in 18.29.050, all Housing Development Projects shall comply with the objective standards outlined in Chapter 18.24, as defined herein. All other developments, and Housing Development Projects that elect to deviate from one or more objective design standards in Chapter 18.24, shall meet the Context Based Design Criteria, as determined by the Director pursuant to the Architectural Review process. (a) Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria Refer to Section 18.13.060 for the criteria. (b) Mixed-Use and Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria Refer to Section 18.16.090 for the criteria. 18.29.100 Housing Incentive Program for NV District (a) Director waiver of development standards. The Director may waive any development standard for a project that is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director finds that the project with such waiver or waivers is consistent with the required architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020. The Director may only waive these development standards in the following areas and subject to the following restrictions: (1) For a 100% affordable housing project. (A) Maximum Height. The maximum height for a 100% affordable housing project shall not exceed 68 feet in the NV-MXL district, 69 feet in the NV-R3 district, 78 feet in the NV-MXM district, and 88 feet in the NV-R4 and NV-MXH districts. (b) Alternative to State Density Bonus Law. This program is a local alternative to the State density bonus law, and therefore, a project using this program shall not be eligible for a density bonus under Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus). 18.29.110 Grandfathered Uses Item 3 ATTACHMENT F - DRAFT NV Zoning District Regulations     Packet Pg. 234     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 1, 2023 Report #: 2305-1446 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of April 20, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 235     Page 1 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: April 20, 2023 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair David Hirsch, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Osma Thompson, Boardmember Yingxi Chen Absent: Oral Communications Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate III, stated there was one raised hand on zoom. Shani Kleinhaus, resident and Santa Clara Audubon Society advocate, provided public comment regarding her participation in the public meeting regarding the new fire station on Middlefield where she heard the ARB felt the fire station design should be higher standard. As a resident of the area, she believes the current design of the building fits the community and the new design feels cold and industrial. The new design doesn’t make her feel safe and provides for reception and meeting areas when those are available for use in the library that is two steps away. All the glass on the new design could impact the birds negatively. Her hope is the ARB will reconsider their views on making the station more upscale and modern. The primary use is to be functional for the neighborhood and not so much with the design. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and ARB Liaison Claire Raybould reported there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Senior Planner Claire Raybould reported upcoming projects include the 3001 El Camino Real affordable housing project and 1020 East Meadow which is going to be a revision to an existing research and development building owned by Google. Their plan is to have a large two-story equipment enclosure proposed. On May 18, staff bring forth the remodel to a retail façade for Our House in the Stanford Shopping Center. The 123 Sherman project will return to the ARB. The project for 360 Waverly is a new preliminary review application that staff had originally hoped to include on the May 18 Agenda, however, Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 236     Page 2 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 due to scheduling conflict with the Architect, they have requested it be moved to the June 15 hearing. June 1 staff is expecting to have 3200 Park Boulevard development agreement return. If everything moves as expected, The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) study session may also be included on the June 1 Agenda for review of the draft. New projects include the 300 Lambert that was submitted as a builders remedy project and is an SB330 pre-application. Action Items 2. Chair and Vice Chair Elections Chair Hirsch stated that Boardmember Thompson had to leave early, the Ad-hoc that is scheduled may have to be changed and opened the floor up for nominations. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Thompson, to nominate Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg as the Vice Chair of the Architectural Review Board effective beginning the next meeting. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that she happily accepted the nomination. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 MOTION: Chair Hirsch moved, seconded by Boardmember Thompson, to nominate Vice Chair Peter Baltay as Chair of the Architectural Review Board effective beginning the next meeting. Vice Chair Baltay accepted the nomination. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Boardmember Thompson congratulated her colleagues for the new positions. Vice Chair Baltay thanked his colleagues for their confidence. 3. Discuss the Draft Annual Report and Work Plan, Suggest Changes and Recommend Submission of the Draft Work Plan to City Council. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that she’s been keeping notes over the last year of issues that keep coming up and inquired if now would be the appropriate time to bring those up as they work on the Draft Work Plan. Ms. Raybould responded that would be helpful and she provided the board with a brief overview of the current status of the Draft Annual Report and Work Plan that will be submitted to City Council. The main goal with the Work Plan is a focus on reviewing projects. The second goal was refining and possibly providing more clarity in the objective standards of the ARB. Chair Hirsch commented that the ad-hoc spent a good bit of time on the objective standards and has determined there are a good number of things they would like to discuss with the Board as a whole and that should be brought forward as an item. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 237     Page 3 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt stated the reason they included the Objective Standards in the study session for the Work Plan was to allow enough time for the ARB to discuss changes and recommendations and still have time to keep the project moving since any actual changes to the Objective Standards require approval from City Council. Chair Hirsch requested clarification if the changes to the work plan needed City Council approval or the time required from staff needs City Council approval. Ms. Raybould stated if time is going to be used by staff in the next Fiscal Year (FY), it needs approval from City Council, as a directive for staff to work on the Objective Standards as part of the Work Plan. Chair Hirsch inquired of the timeline for submitting the request to City Council. Ms. Raybould answered it’s due before City Clerk before the end of May to satisfy noticing requirements for June review. The exact date is currently uncertain. Chair Hirsch asked how that effects the ARB’s scheduling of their discussions. Ms. Raybould explained once it goes before the Council, assuming they approve further staff time, staff will begin drafting something to bring before the ARB. What is currently laid out is a review to provide a better understanding of what specific changes should be made before fall of 2023 in drafting exact code changes, with the expectation that within the next FY staff would bring forth modifications to codes for Council approval. Ms. Raybould continued and stated Project Goal three is a catch all of things that the Board has an interest in working on. Council directed staff to bring forth a preliminary schedule for development of new coordinated area plans through out the city for San Antonio, California Avenue, downtown and El Camino Real areas. Staff are working on that schedule and as they decide what they are moving forward with and what can move forward, staff anticipates that any coordinated area plan would include involvement from the ARB. If the Boardmembers of the ARB have items they feel should be reviewed, this would be where staff could incorporate those, mostly likely with a summary of high/low priority item within that third goal. Boardmember Rosenberg stated this is the perfect segway into the items she previously referenced, and her first item is already listed under staff’s low priority list: Coordinated area plan for San Antonio area. Her notes indicated they kept running into that San Antonio corridor issue over and over again and she confirmed if San Antonio was also listed. There are three smaller items a) roof top terraces, more defined rules, and regulations for both multifamily residential and commercial. Chair Hirsch indicated that was a good idea and asked staff where they were with rooftop terraces, what’s allowed currently. Ms. Raybould stated currently rooftop terraces are allowed, however there are weird nuances in the code in that if it is on the second floor it does not count as the common open space, however if it’s on the ground floor or third floor it does. Generally, rooftop terraces are allowed for commercial, the catch is that if it’s done on a commercial building you have to add an elevator and stairwell. If a building is already over the heigh limit, it can make it impossible to do a rooftop terrace. For the downtown area, there have been some code revisions that are currently in the code that allow for rooftop terraces and allow for those height exceptions. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 238     Page 4 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Rosenberg commented that leaves room for the assumption that the elevator has to be a certain distance from daylight plane in terms of not being front and center. [crosstalk] Ms. Raybould replied there are some specific guidelines of how it needs to be designed so it’s less visible, she was not aware of what those were off the top of her head. Boardmember Rosenberg added one of the items was in regard to one of the recent multifamily projects that was doing the rooftop terraces, but they were near a residential area and possible encroachment on their neighbors privacy. Boardmember Rosenberg recollected there was a proposal for California Avenue to make some potential changes to allow rooftop terraces, and that possibly came up, however that project is no longer moving forward. The downtown area does have specific requirements set forth for distance from residential. It seemed that was more of an issue with potential noise than a question of privacy. Boardmember Rosenberg continued with the item of parklets and suggested that was something Boardmember Thompson had mentioned previously. Boardmember Thompson responded that Boardmember Chen and Vice Chair Baltay were on the subcommittee for the parklets, and those changes were approved. Boardmember Rosenberg’s final requests were bird glazing and Light Reflective Values (LRVs). The ARB keeps returning to “that white is too white”; other nearby towns have set standards so it can’t be too bright white or too dark. If that’s a change Palo Alto would have an interest in, it could be a good time to take it into consideration for a more uniform standard and not so subjective. Ms. Raybould stated the bird friendly guidelines that helped in developing that has been something in their Comprehensive Plan since it was adopted in 2017, and was something of interest in moving forward, bird friendly guidelines. That’s an interesting addition. Chair Hirsch asked if Ms. Raybould had anything to add with the description of the goals. Ms. Raybould stated that was the last goal. Chair Hirsch inquired if there was anything from The South of Forest Area Phase 2 (SOFA 2) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) or SOFA Phase 1 that was missing and inserted into this draft. Ms. Raybould responded that the objective standards do not apply to the SOFA 1 or SOFA 2 districts the way they have been written. The objective standards that were created under 1824, because SOFA is its own specific zoning districts, those objective standards do not apply. Staff intends to bring forward an attempt to create objective standards for SOFA 1 and SOFA 2. Vice Chair Baltay requested an explanation of why they do not apply. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired about the locations of SOFA 1 and SOFA 2. Ms. Raybould explained that SOFA is south of Forest area, south of downtown over towards the Peninsula Creamery area. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 239     Page 5 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Thompson inquired if that was SOFA 1 or SOFA 2. Ms. Raybould replied she would have to pull up a map to say the exact boundaries. Chair Hirsch inquired if the area reaches Alma. Ms. Raybould explained she believed it expanded to Alma. Boardmember Chen stated she believed SOFA 2 expanded the area of SOFA 2. Chair Hirsch inquired about the history of what prompted SOFA 1 and SOFA 2. Ms. Gerhardt stated she didn’t know if staff was prepared for the conversation and she wasn’t present when it came about, she believes that there was a hospital in the area that was taken down and the City needed to plan for what was going to happen in the area, which was the major push to have the two different plans. Chair Hirsch asked the hospital had been where the present Oak Court project is. Ms. Raybould answered it was Palo Alto Medical Foundation and in part in the Roth building at 300 Homer. Chair Hirsch commented that it probably included the site on which Oak Court was built, Section 8 housing. Ms. Raybould replied there were a number of areas it included. Vice Chair Baltay commented he’s fine with the three project goals; notwithstanding the comments that Boardmember Rosenberg made, he believes the items spelled out are significantly more important and he recommended the ARB keep their focus as tight as possible. On the first project goal where it says lower priority, he suggested the verbiage “new office spaces that will exasperate the City’s job/housing imbalance” be changed to “nonresidential commercial and institutional projects” he doesn’t believe it’s necessary to elaborate why they are important or not important. Office is not institutional. He recommends they remove the phrase that says, “that will exasperate the City’s job/housing imbalance”, it’s a bit of a political value statement. It should stay neutral. Boardmember Chen commented there are a lot of housing projects coming in and it’s priority but for the housing community there are other things that they also wanted to develop as well such as the service uses and also maybe some commercial. There are a lot of projects along San Antonio that are housing, but there needs to be a balance of services such as schools and retail and medical. Vice Chair Baltay stated his understanding is that project Goal 1 represents the standard work that the ARB does, they review projects that are in the development process. For whatever reason they are elaborating which ones are high or low priority and he doesn’t know how that actually affects how staff treats things. Boardmember Chen stated her comment towards Goals 1 and Goals 3. Vice Chair Baltay questioned if there was a need to label high or low priority on projects. