Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-04-29 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1. 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. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: April 29, 2020 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak on items not on the agenda. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2,3 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is permitted. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. Study Session to Review and Comment on the Draft Alternatives Proposed for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Not a Project. For More Information Contact Planner Chitra Moitra at Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org. Action Items Public Comment is permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Up to five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3000 Alexis Drive [19PLN-00304]: Recommendation of a Site and Design Review for the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club to Renovate the 18-hole Golf Course. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From CEQA Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. Zoning District: OS (Open Space). For More Information Please Contact Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. _______________________ 1. 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. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. February 12, 2020 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes 5. February 26, 2020 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment _______________________ 1. 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. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Carolyn Templeton Vice Chair Giselle Roohparvar Commissioner Michael Alcheck Commissioner Bart Hechtman Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner William Riggs Commissioner Doria Summa Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Public comment is encouraged. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 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. _______________________ 1. 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. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 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 planning.commission@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 for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. 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. B. You will 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. C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. 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 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 Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 463 430 942 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 11157) Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/29/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items: • PTC Meeting Schedule • PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) • Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Vinh Nguyen (Vinhloc.Nguyen@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments: • Attachment A: March 25, 2020 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 Planning & Transportation Commission 2020 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2020 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/08/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/12/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 2/26/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/11/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Hechtman 3/25/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/8/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/15/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Virtual Meeting 5/13/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/27/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/10/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/24/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/08/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Hechtman 8/12/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/26/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/9/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/30/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/14/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/28/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/11/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled Veteran’s Day 11/25/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled Day Before Thanksgiving 12/09/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/30/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Cancelled Day Before New Year’s Eve 2020 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Doria Summa Billy Riggs Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Michael Alcheck Cari Templeton Ed Lauing Bart Hechtman Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa July August September October November December Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa Bart Hechtman Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Bart Hechtman Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Planning & Transportation Commission 2020 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics May 13, 2020 • Study Session: Review Issues, Options, and Recommendations for an Approach to Objective Standards in the Zoning Ordinance To Be Scheduled: Topics Co-Working Office Model 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10918) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/29/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan--Planning Alternatives Review and Discussion Title: Study Session to Review and Comment on the Draft Alternatives Proposed for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Not a Project. For More Information Contact Planner Chitra Moitra at Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation This report provides the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) with an update on the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) project. Staff recommends that the PTC review the staff report and provide input on the draft plan alternatives. No formal action will be taken. Report Summary The purpose of the NVCAP planning process is to capture the City’s vision for this neighborhood in a regulatory document. The document would include land use policies, development standards, and design guidelines for future development. The neighborhood would include multi-family housing units, ground-floor retail spaces, public open spaces, and creek improvements. An interconnected street grid would take advantage of the area’s proximity to the Caltrain station, the California Avenue retail corridor, and the El Camino Real arterial. Staff and the Working Group are refining draft alternatives to advance City Council adopted goals and the vision for the plan area. This report provides an overview of activities undertaken to date and presents three draft alternatives for the PTC’s consideration. Background NVCAP Project Area 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 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, mixed‐use neighborhood. The draft existing conditions report contains information about the opportunities and constraints within the plan area. The full report is available online.1 The following sections summarize some key characteristics and aspects of the plan area. Demographics The NVCAP site and surrounding area contain 749 individuals in 271 households. Attachment A shows the plan area and the census area from which this information is derived. Over half of the local population is white, a large portion is also Asian. A smaller number identify as black or other races. The percentage of black residents is higher than elsewhere in the City. The neighborhood contains many children, young adults, and middle-aged individuals. The average age for women in the neighborhood is 38.6 years, and 42.1 years for men. The average household size is 2.75 people. The average rental household size (3.03) is larger than the average ownership household size (2.41). 