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 240     Page 6 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Thompson questioned why they event have anything under low priority because commercial institutional and residential makes up the bulk of their review and it doesn’t make sense to say it’s a lower priority when it’s 80% of what they end up reviewing. Vice Chair Baltay suggested striking it all together and again questioned why even have priorities. Ms. Raybould stated that City Council asked them to make a priority list, but the ARB doesn’t have to identify high or low priority. Vice Chair Baltay suggested they put everything under high priority. [Crosstalk] Chair Hirsch commented this is a response to what Council has been stating all along. Ms. Raybould commented that she believed the only thing staff might use it for was if they had three projects that are trying to get on a hearing, they would prioritize the housing project over the office project in terms of getting on that hearing. Boardmember Thompson stated she thinks it makes sense to leave housing as a high priority, but she doesn’t know that everyone else should be pushed down. She’s in favor of striking everything off the lower priority list. Boardmember Rosenberg commented there could be a way to phrase that should conflict arise, housing would be given priority in terms of time slot. Vice Chair Baltay stated he agrees, it’s an administrative thing they shouldn’t get involved in. Unanimous consensus from the Board was that all the text be removed under lower priority. Vice Chair Baltay continued and commented on the second goal he had previously noted to strike the comments about SOFA 1 and SOFA 2 however, after staff’s explanation it sounds like it’s important to leave that. His addition would be to include “modifications to address SB 9 and SB 330 requirements”. Boardmember Thompson inquired what related to 330. Vice Chair Baltay explained any additional regulations that the ARB may have to be involved in, such as what they are doing now with SB 9. Ms. Gerhardt stated nothing new applies to 330, it’s just a freezing of standards. Vice Chair Baltay stated his addition would be the modifications to address only SB 9, as SB 9 would be an important thing to work on. Boardmember Thompson questioned if this meeting would be the last opportunity to discuss SB 9 or if staff anticipated there being additional opportunities in the future. Ms. Raybould stated Chief Planning Official Amy French had a better understanding, and provided a brief summary that City Council had directed staff share the objective standards with the ARB, staff anticipates the additional study session at this meeting to finish out an over arching conversation about those standards. Staff will then seek community and developers participation for feedback regarding SB 9 Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 241     Page 7 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 projects and how these objective standards are being utilized in the field or how they may need to be modified. Based on the feedback from community outreach and the ARB, staff will then draft changes to those objective standards. Sometime before the end of the year staff are expecting additional State Code legislative changes, which will also need to be incorporated. Boardmember Thompson commented she supports making the addition requested by Vice Chair Baltay as it sounds like this will be a long running project. Chair Hirsch inquired if feedback from the ARB already provided will be incorporated prior to community outreach. Ms. Raybould responded that the community outreach will include the same existing objective standards that the ARB has been reviewing, so there will be a single change and not multiple changes prior to creating the draft. Chair Hirsch asked if the changes suggested by the ARB would also be provided during community outreach. Ms. Gerhardt responded that once they move to the next Agenda item, that could be discussed more in depth; there’s two pieces to the SB 9 project. First, staff would like to get the existing ordinance permanent. The second piece is to take a deeper look into the objective standards to see what changes need to be made. The second part does not have a time frame. Getting the ordinance to be permanent has a very short time frame. Chair Hirsch inquired what ordinance change staff seeks to be made permanent and if it includes the language of the objective standards. Ms. Raybould replied that the ordinance references the objective standards and then gives the Director the authority to make changes as needed to those objective standards; it’s an administrative ordinance, that is already existing as an interim ordinance. Staff look to put it before City Council before it sunsets. Staff can summarize the ARB’s feedback; they look to also provide independent feedback for what they are experiencing through the process so to incorporate all of the feedback. Chair Hirsch commented each of the ARB Boardmembers have had experiences within their careers that would likely benefit as feedback and has been partially addressed. SB 330 is a totally different aspect from SB 9 as SB 9 mostly pertains to individual houses which the ARB hasn’t reviewed until now, but their comments may still be of use. Chair Hirsch inquired if SB 330 applied to all areas of the City. Ms. Raybould answered it applies to all areas and there are no expected changes to SB 330 that requires ARB review with respect to changes. There is a set list of seventeen items that applicants have to provide to the Planning Department to freeze the standards, when they’ve met those requirements the SB 330 application is deemed complete. There really isn’t anything to add to a work plan with respect to SB 330. Ms. Gerhardt added that SB 330 prohibits the jurisdictions from imposing subjective design standards, which was why all the objective work was done. Boardmember Thompson commented that all of the work done on the objective standards was in response to SB 330. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 242     Page 8 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Vice Chair Baltay stated SB 330 isn’t something the ARB needs to reference in the study session and inquired about Boardmember Chen’s opinion on the responses regarding SB 9. Boardmember Chen commented that she wrote her questions down before the meeting. Vice Chair Baltay stated they’ve identified four high priority items and no low priority because the Board believes all the items are high priority. The reason City Council is requesting the report from the ARB is to help them make the decisions regarding which things will be done and which won’t, and feels they aren’t meeting their duty by not including low priority items. When he looks at the list, he believes the most important items pertain to the SB 9 regulations, possibly secondarily the townhomes. The other two could be pushed into lower priority if they wanted to take the tough stand of helping to make a decision. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed with Vice Chair Baltay and felt going back to the first item, they should maintain a separation of high priority and low priority, with an understanding that the priority difference is quite minimal, and when push comes to shove, they should be acknowledging it in Project 01 as well. Vice Chair Baltay commented that Project 01 is the processing of applications and it’s not for the ARB to decide which projects staff should focus on, and he’s not sure he would want that responsibility. Boardmember Rosenberg replied that was fair. Vice Chair Baltay stated he’d like to think processing of applications happens in a logical way of when they come in and when they pay the fees and doesn’t believe having priorities makes sense for Project 01. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she heard what Vice Chair Baltay was saying but if City Council was requesting the ARBs opinion on selecting priorities, and they had to choose, which one would it be; however, doesn’t have a concern with leaving it the way it was written. Boardmember Thompson commented she believes it’s implicit. If the ARB is just saying what their priority is, then everything else is not high priority. The point seems mute. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired clarity of if that meant everything was listed in high priority and everything else is scratched. Vice Chair Baltay stated that the ARB just won’t be mentioning anything. Chair Hirsch stated the Council is going to review the item and every other agency in the City and they aren’t going to be terribly concerned about which one is high or which one is low. He believes they can eliminate most of the low priorities, it seems reasonable to do that and just live with the high priority list. He believes when they say for example that sign review is a low priority, the entire commercial façade, that’s significant but otherwise it works. Boardmember Rosenberg added that for Project Article II, she doesn’t believe anything should be scratched from the list all together, but possibly move items from high priority to low priority. Boardmember Thompson agreed and stated she could support that as well. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified that that Townhomes and SB 9 could be high priority and the other two, SOFA and modifications for objective standards, could be moved to low priority. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 243     Page 9 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Chair Hirsch commented that SOFA finished up what they’ve been doing and will end up being a significant priority. Particularly in areas such as Alma where there could be significant future changes. Vice Chair Baltay commented he has been to countless City Council meetings in which Mr. Lait had indicated to Council he was unable to work on projects due to lack of resources. Chair Hirsch suggested the City will add new hires. Vice Chair Baltay commented he feels only some of the things will be done if the ARB doesn’t suggest which items that they feel are most important. City Council will be lacking the guidance of the ARB, and they will make decisions based on other values that don’t have the input of the ARB, which goes against the point of going through this process. They are all important. Ms. Gerhardt commented that she would like to echo the Vice Chair’s comments. Vice Chair Baltay stated he feels that SB 9 requirements are really very important in Palo Alto right now. They’ve got to remain as a high priority. They already have objective standards, they aren’t perfect in any revision, but that’s not as important. SOFA 1 and SOFA 2 do not get many applications. It’s a touch place to develop and seems less critical than the other items. Chair Hirsch stated that he agrees, and added for clarity that there are SB 9 standards, same with multifamily, and both are imperfect. Vice Chair Baltay agreed and commented that Ms. Gerhardt is likely going to hear from the ARB that the SB 9 standards are less perfect than the current objective standards. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that in part, SB 9 is State ruled and regulated, and there is a very comprehensive list of what it should and should not be based on the State. The ARB’s job is to figure out how to implement it in Palo Alto, and what the best methods are to make sure the State rules and regulations apply gracefully within the City’s boundaries. SB 9 is new and likely a bit more pressing. They don’t want to make mistakes they have to fix later, so she would rather take the time now to be thoughtful in how they want to implement it versus seeing what shakes out over the next few years. [crosstalk] Boardmember Chen commented that she understands SB 9 needs many improvements, however asked the ARB to consider the scale of each of the projects, townhomes and multifamily projects are much larger scale and generally are in better locations along major streets. SB 9 projects tend to be on smaller sub roads. It’s hard for her to push SB 9 to the top of the priority list. Vice Chair Baltay stated his suggestion is to keep townhomes and SB 9 projects as high priority, and agreed it’s hard to differentiate which is more important. SB 9 will be mostly for single home residential, and townhomes are larger projects. Boardmember Chen requested clarification if the third one which is based on the implementation of objective standards, are the ones that the SB 330 projects refer to; if that’s the case, those would also be important. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 244     Page 10 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Ms. Raybould responded that SB 330 is not what requires implementation of objective standards. It references that, but any housing accountability act project is only subject to the objective standards and any project going through a state density bonus process is only subject to the objective standards. This item was intended to just reference as staff gets applications for townhome projects or other projects going through the objective standard process, as well as projects that are not subject to those objective standards. Learning from those and understanding what objective standards staff wished they had and where there was possible lack of clarity on the objective standards that may need to be more specific or revised for more flexibility, or something along those lines as they move through that process. Chair Hirsch inquired what staff feels would be critical and if they felt SOFA 1 should be eliminated. Ms. Raybould replied she echoed Boardmember Chen’s thoughts about the scale of a project and also note that with respect to modifications to SB 9, the way that process works is if somebody can’t fit solely within those objective standards there is a process laid out for that discretionary process. For larger housing developments, if there is not an objective standard, they can simply point and say there is no objective standard, or it doesn’t apply due to it not being uniformly verifiable. From that perspective and from Boardmember Chen mentioned regarding scale, staff would likely prioritize the larger multifamily projects. SOFA 1 and SOFA 2 objective standards are going to be important to move forward quickly and changes to more clearly defined townhomes are likely going to be fairly important as well. Chair Hirsch commented he hears a bit of a difference between the ARB and staff. The Board feels SB 9 is important so it may be that everything should be left on the list the way it is. This reflects the Boards opinion. Boardmember Thompson suggested moving the third bullet, the modifications of the existing standards to the lower priority so there’s one thing noted as a lower priority. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Thompson which would provide some differentiation which would be helpful for Council and of the items on the list, the objective standards are in pretty good shape and there aren’t any urgent or pressing issues. Of the items on the list, if the Board has to choose, and she believed they should, it seems to be the last urgent. Ms. Raybould noted that as they move through modifications based on implementation, it could be more helpful to have a few more projects to work off from. Staff would likely be looking to start modifications once they had more. Chair Hirsch commented that it seems they really haven’t tested out objective standards very much at all. It really is important to keep their focus on objective standards and stay flexible enough so changes can be made. That was the original intent. Changes would be made throughout the year when needed, and there will be opportunities to see where those improvements will be important. Boardmember Rosenberg asked Chair Hirsch if he were looking at the four items on the list and had to number order them, what order would he give them. Chair Hirsch stated he would put the modifications on SOFA 1 and 2 as the least important. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 245     Page 11 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Thompson inquired if it’s possible the thought process behind SOFA 1 and 2 being lower priority is due to the ARB not being sure of the details of the project, and if they did know they may change their opinions. Vice Chair Baltay commented that is the whole point of putting their expertise out there. If they don’t know, they can’t say. Boardmember Thompson added that putting something in lower priority doesn’t mean it won’t be done. Ms. Gerhardt responded that she believes they should think of lower priority as a secondary priority and not the bottom or last. Vice Chair Baltay stated he could support ranking the items 1-4. He believes that would be extremely helpful for Council. If that is a direction the ARB wanted to head, townhomes would be number one on his list. Chair Hirsch commented he doesn’t believe they are going to see too many townhome projects coming forward. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she had to respectfully argue that there’s been several to include Acacia, Fry’s because often they are part of multifamily units to include a row of townhomes whether detached or attached. Thinking in terms of San Francisco townhomes may not be correct, but most of the multifamily projects have a row of townhomes as part of the project. Chair Hirsch stated he’s fine with her sentiment but that it isn’t the highest priority. Vice Chair Baltay inquired which of the four items Chair Hirsch would list as number one on the priority list. Chair Hirsch commented that he believed SB 9 would be highest priority. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she believed townhomes would take priority over SB 9, but not by much. Boardmember Chen agreed with Boardmember Rosenberg . Boardmember Thompson commented she doesn’t know how she feels about ranking them 1-4 but one thing they could do is move one thing to the lower priority as a group and her vote would be the objective standards that had already been approved. Chair Hirsch stated his opinion is that SOFA 1 and 2 would be lowest priority. Ms. Gerhardt added for clarity that SOFA 1 and 2 are also currently wrapped up in the Housing Element and it’s likely those may need to go first based on the Housing Element requirements. Boardmember Thompson believed the Board needed to listen to staff regarding SOFA 1 and 2 because the Board isn’t fully familiar with the details of the projects, and staff knows what’s coming in the future. Chair Hirsch suggested providing a priority list rather than ranking them. Ms. Gerhardt explained Ms. Raybould currently had in her notes to remove the third bullet of the modifications to existing standards from the high priority list and down to the secondary priority list and Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 246     Page 12 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 add SB 9 to the high priority list. The only thing they don’t have is three high priorities. It might be helpful to do some ranking in that case, but not required. Boardmember Thompson requested a straw pull to make sure the Board is okay with that change. Chair Hirsch added that he and Boardmember Chen spent a fair amount of time on objective standards and had a number of items they felt could be questioned or discussed further with the entire Board. He didn’t want to miss that opportunity. Vice Chair Baltay commented that’s why he feels comfortable with ranking it lower, because they did a great job in getting the standards to where they are. Boardmember Thompson added it also doesn’t mean they will never get to it, and they aren’t referring to the townhomes, only everything else. Vice Chair Baltay stated that it’s worth bringing up that he and Chair Hirsch had a meeting with the Planning Director a month or two ago and they pushed pretty hard that they need to get the townhome regulations updated. He pushed pretty hard back stating they don’t currently have the staff available. He believed the Board is being naive by not focusing hard on what’s really important. If they leave the townhomes up in the air, the ARB’s input is nothing. The hard decisions have to be made in terms of what items should be given ample focus. Boardmember Chen made a great point in that townhomes are larger projects that have a greater visual impact on the town. Boardmember Thompson commented that she’s fine with the order that was presented on screen by Ms. Raybould. Boardmember Rosenberg commented it’s listed in an order but not number ranked, and she’s good with that as well. Vice Chair Baltay recommended that instead of saying high and low priority, in order of priority they put townhomes first, SB 9 second, SOFA third and objective standard modifications fourth. That way they’ve given a clear direction of what they think of as a Board. Boardmember Thompson repeated that she believed the way it’s written as presented on screen with the changes Ms. Raybould made, where it says “in order of priority” is sufficient. Vice Chair Baltay stated he’s good with the way it’s written. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that she’s good with the way it’s written. Boardmember Chen stated it looked good to her. Chair Hirsch stated he would support leaving it written as presented. Boardmember Rosenberg mentioned three items she’d like considered as additions to include rooftop terraces, parklets, bird glazing and Light Reflective Values (LRV). Vice Chair Baltay commented he believes rooftop terraces are important but not nearly as important as the other items, and they tend to get wrapped up in subjective standards as it’s review. He believes they Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 247     Page 13 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 would be wiser to keep in mind they want regulations regarding these items as they work through objective standards. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed that was fair enough, they would end up under objective standards. Boardmember Thompson commented she agrees that rooftop terraces can be subjective depending on the project and it might be better to not add more regulation to that, but she does like noting bird safe glazing and LRV, which could be added as low priority items for Project Goal 3. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned if they too should be wrapped up into objective standards. They are small items however they keep surfacing again and again. It’s not necessarily items that need more regulation, but they could use more clarity and could be as simple as include them as checkboxes for requirements that applicants can meet and move on. Chair Hirsch inquired if it was necessary to include it if Planning already had resolution on those requirements. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that was a good question to consider. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed there are no current standards for bird glazing. There is staff implementation of the Comprehensive Plan along with push from the community to have better bird safe glazing, but there are no detailed standards in the zoning code. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that townhomes the windows are small and not really a big deal, it’s the projects with 90% of the façade window glazing that create an issue. It may just be a short conversation; some sort of clarity would help for the projects that are predominantly glazing. Boardmember Thompson stated an important factor would be the district location. The Baylands would definitely need that, which may be a reason to list it under Project Goal 3 because those are more district specific. It’s a good conversation to have because there’s a lot to talk about when it comes to bird safe glazing. Chair Hirsch commented that there are a significant number of other communities that have already simply answered the issue and the code already exists. They don’t have to go very far to find what works well and use similar regulations. Ms. Gerhardt agreed that other cities have already done the work so they could do a short process and use what’s already been created elsewhere, or they can do a longer process and delve deeper into it. This work plan is asking Council what their priorities are, those then become staff priorities. Boardmember Chen wanted to continue the conversation about the Comprehensive Plan and area planning under Project Goal 3, and inquired about community service uses in addition to the housing so that it could all be addressed at the same time and not piece by piece as the community grows. Ms. Gerhardt commented that was a good question. Those are things that are part of the Housing Element and part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has ratios included and already baked in for the number of community related services in ratio aspect to housing. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 248     Page 14 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Chair Hirsch commented that if the City builds according to the Regional Housing Allocation Needs (RHNA) requirements and multiply that number by 2.3 which is the number of population you would get for the number of housing units, it would be an additional 13-14,000 people which is more than a 20% population increase in Palo Alto. It’s a necessary perspective to consider the impacts of that over the next ten to fifteen years. Very serious future planning will need to take place if the RHNA numbers stand true. Boardmember Thompson questioned if the ARB was encroaching too much on the Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) purview. Ms. Raybould replied that she agreed, the purpose of the work plan is to focus on what things would be coming before the ARB in the next year, what the Board is talking about is definitely part of the long-term growth of the City and that’s more in line with the PTC and City Council’s purview. The ARB’s purview is more about how that growth will be designed in specific areas throughout the City as the growth builds out. Boardmember Rosenberg understands the boundaries on those topics but supports Boardmember Chen’s concerns and commented that as the ARB, they could make a statement to Council and the PTC along the lines of… although it’s beyond the scope of the ARB, they strongly encourage them to make sure it’s on their dockets for what they will be tackling going forward and it should be make a priority. Ms. Gerhardt replied that’s already baked into the system, there are a lot of people already thinking about this and the City has development impact fees that help pay for new parks and new facilities and things of that nature, sometimes projects even have to add new sewer lines if what’s there can’t hold the intended capacity. It’s a great question and she wanted to help the ARB understand the process, however those sorts of things are already baked into the Comprehensive Plan and have been thought about as part of the Housing Element process. Rates have just been raised for park impact fees to the point where developers are not happy with the City, but the cost of land is significant they need the appropriate fees to make sure they do have the new parks as they are needed. Boardmember Chen commented she appreciates staff comments and she’s glad people are thinking about it and considering it; however, it’s not just about collecting fees. The land is hard to find, they need to also consider land availability for those future uses, as they allow developers to come in and build out the City. Boardmember Thompson stated she would propose scratching rooftop terraces from the Work Plan list entirely and propose they straw pull on what’s left of the list as presented with the amendments by Ms. Raybould. Vice Chair Baltay commented he doesn’t not support LRV being on the list because he believed it’s overreach and it’s not as high in priority in terms of the relevance to everything else listed. Boardmember Rosenberg explained she’s not trying to overreach with added restrictions, she’d just like to see a minimum standard to be set to that as a Board they are not debating project by project that the white being used is too white. Vice Chair Baltay stated that it should just be part of the objective standards. Boardmember Rosenberg that was fair enough. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 249     Page 15 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Vice Chair Baltay explained that he believed there’s a whole section of materiality in the objective standards where this is a standard that the Director can update every so often where this might even already be in there, and if not, this could fit in that section. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed. Ms. Raybould commented she was going to suggest that staff has noted the idea and can likely find a way to resolve that. Chair Hirsch stated if they wanted to, they could add a Board motion of items they wanted staff to look into. Ms. Gerhardt disagreed because the Agenda item was the work plan, staff is not able to do any additional work on the Work Plan that has not been approved by City Council. Boardmember Rosenberg reiterated she had no issues at all with the LRV and glazing falling under the objective standards and rooftop terraces could be listed as a separate item. Boardmember Thompson stated she didn’t know if she viewed bird friendly under objective standards yet, she feels like there is more to it than just glass. Boardmember Rosenberg replied she would argue that it’s a material selection choice, so it feels in the vein of that. Boardmember Thompson commented that bird glass is, but it’s written here as bird friendly guidelines so it’s not just glass, it’s landscaping, positioning, orientation. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed Boardmember Thompson was right. Boardmember Thompson said other cities have created bird friendly design guidelines, and suggested scratching what’s highlighted under Project Goal 3, they would be able to approve what is currently written. Vice Chair Baltay stated he could support that. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she could support that. Boardmember Chen stated she supported that. Chair Hirsch stated he supports that as well and commented the first item on the list regarding San Antonio Way had just come to the attention in the news and a very large industrial area is possibly being offered to the city with an arrangement to develop it with a whole new mix of housing. It’s the area beyond JCC between Fabian Way and San Antonio Road. Ms. Gerhardt stated they are doing a home key project at the end of San Antonio near the Baylands. Chair Hirsch stated it’s on this side of 101, beyond JCC. It’s an active area for development and unrelated, but he wanted staff to keep an eye out for it. It could end up being a very large and significant project. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 250     Page 16 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Vice Chair Baltay commented as long as he’s been on the ARB, they’ve been mentioning to City Council the City needs design guideline standards for San Antonio Road. This would be part of what Chair is talking about. Boardmember Thompson inquired if bullet point one of high priority is the same as bullet point one of low priority. Ms. Raybould answered it’s slightly different. The Housing Element that is moving forward to Council for adoption on May 8, is identifying areas that are zoned general manufacturing (GM) within that area near Fabian Way and San Antonio Road, would allow for housing at a higher density rate. Currently in GM zoning housing is not an allowable use. In order to allow for that, there would have to zoning standards made for the GM. The timeline on that is very tight. They are anticipating by January 1 of 2024, they would have to adopt standards to allow for that because that is part of meeting the RHNA allocation. Chair Hirsch thanked Ms. Raybould for the clarification and commented on the importance of all of that within that area due to the intended higher density and questioned if PTC would be involved in that. Ms. Raybould stated that any zoning changes require Council approval and PTC recommendation. MOTION: Boardmember Thompson moved, second by Boardmember Chen, for the ARB to approve the Work Plan as it is present onscreen by staff. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 THE ARB RECESSED FOR A 10 MINUTE BREAK Study Session 4. Study Session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along with the City’s SB 9 Interim Ordinance 5538. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended a Permanent Ordinance to Replace the Interim Ordinance on February 8, 2023. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. For More Information Contact Amy French at Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org. Vice Chair Baltay commented he will not recuse himself further on this discussion. He had previously out of concern that projects he has would benefit from SB 9 regulations, with more study he realized he does not have any financial benefits from what the SB 9 regulations might be, now or in the future, and his input on the matter might be quite valuable and important. Ms. Raybould stated staff does not have anything new, the study session is meant to continue from the last time it was discussed. At the last hearing, they went over in detail the items related to massing and heard the Board’s comments in regard to daylight planes and setbacks. She suggested they move on to questions related to site planning and privacy requirement recommendations. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 251     Page 17 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Senior Planner Amy French stated this is the second Study Session continuing from March 16, 2023 Agenda Item 2. Staff intends to convene a group of stakeholders in the coming months to ensure sufficient feedback from the community, and resulting from a request by Council, plan to review the SB 9 projects that have already been submitted through the process to date to provide case studies for when they return to Council. Those case studies will include lessons learned, and potential refinements to the standards. City Council will be reviewing the permanent ordinance that references the objective standards, which can be modified even after the ordinance is approved. There will be legislative sessions at the State level in the fall, and as a result of those sessions, staff expects further changes to SB 9 regulations. Chair Hirsch inquired about clarity on the timeline of the process and if the ARB’s comments will receive a response. Ms. French replied that the plan is staff will convene a focus group of architects, ARB representation will also be invited. There is currently no plan to return to ARB with full responses to the Board’s comments, rather staff will continue to gather their comments during the current study session, add to it the focus group comments and PTC comments on the standards, and return to the ARB at that time. Staff will keep the ARB informed of when they expect that to take place, but it will not be a quick turnaround. As a reminder, Ms. French offered there is also verbatim minutes of the PTC meetings for anyone interested. Ms. Raybould commented that the intent would then be to make feedback draft changes before returning to the ARB. Chair Hirsch inquired if there were any public comments. Ms. Dao stated there are no public comments in person or raised hands on zoom. Chair Hirsch requested staff pull up a slide show he made regarding SB 9. He focused on four issues with SB 9. With regard to contextual side massing setbacks next to single story homes, Item 1.5, and second story floors being setback seven feet of the first level for 50% of the depth of the structure along a property line, he recapped a summary of Boardmember Rosenberg’s comments from the previous meeting regarding allowing the daylight plane to be the ruling factor instead of setbacks with respect to not imposing neighbors further restrictions penalizes the new homeowner and stated this was a common opinion of the ARB. With regard to the setbacks next to the single-story homes, Item 1.5A, a proposed structure shall have a one-story building volume of at least 15-foot wide and 15-foot deep at the front side of the house set forward of any second-floor street facing wall place… this item is too restrictive. Neighboring house should not dictate new project planning, form, or require minimum size. Step backs can be a useful way of achieving unobtrusive massing without creating a projection from the front massing wall. The next item is 2.5 Massing Placement, Chair Hirsch believes all examples of non-compliant and possible design decisions should be bulleted and showed photos of examples. The fourth issue is in regard to Entry Types, Item 4.4, Contextual Porch Entries. The porch idea is okay, but Chair believed this item is too restrictive and only appropriate in a designated special district, by legal description for an entire block or district. These four are very important decisions and he feels they are not addressed in what they are studying in this study session. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 252     Page 18 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Ms. Raybould commented with respect to the last item, making a change like that doesn’t require an administrative change, she respects his opinions regarding the item, they can have an objective standards because it’s not a requirement. The Individual Review (IR) guidelines, which was the basis of the objective standards, one of the key elements is looking at the context of the neighborhood and how the projects for buildings fit in with the neighborhood. The idea of that specific objective standard related to the IR guidelines, staff are interested in the ARB’s opinion, but they have similar regulations in the code that have been there for years about contextual garage placement and contextual setbacks. Speaking in general, [Video Skipped]… it seems like at the last study session there was a lot of focus on the concerns with the step backs and looking to the daylight planes more to regulate the massing of the buildings. There was a strong consensus from the Board that there needed to be changes related to that. Staff heard those comments and understood that those are key concerns of the ARB, but she didn’t want that to be the only thing that gets discussed. Chair Hirsch commented that what he heard from Ms. French is that there are going to be no changes made as this goes out, he believed changes need to be made prior to it going out. Boardmember Thompson commented that was not exactly what she heard. She heard that staff are collecting comments from everybody, and they do intend to make changes once those comments have been received. Ms. Raybould clarified that everything being looked at is already in the code. All they are doing now is making the ordinance permanent, so it remains in the code. The Director has authority under the ordinance, as it’s currently written, to make changes at any point in time to the objective standards. Staff anticipates making a single thorough change once they’ve heard from the ARB, PTC, and the community focus group of architects. Chair Hirsch stated that being the case, he would like to see the ARB comments included in what is presented to the other groups. Ms. Raybould replied staff could definitely do a summary of ARB comments and include it in the information presented to the PTC and the focus group. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if the goal of the study session is to review what is written as an interim set of rules for SB 9, and to make changes to what they feel should be changed going forward. Ms. Raybould responded that it’s currently interim, it will be finalized and will continue in the permanent ordinance because they have to return to Council immediately to allow it to remain in the code, otherwise it’s going to sunset. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned if the changes should be made prior to it becoming an ordinance. Ms. French responded that on May 15 staff will return to Council with the ordinance itself. The ordinance will allow them to continue to have objective standards as they are, which are currently being used. As time goes on and after the case studies are completed, the object standards will be refined and changed based on the information from the ARB study sessions, PTC’s recommendations, and the feedback from the focus group. Due to the regulations that are expected to change on the State level, there will definitely be changes made going forward. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 253     Page 19 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Rosenberg requested clarification on the goal of this study session is to make sure they are approving this so that on May 15 City Council can adopt it and make it permanent. Ms. French replied no, the goal of today is only to receive feedback and finish the feedback from the ARB so staff can move forward to the next phase which will be collect further comments from various resources throughout the next coming months. The only thing going before Council is the zoning code that refers to using objective standards, so they can continue using objective standards. Staff will not be showing anything new to the Council on May 15. The only purpose of May 15 is to make the interim ordinance which allows staff to use objective standards, be made permanent before it sunsets. Changes to the objective standards can then be made as deemed necessary once the ordinance is made permanent. Boardmember Rosenberg requested the presentation from the last meeting be shown again since it’s not included in the packet. Boardmember Thompson inquired if diagrams will be included in the objective standards and stated she had a number of questions related to the diagrams. Ms. French responded that’s a great idea and would be a very good comment to add as a suggestion and brought up the IR crosswalk that was created for Council, which explains the IR guidelines as they relate to SB 9 project objective standards. Project Planner Emily Foley explained that diagrams might be an interpretation of objective standards as they make the changes and that is something staff would definitely want to prepare. Using diagrams could be a suggestion with a request to make it a priority for staff to work on. The other Boardmembers agreed that the use of diagrams makes sense. Chair Hirsch commented about the suggestion of trees on the perimeters of lots at every 25 feet and stated that if a lot is only 50 feet, where the planting takes place has a big impact on the location of the structure on that piece of property and a diagram might be helpful. Ms. Foley answered the guidelines for the trees every 25 feet is for interior lot lines and intended for privacy screening. It does not apply to the front property line. Chair Hirsch stated that it starts at the front of the property. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that a diagram might be helpful here. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the format of the study session with regard to Board member comments and if it was going to be by Boardmember. Boardmember Rosenberg commented it might be helpful to move item by item instead. She finds that more helpful with the ARB back and forth discussions, and they should maybe start off where they ended last time rather than being repetitive with the items they’ve already discussed and allow Vice Chair Baltay to provide comments on those items since he was recused from the previous study session. Vice Chair Baltay commented that relative to the daylight plane regulation, it’s well suited for this type of project whereas specific setbacks and specific dimensions of single-story massing adjacent to other single- Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 254     Page 20 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 story housing will prove cumbersome and what concerns him is it will produce poor quality design. He’d like to stress that an important element is the ability to have vertical elements blending with horizontal elements. To restrict that to always be behind a one-story piece is almost like designing with one hand behind your back. It’s important to have the ability to make some things tall. The focus should be on privacy and compatibility. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed and stated that aesthetic impact and compatibility versus privacy and impact compatibility. Her overall critique of these standards is that: while the IR has good elements for large new housing projects, it doesn’t work in the scale and context of SB 9. There will be very tight property lines on some of those projects and the over arching goal should be less focused on the aesthetic and focus more on privacy and how to be a good neighbor with regard to wind flow and daylight. Vice Chair Baltay commented he supports using daylight planes as a massing regulation and not using the other elements such as one-story elements for specific dimensions. It’s a wonderful tool for privacy and sun blocking and wind. It’s a good design restriction to use. They might consider putting exemptions to the daylight plane for small amounts, the way the IR does now. It would allow the two-story verticality but limits the impact on neighbors because it’s small. Boardmember Rosenberg suggested moving on to item two where they left off. Chair Hirsch stated he had comments under item 1.1 regarding driveways. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that she supports the driveways because it allows cars to park off the streets which is more conducive to bicycle safety. No, they don’t want the postage stamp housing with two cars in every driveway, however, if there’s no driveway at all, cars will have to park in the street and bikes will have to maneuver around the cars. There needs to be a balance of aesthetics with functionality of the bike paths and safety. Boardmember Chen agrees with the idea of creating more off-street parking. When thinking about the regular single-story development compared to SB 9 projects, the major difference is SB 9 can have higher density and what would impact the community would be the parking issue and privacy between those potential four units and to their adjacent lots. These are two issues that need to be addressed. Boardmember Thompson commented she didn’t want to open the driveway can of worms, but she had a slightly different opinion. In general, the trend is to have less car ownership and to have less cars on the street in general. The nice thing about having less driveways is you get more building frontage, and more eyes on the street if there are cars on the street. There is a benefit to not making driveways huge. She doesn’t have an issue with the way it’s currently written. Boardmember Rosenberg added it also includes that they are encouraging shared driveways, and that would definitely be good for SB 9 projects. But again, you are penalizing rather than incentivizing to encourage something. Encouraging a shared driveway would definitely be the way to go without saying they can’t have a driveway. Particularly when what was a single-family lot is now four families. If each family has two cars, the math isn’t going to work for what’s going to fit on the curb. Ms. Foley added the 18-foot driveway is only within the front setback; once they go back 20 feet, they can widen it to a width that can be accommodated on the site. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 255     Page 21 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Ms. Raybould stated the current standard is twenty foot maximum allowed by the code, the 18 foot is a slight reduction from that. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she’s okay with that, her comment was more in response to comments that the 18 feet should be reduced even further, and she supports the way it’s currently written. Vice Chair Baltay commented he would encourage them to strongly consider the width of the planting strip. A two-foot planting strip is too restrictive in that it takes up too much space on what will be very narrow properties. It should be at most, one foot. He would prefer to regulate it by saying they need to have a landscape strip and not give a width to that. Boardmember Chen agreed with Vice Chair Baltay, generally speaking the SB 9 standard should be in inline with the IR and she was not able to locate the information regarding the parking strip along the side yard. It specifically stated in the objective standards that the parking strip needs to be between the driveway and interior lot line. It’s too specific and is too wide considering there may be a shared driveway between the front units and rear units. The two feet planting strip would in addition to that would make the buildable area too narrow. Ms. Foley stated this would be a case where the shared driveway would be incentivized because then they wouldn’t need to separate those driveways. There would be one driveway along that shared interior lot line compared to if the driveways were aligned with the outside sides of the house, where the landscaping would be providing separation from the neighboring lots. Ms. Raybould commented that the idea of the two-feet wide strip was an interpretation of the IR guidelines and the intent of that was to provide sufficient space to actually have a tree grow in that area. Trees aren’t always required in some of the areas. There have been past projects that have done one foot landscaping between. Public Works often wants some sort of area along the edges of the property lines that provides for run-off. Boardmember Thompson noted there was a long discussion about this at the last meeting. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed, she doesn’t want to see them get hung up on an item that’s already been discussed, with their objections already made clear. They can definitely look around in other communities that have only a fence between properties and water run-off is a problem in those areas. Arguments can be made for both sides, they are having a repeated discussion about something they’ve already determined is an item in which the ARB has already provided comments. There are a lot of items to cover, she wants to ensure they get covered. Ms. Raybould summarized that staff is hearing that two feet is too wide. Boardmember Thompson added that out of the last meeting the point was also made that it was to minimize the view of the carport. Moving on to 2.1, this was an item she felt a visual would have been helpful. Ms. Foley stated staff does not have a visual, but they did summarize it so that it may be better explained. On Item 2.1A, it says in cases where properties are adjacent to a single-story home with less than 500 square feet on the second floor, they are considering it primarily a one-story home. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 256     Page 22 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Thompson provided annotation on the screen for visualization. Vice Chair Baltay suggested that regulation not be contingent on the neighbors house and say that two- story elements can not be more than 50% of the width of the property. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed that makes sense. Vice Chair Baltay stated you still have daylight planes and setbacks. Maybe the property isn’t the correct ratio, possibly do it 50% of the property less the setbacks, or a better way to phrase it would be not more than 50% of the entire buildable area. It seems odd that it would be restricted based on the neighbors as neighbors change. Boardmember Thompson stated the verbiage of no greater than 50% of the front façade’s visible wall area on the first floor isn’t clear and inquired what the façade’s visible wall area means. Ms. Foley explained that porches are counted, which would make it the full house width. Ms. Raybould commented she had someone recently ask about that and the way she interpreted it was that the term wall is anything that contributes to the massing. Boardmember Thompson commented she would support not basing it off the neighbor as well. On 2.2C, second floor wall plate height and inquired the definition of a wall plate height. Ms. Foley explained it’s a floor to ceiling interior wall height measured on the exterior wall, in case there is a vaulted ceiling. Vice Chair Baltay and Boardmember Rosenberg both stated this is a case where it makes better sense to use the daylight plane. Vice Chair Baltay stated it’s very difficult for an architect to fix what a wall plate is, and they are constantly adjusting it to meet the daylight requirements and that’s the objective. Chair Hirsch stated that 2.1A is a similar issue regarding the front façade visible wall and inquired why would it be limited to 50%. Ms. Foley explained this was to limit it for consideration of the impact of a two-story house adjacent to a one-story house. The intent is to limit the width of the second floor so not to overwhelm the neighbor. In the practice of implementing the guidelines over the last several years, it’s been interpreted as having more of a boxy style house with two-story wall planes is not preferred directly adjacent to one-story houses. For 2.1A specifically, this only applies when it is adjacent to a one-story house or a house with a similarly second story footprint. Chair Hirsch commented that in the case of his own house, he was required to limit the footprint of the second floor based on the daylight plane because at the time it was built his neighbor was a one-story house. His neighbor is now a two-story house. He believes 2.1A limits more than it should. Ms. Foley stated that all of staff’s interpretations are limited based on the neighbors and welcomes the feedback from the ARB. She doesn’t necessarily disagree with any of the points being made, but she does Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 257     Page 23 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 believe it would be a better use of time to continue for ARB’s feedback on the other items as well rather than continue with the back and forth on a single item. Boardmember Thompson inquired about 2.2A in relation to the flood zones and not letting it be higher based on the assumption that those flood numbers could change, and possibly increase. Ms. Foley replied that the exact wording is that it may be set at the minimum allowed above grade to meet code requirement which is nonprescriptive in case they change in the future and in all cases the proposed house would be allowed to build at the code requirement for a flood zone. In terms of being above what that minimum is, in some of the neighborhoods it might be 4.5 feet above existing grade, and again when looking at the context of one single-story home particularly if it’s in an Eichler track and a flood zone, it’s to help with the balance of the neighbors. Ms. Raybould stated she understands Boardmember Thompson’s point and there are some areas of the city, particularly out by the Baylands, that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is looking at potential map changes to increase the height, she’s not sure how many single-family residential areas, but as an example, 2850 W. Bayshore did design their buildings based on the expected changes to the FEMA map regulations because they didn’t want to have to come back in the future to make changes. Staff are trying to minimize the starting point of the height to try to minimize the overall massing of the project. There could be additional language worked into this item to consider potential change in the accommodation. Vice Chair Baltay inquired what staff means by the term Eichler Track. Ms. Foley replied they have adopted Eichler guidelines, and those guidelines include a map of recognized Eichler neighborhoods. She will look into whether or not the standards do a good enough job of referencing that document. Vice Chair Baltay clarified that those are not necessarily single-story overlay neighborhoods. Ms. Raybould confirmed he was correct. Only some of them are. Vice Chair Baltay commented to his colleagues that brings up the inherent contradiction in Palo Alto that if the neighborhood wants to preserve single-story Eichler aesthetics, they can only get a single-story overlay if three quarters of the neighbors agree, which preserves that character of the neighborhood. There’s been an enormous amount of conflict from neighborhoods that don’t want to do that. As the City does the SB 9 regulations that’s going to become more and more of an issue because there will be more density. The way it’s being written is too restrictive and he suggests rather than saying Eichler tracks, use “single-story overlay neighborhoods”. People who want to preserve the Eichler track should then create a single-story overlay to get that protection. Boardmember Thompson inquired if Vice Chair Baltay’s comments were related to Item 2.2A. Vice Chair Baltay stated that it is, the first thing it says is Eichler track rooftops. Boardmember Rosenberg stated 2.2C is what Vice Chair Baltay was referencing. Vice Chair Baltay stated 2.2A also references “in Eichler tracks”. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 258     Page 24 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 [crosstalk] Ms. Foley commented there are several references to Eichler tracks so if they would like to address it is one single comment. Boardmember Thompson replied she doesn’t feel it can be addressed as one because there are some cases where it doesn’t matter, it’s not talking about a second story. There’s one in regard to porches, and percentage of porches on a street and in an Eichler style building you wouldn’t have a porch, you’d have a recessed courtyard at the entry and that can serve as a porch but that doesn’t have anything to do with it being single-story necessarily. Vice Chair Baltay stated his comment is more general than two stories. It’s more for the many Eichler type homes who want to preserve that style. You can’t gain more square footage without going vertical. A better approach would be to define more carefully what these neighborhoods are, either you can get a single-story overlay, or it could be made a historic district. If that architectural style is that important, let’s make it historic and then baked into the SB 9 regulations there are protections for that. Boardmember Thompson inquired about Eichler neighborhoods that do have second story additions. Some of them are very nicely done, very sensitive to the neighborhood and setback so they don’t compromise the character of the style, and the eaves are in congruence with the building. She doesn’t want to exclude Eichler homes that are doing second stories or that would have permit second stories in their neighborhoods. Vice Chair Baltay suggested imagining those additions on lots that are half that size. It gets that much more difficult as it’s already a design challenge to put a second story addition on an Eichler successfully. To now do it on a narrow lot, it’s doubly difficult. What they are trying to set up standards that both allow these things but also make it easy and successful. If they bake into the rules for protections for Eichler style architecture, they are making it really difficult to develop them under SB 9. Boardmember Thompson stated she wasn’t sure she followed his point and requested clarification on if he was excluding Eichler homes in the standards and not give special attention to them. Vice Chair Baltay stated that was correct. He believes they should give special attention to the buildings that have single-story overlay zoning which is an established thing, or buildings that are in historic districts which is already there and offered an example of if he has a 30 foot lot and he has to do an Eichler style building, and knew he was going to want to add a two story mass at some time, as an offset to that horizontal element, by way of a staircase or maybe a bedroom over the living room, that’s not allowed under these type of guidelines because it’s a two story mass. Boardmember Thompson replied he would if it was less than 50% and it followed…. Vice Chair Baltay stated the other things overrule it. Boardmember Thompson stated she believes that’s a question mark. Vice Chair Baltay responded that he was just pointing out that these are the kind of questions they are going to struggle with, and architects will struggle with them as they work through it. He’s noticed that Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 259     Page 25 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 the Eichler neighborhoods are doubly restrictive for new development that doesn’t conform to that aesthetic. Boardmember Rosenberg interjected that she’d like to address 2.2B and 2.2C, those two items tie back to previous conversations and being too restrictive about how tall the ceilings are allowed to be. As an example, 2.2B the height from finished floor to second floor shall not be more than 10 feet-6 inches, this is so dependent on the structure that’s being used. Truss systems between floors, you might want a 24” truss system and then you’re restricted to having an 8’6 first floor. Some of these are an inside issue. It’s inside the house and doesn’t affect the neighbor or the outside, all of the items that are inside the mass need to be scrapped. Vice Chair Baltay reiterated they should just rely on the daylight plane. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if they would like to discuss parapet height as it relates to the daylight plane. Vice Chair Baltay stated same comment. Ms. Raybould inquired which one was the same comment. Boardmember Rosenberg answered 2.2D. It should be scrapped and rely on the daylight plane, and imagine you want to put a parapet wall to hide a rooftop AC unit, as long as it’s within the daylight plane, what does it matter if it’s one foot above the roof plane or if it’s three feet above the roof plane to hide that AC unit. This entire series of nitpicky little items is being very restrictive to already very restrictive items when there is a very straight forward solution which is respect the daylight plane. And then if we wanted to discuss which items can puncture the daylight plane, like maybe allow an exception for a chimney, maybe it’s a TV antenna, or a dormer here or there. The over-arching guidelines for a lot of these items should be the daylight plane. Items 2.2B, and 2.2C shouldn’t be there at all and 2.2D should refer to the daylight plane. Vice Chair Baltay and Chair Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Thompson continued with item 2.5 and the reference to the garage space not being allowed for Eichler homes. Ms. Foley stated at minimum it would need to be a pop out, but it could also be the full width of the first story. So, it could be an 8 x 12 pop out. Vice Chair Baltay stated that this seems to require it be a pop out. Ms. Raybould stated that this was one of the items that was mentioned in Chair Hirsch’s previous comments, and he gave a couple of visuals of projects that might not meet this. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if that was coming out of the IR guidelines, he didn’t recall seeing that kind of thing. Boardmember Thompson confirmed the IR guideline is on the left. Vice Chair Baltay read that the IR guideline says IF you have smaller volumes do them this way. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 260     Page 26 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 On item 2.5 it says you have to have that. Boardmember Thompson stated it might be objective enough to say to locate smaller volumes in front of larger volumes because that’s the guideline and it’s pretty objective. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed and requiring that sort of sizes, going back to Chair Hirsch’s photos, the one with the cottage look with the very steep slopes, but the popout there was only two feet deep. To require an 8-foot depth with 12 feet, again, it’s over restrictive. It’s dictating the architecture in a way that it shouldn’t be. Chair Hirsch commented that in the general construction of objective standards, there’s discussion about modulations of the front of buildings which really could satisfy something like this, such as a bay window as a popout, pushing the entry back; there’s so many ways one could do something like this to modulate the front of a building to give it scale. To make this form a single-story form, it isn’t helpful to an architect. Vice Chair Baltay stated that was good advice, they should focus on some sort of stipulation regarding required modulation, it will be more successful. Ms. Foley appreciated the comments and made note of them and objective standard 4.1A may refer to the kind of idea that the Board is referring to, where it requires either a large window as a focal point, or some type of roofed or trellis area. The ARB was good with 4.1A. Boardmember Thompson continued with 2.6 regarding unused attic spaces shall not exceed 5 feet in height and 2.6B says no exterior wall shall exceed 22 feet in height as measured from existing grade to eave of parapet portions of wall were two other questions for her. She thought it might be dictated by zoning but then saw the IR guideline was avoiding tall wall heights and large unused attic spaces. Boardmember Rosenberg also requested clarification of the difference between an unused attic space and a used attic and if putting mechanical equipment in the attic would then qualify it as a used attic space. Ms. Raybould commented that is a good question and explained that the way staff has defined it previously is more if it counts to floor area. If you have a steep type of roof, just by the form you end up having attic space. As long as it’s less than 5 feet in height, staff does not count it, in historic buildings they don’t count it regardless. Staff has differentiated between unused and used by if it has a permanent stairwell into the space and if it has windows. They’ve used the modifiers to help them understand if it’s going to be used as a room or just extra space because they happen to have a roof form that created the space. Boardmember Chen inquired if it matters if the space is conditioned or not conditioned. Ms. Raybould stated that if it has a permanent staircase leading into the space, staff counts it towards floor area and count it as used whether it is conditioned or not conditioned and the reasoning for that is often people would create it not conditioned and then come back later and condition it. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 261     Page 27 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Rosenberg stated this is something they run into often on different projects and different cities all have slightly different rules and regulations and her frustration has always been people love to put up HVAC units in the attic, and sometimes they are taller than five feet. Then you have to lay it on its side, and it functions better vertically. She understands the intent, however, she finds them exceedingly frustrating. There are better ways to regulate it. Vice Chair Baltay added … it’s the daylight plane. The trick would be to raise the ceiling inside, and that’s done all the time. Boardmember Rosenberg stated there are additional costs in meeting the requirements and not affecting the outside roof plane. She doesn’t have anything specific regarding SB 9 projects, it’s just a general frustration she has. Boardmember Thompson stated she finds 2.6B confusing. It sounds like it would be dictated by zoning, however if the intent is to avoid tall wall heights…. Boardmember Rosenberg interjected that also goes back to daylight plane. Boardmember Thompson stated tall wall heights is just saying you can’t have a plane that goes from floor to roof. Boardmember Rosenberg drew an example on the screen and understands why its there. If you’re trying to create a vertical mass, but she’s not sure if it’s covered by zoning. Boardmember Thompson stated it depends on the architectural style. Vice Chair Baltay agreed. Chair Hirsch agreed and he wondered if a certain percent of the house could be above the daylight plane. Boardmember Thompson added, or a certain percentage of the entire allowable height as part of the façade could take up the building so that the building is not at 100% at the max zoning. Maybe it’s something like 50% of the exterior wall height or less can go to the roof. Chair Hirsch commented that he notices the houses that are very vertical in shape and frequently they are on the driveway side of the building so the impact on a neighbor isn’t significant at all, particularly if the rest of the house steps down. Boardmember Thompson stated she needs to leave the meeting and wanted to say that there are four more sections she would like people to take a closer look at, which are 3.3, 4.3, 4.5 and 5.2D, and she will leave the hard copy here if that’s helpful to the group. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if the Board would like to pause this item since it is an ongoing conversation and Boardmember Thompson has to leave. They can continue with the other points at the next available meeting. There is no urgency, they aren’t trying to hit the May 15th deadline. Chair Hirsch agreed he thinks it’s better to wait. Boardmember Thompson stated she’s open if that’s what the other Boardmembers would like to do. She doesn’t want to hold anything up. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 262     Page 28 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Rosenberg stated since there is no urgency, her preference is to have everyone available, giving their full and complete input. It’s very illuminating. Boardmember Thompson inquired if that’s okay with staff. Ms. Raybould commented that she believes that’s fine, the only thing she would note is that they don’t fore see it coming back to the ARB before July, based on a number of items, but there is no specific urgency. Boardmember Thompson summarized they did make it through item 2. They can start at 3. Maybe they could just do a segment at each meeting! Ms. Raybould requested they make a motion to continue. She doesn’t know if it’s required. Chair Hirsch stated it’s a study session so it’s not required and added that for the record he will not be available for the second meeting in July. Vice Chair Baltay stated he thinks they should move to continue this item to a date certain, so they have it Agendized and requested that Ms. Raybould suggest a date. Boardmember Thompson stated she will now be present for the meeting on June 15. Boardmember Rosenberg also requested from staff that when the package comes up again, they get the full list again. Boardmember Thompson requested diagrams as well if it suits everyone. Ms. Raybould stated the best option based on scheduled absences and holidays would be August 3. May and June are booked solid. Sometimes something gets pulled, they could be more flexible. It would be more helpful if they could leave it as a date uncertain. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, Boardmember Rosenberg seconded, to continue the item to a date certain of May 18. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Ms. Raybould requested if they could consider reappointing someone for the Ad-hoc committee portion. Boardmember Thompson nominated Vice Chair Baltay. Chair Hirsch stated Vice Chair Baltay is busy, he will do it. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that the ad-hoc committee portion has people patiently waiting for the meeting to end and suggested they pause the meeting to take care of them and then reconvene to continue the ARB Agenda. THE ARB RECESSED FOR A 10 MINUTE BREAK MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, Boardmember Rosenberg seconded, that the meeting continued at a time certain of 12:20 p.m. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 263     Page 29 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 VOTE: 4-0-0-1 (Boardmember Thompson Absent) 5. Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards Phase 2 for Townhomes [video resumed with meeting in progress] Ms. Raybould stated they could put it up on screen and add it to the website. They also have it available in back of the Chambers. Chair Hirsch commented that he feels this is still raw, and the way they conducted the study for this item was significant. They spent a lot of time looking at Sterling Court, East Meadow, JCC, Arbor Real, Alma Village, Oak Court, Menlo, San Mateo, Foster City in the Redwood area, Dublin, Livermore, Mountainview and a number of others. He recommends as they move forward with townhomes since the entire Board requested that they prioritize it, the Boardmembers take a trip and look at some of those mentioned. Some aren’t far, and recommended Arbor Real in particular and Alma Village. JCC and Oak Court are different types of construction, but the architecture is very interesting in both. Chair Hirsch and Boardmember Chen alternated reading through the suggestion from their ad-hoc committee for the Revised regulations for townhomes – objective zoning, which can be found here. Vice Chair Baltay commented that his experience is every townhomes vary on item three: No more than 3 attached Townhomes within a cluster of 5 units or 4 in a cluster of 6 units can repeat the same elevation, window format, surface pattern and cornice height. The maximum number of attached units with common walls shall not exceed 7 units. Chair Hirsch stated on the Fry site they were all the same. Boardmember Rosenberg stated it’s important to note because often townhomes are identical. She believed that diagrams would also be helpful for this item. Boardmember Chen suggested staff bring up some of the images from the other presentation, they could use some of those for examples. Chair Hirsch explained that later they will find they requested end units require something different all together, in the earlier items they were mostly talking about the middle units. Vice Chair Baltay requested clarification on differentiation between the middle units or just the middle units from the end units. Chair Hirsch stated the middle ones themselves would need variation between them, then stated he saw Vice Chair Baltay’s point with a cluster of 5 units and explained the example on the screen. Vice Chair Baltay stated he needs a better definition of variation for item 3 to work. Chair Hirsch clarified that in a cluster of 5 units, the three middle could repeat, with a change in roofline, as that’s an extra improvement. Vice Chair Baltay stated the example on screen is successful and the regulation should be reworded. Chair Hirsch agreed. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 264     Page 30 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Vice Chair Baltay stated the question will come up that if you regulate the two end units being different by requirement, then what’s the point of the added regulation. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she prefers a bit more modulation than what is being shown on the screen. The center units have repetitive white and windows. She understands the windows being the same, but she would like to see more variation in materiality. Vice Chair Baltay and Chair Hirsch felt it met the minimum standards. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if it was a group of four units, would it change their opinion. It would be very repetitive. In three units its likely ok, but if you add a fourth unit it changes the appearance to look large and repetitive. If they require variation on the end units, at least one of the internal units should also be different. There should be no more than two side by side units that are similar. It breaks it up more. Vice Chair Baltay suggested it might be helpful to come up with a better definition of what qualifies as variation. There are half a dozen different items that could qualify. Stipulate a certain number of variance required, and then they could pick from the of the number of options that qualify as variation. The floor plan would still be the same, but the materiality of the exterior would be varied. Boardmember Chen stated number 4 covers that and continued with the list. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired regarding item 4F, why require the four-foot minimum if you also allow a Juliet-balcony, why have a minimum size at all. Vice Chair Baltay answered that a Juliet-balcony has no physical space at all and commented that the intent behind items 3 and 4 makes a lot of sense and is very important. Another way to handle it would be to define a list of elements that can be varied, such as A-F on item No. 4, you could add to that list window fenestration pattern, size, scale, proportion, roof forms, building materials, and then various units should be differentiated from each other and on any run of units, no more than two units can be the same. It gives the design more flexibility and then provide staff with what they meant by variation by way of a check list. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that’s a great idea. She supports that method. Chair Hirsch stated he was trying to follow a similar format to the objective standards and continued with item 5. Alma Village was the one with stucco. The actual part of the Alma project that faces the street is the parking side. He found that interesting, it’s an internal street in the development and they treated it very simply with a broad color in stucco. It was all one color, but the form was dominant. He suggested they defer until they can get a photo. Chair Hirsch continued on Item 6: Townhomes located on major streets or boulevards or facing two streets can exceed the RM 30 height requirements by a full story or partial story but cannot exceed the 50-foot height limitation. Emphasis on increasing the importance of the street is achieved by selecting two or more of the following: a) Increase the scale of the entry area and doorway b) Increase the window dimensions and their surrounds and the cornice dimension c) Provide the front areaway within the property with a defined structure that separates it from the sidewalk and the neighboring home d) Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 265     Page 31 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Increase the height of the building by a full story or a partial story consistently on all units or at end units or in a consistent repeating pattern of units. Ms. Raybould commented that RM 30 has a height limitation of 40-foot height limitation. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if the standards could change the zoning code. Ms. Gerhardt replied no, they cannot. What can be done is a Design Enhancement Exception process, where they do allow the tower elements. They do also have the mini variances process that is still unchartered territory. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if they found any that were taller than 35 feet. Boardmember Chen stated the questioned the JCC project because it had the podium for the garage below and the unit was above the garage. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if there are single family townhomes that have stair allowances for third floors, and inquired if there was code that allowed for a fourth story. Ms. Raybould stated that Fire requires some portion of the roof come down to twenty-seven feet with a certain slope from there and there can’t be many steps up from that. Chair Hirsch said it would be useful, but they could limit it as Ms. Gerhardt had said, and maybe the end unit had a feature with a raised area on the top floor. Boardmember Chen commented that it doesn’t have to be an end unit, it could also be a corner unit. The Arbor project was “L” shaped and the corner unit facing both streets was taller. Boardmember Chen continued with Item 7: All Townhomes projects on all sites greater than 2 acres must have one street of the longest dimension with a sidewalk and street trees. The intent was to make the property more pedestrian friendly and provide more opportunities for landscaping. Vice Chair Baltay inquired about the interpretation of street of the longest dimension. Boardmember Chen stated if there is a rectangular shape on the side, there is a longer street frontage and then a shorter one. Chair Hirsch replied this is one of the things in the Mountainview project they found, it’s a new thing. Vice Chair Baltay suggested it might make sense to require all streets to have a sidewalk with trees. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed. Ms. Raybould inquired about all streets because streets that have vehicular access to the garages would be difficult to make that requirement. Boardmember Rosenberg stated they could make a refinement by saying the longest pedestrian facing should have sidewalks and street trees, or where the porches and front doors are located. It should be required on every front face of every townhome project. It’s one of the joys of the Brownstone district. It makes it very desirable and very walkable and pedestrian friendly. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 266     Page 32 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Chen stated Alma could be used as an example as it has one end side that faces the garages. Staff found and displayed a picture for item 5 and massing variation. Chair Hirsch stated it’s all stucco and has been around for a while and it’s still in good shape. The windows are all defined, and the form work is interesting with variation on some of the projections with multiple color variations. Vice Chair Baltay commented that the multiple color section of Item 5 should be part of the acceptable ways of doing variation. Color is one tool that can be used to get variation between the units. Chair Hirsch agreed and confirmed that Item 5 should go into Item 4. Vice Chair Baltay stated the colors in some percentage to the way it’s being written, color variation of at least 70% if it’s trim or something like that. Regarding the street discussion in Item 7, what they are really trying to do is have a pedestrian pathway into the entrance of each unit that is landscaped and distinct from the vehicular access. Chair Hirsch stated Sterling court has a linear passage, so you get into two house from one area. Each house had a garage in the front and because they were separated each side had a tree because there’s a sidewalk. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that she believes the intent with Item 7 is that every pedestrian facing sidewalk long or short should have a sidewalk and street trees. Chair Hirsch agreed, it is that simple. [crosstalk] Ms. Raybould noted that Item 8 was discussed pretty extensively at the last meeting. There is already a standard in the objective standards. Vice Chair Baltay inquired what that standard is. Ms. Raybould responded if it’s more than one acre they have to have two prototypes if it’s more than three acres you have to have three separate prototypes. Boardmember Chen stated at one of the previous meetings Ms. Gerhardt provided a pretty clear definition on what the typology means, and she listed three different types of typology, and explained their intent was to prevent developers from cutting the units short by a unit and still consider the typology of the one missing. Ms. Gerhardt commented when they are talking about wholly different unit types such as a condo versus a townhouse, that’s already in the code. Chair Hirsch replied no that’s not what they were talking about and inquired about Sterling Court. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 267     Page 33 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Ms. Gerhardt explained that Sterling Court has attached townhome, detached townhomes and possibly condos. It has very different housing types, but she was able to get that into the objective standards that are currently written. Vice Chair Baltay asked if that standard is relative to the size of the development. Ms. Gerhardt replied that was correct. It’s different unit type but the exterior is going to look different. Ms. Raybould stated the objective standards currently states: A diversity of housing types such as detached units, attached rowhouse townhomes, condominiums or apartments, and mixed use are required on large lots. Less than one acre is a minimum of one housing type, one to two acres is a minimum, or two housing types or more than two acres is a minimum of three housing types. Vice Chair Baltay stated that’s not referring to architectural type specifically and he could support that, it’s already baked into code; and inquired how Item 8 is different than what Ms. Raybould read. Ms. Raybould stated that she’s not sure it is and that was her point. Chair Hirsch commented that maybe they need to talk about the aesthetics of it. The first part of the item could be exactly what’s in the code already, and then they should say in which they should be integrated in looks. Vice Chair Baltay commented they talked a bit about items 3 and 4 with regards to variations between the units. Those are architectural design things they are looking for and inquired if that couldn’t apply across the board with housing type, and if so, it may accomplish that goal. Chair Hirsch stated that wording could be added, it applies to all housing types. Vice Chair Baltay the housing type is not a design variation, rather a use variation that are regulated by zoning codes. Ms. Raybould stated the objective standards already have a lot of very specific requirements and they’re related to typology. It could certainly apply to townhomes the way it is currently written in the code, but these additional things may add more clarity to what’s expected of townhomes. Boardmember Chen continued with Item 9: Pedestrian paths on the side of housing clusters that connect the front to the rear and located between the townhome clusters where the unit entry is on the opposite side must be a minimum of 12 feet wide with a minimum 4-foot sidewalk and the adjacent areas fully landscaped. Bay windows of 2-foot projections may penetrate this area as long as no windows directly face each other across its width. Vice Chair Baltay requested going to Item 10 as well since they seem related. Boardmember Chen read Item 10: All major, general public pedestrian passages between clusters must be a minimum of 16 feet wide. A minimum 4 feet perimeter of planting areas and pedestrian amenities such as seating areas must be incorporated in the design and are required throughout the pedestrian way. Such amenities can include bicycle racks or other mobility devices. Chair Hirsch stated when you have a public passage which is different from a private passage. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 268     Page 34 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Rosenberg stated this feels like paseo widths and when they talk about the long edge and the short edge, and she has zero issues with it being clear for a major pedestrian pathway and then a minor pathway. Her minor comment is that number 9 states a minimum 4-foot sidewalk and number 10 doesn’t designate a minimum sidewalk, she would assume that on Item 10 they might want to go a little bit wider. If there is a sidewalk instead of a big paved area, maybe a minimum of six feet would make more sense. Ms. Raybould inquired what is meant by public because these are private sights that aren’t necessarily designating areas on their site as public and asked if public is meant to be more a shared pathway between different townhomes. Chair Hirsch stated it was meant to go east to west on Fry’s where there’s a connection to the public street for people to walk from the public building to the project. Ms. Raybould stated those are not public streets. Chair Hirsch stated they are designated as private areas. Boardmember Rosenberg clarified that because these townhomes are considered private areas, they are talking about anywhere that anyone in the townhomes can use, but the intent is not to create a public park. Ms. Raybould clarified her question was the areas that may have a public easement over it versus being a shared public pathway, for example the shared pathway that goes down the Fry’s site, which is part of an open common space. Boardmember Rosenberg stated maybe the word common is better than using the word private. Chair Hirsch stated he was good with that. Ms. Raybould commented that she would note that the question is coming up in the current standards that references public, and staff is interpreting it to mean communal. Vice Chair Baltay commented he believes Items 9 and 10 make a lot of sense and are very important, he doesn’t believe the dimensions are big enough and what they may want to do is regulate at a high level the distance between the buildings. When you have two rows of townhomes facing each other the question is really how far apart they have to be. Usually, the walkways are at the ends of the units. Chair Hirsch recommended they look at the Alma project for retrospect, he believes those were a 12-foot dimension, but he’s not sure. Boardmember Chen commented that Item 9 is more between the two end units corridor where you go from the front to the rear. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if they could just say that there are two types of outdoor communal pathways, ones between the ends of units and ones between the lengths of units, and then define the distances or the landscaping treatment between them. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 269     Page 35 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Boardmember Rosenberg commented she would persuade that there are minor thorough fares and major thoroughfares. The long extensive ones are wider, more plantings and the minor ones still need plantings but could be shorter in width. Vice Chair Baltay questioned how they would define that objectively. Boardmember Rosenberg said it goes back to the long streetside that was mentioned in one of the objective standards. The long the thoroughfare, the wider it needs to be. Chair Hirsch stated then 16 feet is minimal and needs to be more. Boardmember Rosenberg suggested the minor thoroughfare should be a minimum of 16 feet wide and the major thoroughfare should be the width of one of the down homes, maybe 25 feet. Chair Hirsch commented that this raises the issue of how long to string these things together as well. Ms. Raybould commented that she’s trying to imagine current projects; one has the building at the front with four frontages facing the sidewalk and then the ends of units on the other side. It would be hard on some of the smaller sites to have that 25-foot width and she would note that where there are two buildings running a full length, that common space between might be different than where you had the full length of the building with a couple of end units and there’s some open area because that’s where the cul-de-sac comes in, it still provides a more open type of design. Some of the projects coming in now are smaller sites. Boardmember Rosenberg commented they do need to take into consideration there are streets and what they are talking about are just pedestrian only walk throughs. She would possibly be okay with dropping the minor to 12 feet and the major thoroughfare to 16 minimum feet, possibly 20. Ms. Raybould suggested maybe if it’s intended to be their main common area, it could be wider. Chair Hirsch stated common areas are entirely different. Vice Chair Baltay stated the space between the units is going to be a common area, that’s an important function of it. It’s important to have the space between the areas as not just a pathway but a communal area. His rule of thumb is the space should be as wide as the building is tall. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she would argue that the length of the pathways should matter as well. The width should be dependent on how long the pathway is. Chair Hirsch added, or if it comes to a plaza or crossing path, it should become much larger. Vice Chair Baltay suggested making a regulation that it has to be made as wide as the building is tall. That’s very clear. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she would argue again, if it’s a short path, there isn’t a need for it to be as pronounced. Vice Chair Baltay agreed and stated they really ought to define the space between units that are facing each other, the sides with entry doors. Every townhouse development has it, there must be a way to define that. If you make it as wide as the building is tall it gives the developer some flexibility rather than Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 270     Page 36 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 stipulating a specific size. It could be hard to regulate because they would have to define the height of the building at the edge of the paseo, and he questioned if that was something they could require. Ms. Gerhardt responded yes, they could say a building that is twenty feet tall needs the paseo to be thirty feet wide, but it sounded like if the top floor was set back by a specific amount, then only the front wall would be measured. Ms. Raybould asked if this is intended only when the frontages face each other. Vice Chair Baltay answered yes. The idea would be when you have two strings of townhomes adjacent to each other, it’s the space between the narrow edge of each unit. They would need to find a way to define that. Possibly add a definition of a major and minor access. A major would be the length between the frontages, a minor would be between the ends of units, or any other secondary pedestrian access. [crosstalk] Ms. Gerhardt suggested they work off of the front door. If two front doors are facing each other they would have this requirement. Vice Chair Baltay stated almost always townhomes are rectangular shaped and in a row. Ms. Raybould disagreed in that there are several projects going through that do not have that. They are always going to have the vehicular access will always be facing each other because they are trying to have one street that serves parking. They need to consider the smaller projects in which the parking faces each other, and the frontages face the other way. Chair Hirsch stated Alma Court is that way and they have the main street with parking and then they had the really narrow corridor that leads to the front stoop area. Vice Chair Baltay stated not all developments will have a major access. His idea of a major access is when you have two rows of units with the pedestrian entrances facing each other. If they don’t have the situation, then the regulation doesn’t apply. It can be stated as such. Chair Hirsch agreed with that. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed with that. Chair Hirsch continued with Item 12: A Cul-de-Sac arrangement of parking entries between clusters is permitted. Vehicles in such a parking scheme cannot cross a pedestrian path that provides access to the unit entries on the opposite side or connects to another series of units with garages across an intervening pedestrian path. There are two different kinds of cul-de-sacs. Ms. Raybould noted that a lot of developers are having the type of cul-de-sac arrangements as seen on the screen, but it is undesirable from a planning perspective because it can’t be serviced for trash. Chair Hirsch stated in the case of the building shown Arbor Real, they take the garbage to the main street. There are trees and landscaping. It’s a successful project, however he agrees with the area between the frontal facing units should be wider. The cul-de-sacs work very well. It’s worth the trip to look at the project. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 271     Page 37 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Chair Hirsch continued with Item 11: Tandem parking is permitted for a maximum of 50% of the units but must be equally distributed between the clusters. Ms. Raybould stated this was another item that had a significant discussion at the last meeting and wasn’t sure if they needed to go over it again. Chair Hirsch questioned if they got the 50% part correct. Boardmember Chen thought they got it down to 40%. Chair Hirsch stated the Summerhill project uses tandem parking and it works quite well. Vice Chair Baltay argued that Summerhill was not very dense and wasn’t built for profit. Vice Chair Baltay commented he could support Item 11 and 50% seemed like a good amount. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed and said that the Summerhill image tied in well with number 13: All Townhome projects 30 units or greater must provide centrally located common green spaces. Vice Chair Baltay stated it works well for him. He isn’t sure if the numbers are correct but the concept behind it is good. Boardmember Chen continued with Item 14: The design of the Townhome project must integrate its internal pedestrian, bike, and vehicular system with the surrounding areas in order to maintain the connectivity and continuity. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if they go into one driving area, could they maneuver around the townhomes but can’t get through to the other side and if the goal is that they can get through to the other side. Sometimes there’s one entry and exit for vehicular access into townhomes. Chair Hirsch stated the intent was so they could travel the whole project. Arbor Real was a good example of that one, or Alma. Boardmember Rosenberg added she doesn’t understand why Items 14 and 15 are separated and requested more clarification between the two. Vice Chair Baltay commented connectivity for bicycles isn’t something that is regulated, it’s something that has to be done otherwise the units can’t be accessed and believes what Chair Hirsch is looking for is the quality of the connection. Chair Hirsch commented he’s like to refer to the Bayshore project. It’s connected to the pike path and the park. He had those types of connections in mind for Items 14 and 15. Vice Chair Baltay agreed, and asked how that requirement would be objectified and suggested for projects of a certain size, there needs to be more than one entrance and exit point from the project. There should be multiple ways to get to parking, or the bike path or the park. There may only be a need for one vehicular outlet but there should be multiple pedestrian access points based on the size of the property. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed there was a project last year that had only one small entrance and exit and it was built right next to Greer Park. The ARB argued they wanted more than one access and it ended Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 272     Page 38 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 up being a sticky point. There should be, to Vice Chair Baltay’s point, multiple non vehicular access points so the communities aren’t gated with only one access point. Vice Chair Baltay commented that will be difficult to regulate. Possibly for event unit there will be at least one, possibly two access points on each side that fronts public property or has a public right of way. Boardmember Chen inquired if they should separate the vehicular access from the pedestrian access items, those two are different. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed. Chair Hirsch agreed. Vice Chair Baltay commented he would be inclined to not regulate the vehicular access points. Good design has more access points. Whether it’s pedestrian or vehicular, would likely depend upon the design. If they were to say that every project should have at least two ways to get into it from a public right of way that people could either walk or drive into the property and for each addition side of the property that faces a public right of way, you have to another public access point. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that’s where she would separate them. There has to be a minimum of one vehicular ingress and egress with a minimum of two pedestrians. Chair Hirsch wasn’t sold on there being only one vehicular access point. Boardmember Rosenberg commented she wasn’t sure they needed to regulate that as it would be more site specific. The goal of the ingress and egress is to connect the property to the areas around it. They don’t want to end up with the small communities that are gated off from everything around them. Vice Chair Baltay stated he didn’t understand Item 16: Orientation of clusters to provide adequate natural light. Chair Hirsch commented it’s not specific and applies to dimensions that they’ve been discussing between townhomes. Boardmember Chen agreed it’s not objective. If Item 10 is updated to say the width between the buildings should be the height of the buildings, Item 16 could be removed. All Boardmembers agreed. Boardmember Chen stated it’s almost 2 p.m. and she needed to leave soon. Boardmember Rosenberg suggested reading the last four items and they could think about them. Boardmember Chen read the last four items: Item 17: Required setback dimension of units from the public street and sidewalk to the building footprint. Description of the required planting, width of the required pathway and separation and privacy of adjacent entries. Vice Chair Baltay stated they already have that in the objective standards. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 273     Page 39 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Item 18: Regulations for the inclusion of a specific location and number of parking spaces for guests and maintenance worker parking with limitations on the distance or convenience to all townhome units. This ruling recognizes that this type of development is much denser than other single family residential zones. Chair Hirsch stated he felt they should give specific percentages and there should be a minimum dimension of X from any given unit within the development. Vice Chair Baltay agreed, there isn’t a regulation for that and there needs to be. Ms. Raybould stated staff would take some concern with that because it was in the zoning code as 10% and City Council very specifically removed it to allow for housing projects. Vice Chair Baltay suggested that be one of the things they discuss with City Council, so they understand the ARB’s concerns about it. He believes Item 18 should be listed on the ARB’s document. Item 19: Regulations for privacy such as distances from window to window or required offsets. Chair Hirsch stated they already have that. Vice Chair Baltay stated they do however, it was designed for larger buildings. It would be really cumbersome for townhomes. Chair Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Rosenberg this also is in regard to the distances from one window to another window. With the coverage of the paseo, that handles it. Vice Chair Baltay stated he felt this was overregulation. Chair Hirsch stated JCC property was in mind with this one. Boardmember Rosenberg stated they could encourage developers to angle windows or have shading devices. They can’t regulate placement of windows. Ms. Raybould added that was a huge discussion point with Sobrato, with the total width of the building and meeting building code requirements for safety egress it gave them almost no flexibility with window placement. Item 20: Garbage collection and delivery/loading area should be designed to allow the vehicle to enter and exit safely, ideally without having to back up. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if there are existing standards regarding garbage collection and service for townhomes. Ms. Raybould stated there is a zero-waste division and under Title 5 of the code there are set requirements. The City works with Green Waste who hauls the waste. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if the objective standards referenced those requirements would that suffice. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 274     Page 40 of 40 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/20/23 Ms. Raybould agreed she believed so. This goes along with Item 12. They don’t want to encourage cul- de-sacs, but if they are adding that, they have to have some sort of trash enclosure to accommodate for how that trash will be picked up. Vice Chair Baltay suggested they wrap this item up and the subcommittee take the comments and draft another list like this that is a little tighter. He does not believe the ARB should ask staff to get involved with that. Chair Hirsch asked staff where this would go in the zoning and how it would be incorporated. Ms. Gerhardt stated they did a work plan that will be taken up before Council and explain how important this is and they can direct staff accordingly. Once the work plan is approved by Council, staff can work on incorporating it into code. Ms. Raybould stated making code change requests require taking it before the Planning Commission prior taking it up with City Council. The work plan will be going before Council in June. That does not require going before PTC. Vice Chair Baltay stated he would like the document to be cleaned up and made tighter prior to the work plan going before Council. There’s been a lot of work done on it, he would like it to be clean. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked the subcommittee, it was an incredible amount of work put into the document. Approval of Minutes 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 16, 2023. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen , to approve the meeting minutes for March 6, 2023, as amended. VOTE: 3-0-1-1 (Boardmember Baltay abstained, Boardmember Thompson absent) Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements None Adjournment Chair Hirsch adjourned the meeting. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of April 20, 2023     Packet Pg. 275