21% of all households are single-person households. The NVCAP site and surrounding area contain individuals of various educational and economic backgrounds. Most individuals have a college education or advanced degree; a good number have only a high school or partial college education, as well. The per capita income in the area is $68,119. Finally, the average household income varies greatly across the neighborhood from under $10,000 to over $250,000. However, the greatest number of households (98) fall in the greater than $200,000 per household range. Of those who commute to work, most individuals report a short commute of 30 minutes or less. This is likely representative of the site’s close proximity to a wide variety of employment opportunities. While some individuals work from home in the area, many of those who do commute walk, bike, or take public transportation. About half of the population commutes by driving alone, which is a very low percentage when compared to other Peninsula neighborhoods. Notably, all households own cars, with the majority owning two or more cars. The NVCAP site contains 62 businesses. The majority of these are small businesses; about half of all businesses in the area employ ten or fewer people. Altogether, 2,562 people work within the NVCAP site. 1 Draft Existing Conditions Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=73918&t=52731.83 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Most the site’s commercial uses are offices. Other uses include services, manufacturing and processing, healthcare, lodging, and auto-related uses. Notably, the area contains few retail or eating and drinking establishments. Note: The data presented here is based on self-reported 2017 Business Registry Certificate business statistics. It, therefore, may not capture all businesses. Land Use, Opportunity Sites, and Parcel Ownership The area currently has a wide range of land uses, including single-family detached homes and a multi-family apartment complex north of Park Boulevard. Permitted uses include small- and mid-sized retail, automotive service centers, gyms, small and large offices, and light industrial uses. Existing buildings generally range from one to three stories, with a mix of new and older buildings. The land use map shows parcel-by-parcel use of the plan area (Attachment B). This map also shows Housing Opportunity Sites as identified in the City’s certified Housing Element. There are 101 parcels in the plan area. Approximately 39 acres (or 65% of the plan area) are owned by ten property owners. This parcel ownership map (Attachment C) shows the distribution of common, contiguous owners. The current site consolidation pattern indicates opportunities for the construction of multi-family housing. There are 19 housing inventory sites in the plan area, as listed in Appendix B-1 of the certified Housing Element 2015-2023. These sites are prioritized for housing development and, under current zoning, can cumulatively yield upwards of 364 units. The Housing Inventory Map shows the distribution of the housing inventory sites in the plan area with their realistic yield capacity. The Sobrato Organization owns 340 Portage Avenue, the former location of Fry’s Electronics. As the parcel map shows, Sobrato owns surrounding properties as well, bringing their total holdings to approximately 15.52 acres. At 12.5 acres, 340 Portage Avenue remains the largest single parcel and, with a yield of 221 units, is the largest housing opportunity site. Currently, this parcel is zoned RM-30. In fall of 2019, the property owner disclosed plans to retain the building at 340 Portage Avenue rather than to demolish it. Maintaining the current building and its retail and office uses limits the ability to realize housing units on this site. The original use of 340 Portage Avenue and the adjacent office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street was the cannery established by Thomas Foon Chew in 1918. At one time, his cannery was the third largest in the world. The cannery represents an important piece of Chinese American history and a link to the Valley of Hearts Delight era of regional history. The buildings are eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The second largest parcel is 395 Page Mill Road, the Cloudera site developed and owned by 395 Page Mill LLC / Jay Paul Company. The 9.8-acre site contains approximately 225,000 sf of office space, a parking structure, and a surface parking lot providing 704 automobile parking spaces. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Circulation and Connectivity Two major arterials, Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, border the northwest and southwest edges of the site, respectively. The Caltrain corridor borders the northeast edge of the plan area; the Caltrain Station pedestrian and bicycle underpass is the closest crossing to points east of Alma Street. Although the plan area is within walking distance to many services and amenities, the major arterials and rail-line act as barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists, including pedestrian and bicycle access to schools in the Midtown and Barron Park neighborhoods. The plan area is accessible to regionally significant transit facilities, including the California Avenue Caltrain Station, VTA bus routes along El Camino Real, and the Stanford University Marguerite service. The street network is generally accessible in the east-west direction (terminating at Park Boulevard). However, this network is fractured north-south, such that Park Boulevard and El Camino Real are the only continuous streets extending between California and Lambert Avenues. A primary bicycle corridor, Park Boulevard, runs through the area. Open Space & Natural Features A channelized portion of the Matadero Creek runs along the southern end of the plan area. The creek has no public access nor geomorphic functions, and it is a poor habitat with poor aesthetic conditions. Boulware Park is located just south of Lambert Avenue, immediately outside the plan area boundary. The NVCAP site is within a half-mile walk of public parks totaling 3.5 acres, including Boulware Park, Sarah Wallis Park, and J. Bowden Park (Attachment D). Existing California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Plume The California-Olive-Emerson (COE) Superfund site plume is partially within the plan area. The plume was first discovered in the late 1980s. As cleanup efforts progress, plume concentrations have decreased over time. There are about 55 testing wells in the plan area, both active and destroyed. All these wells are monitored on a semi-annual basis by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for groundwater chemistry and elevation. Mitigation measures and monitoring would be required for any future residential development or restoration of Matadero Creek. This map shows the extension of the plume in the plan area. Coordinated Area Plan for North Ventura The area plan’s genesis lies in the 2015-2023 Housing Element and Land Use & Community Design Element of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive (Comp) Plan, which calls for site-specific planning in the North Ventura area. The Comprehensive Plan anticipated this location as suitable for a significant amount of new housing in a mixed-use, walkable neighborhood. Program L4.10.1 of the Land Use and Community Design Element2 of the Comp Plan directs staff to prepare a coordinated area plan for this neighborhood. 2 Program L4.10.1 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 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Project Initiation and Project Grant (2017) In September 2017, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) awarded a grant of $638,000 to the City of Palo Alto for the preparation of a coordinated area plan for the northern part of the Ventura neighborhood. The Sobrato Organization provided $112,000 in matching funds, plus $138,000 towards the required environmental analysis. In November 2017, the City Council adopted a resolution to pursue the planning effort and grant funding. The City Council also formally initiated the planning effort in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 19.10 Section 19.10.020.3 Project Goals On March 5, 2018, the City Council adopted the preliminary goals and objectives for the coordinated area plan, along with the boundary area for the NVCAP project (Attachment E). The adopted goals addressed the following topics: (1) Housing and Land Use; (2) Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Connections; (3) Connected Street Grid; (4) Community Facilities and Infrastructure; (5) Balance of Community Interests; (6) Urban Design, Design Guidelines, and Neighborhood Fabric; and (7) Sustainability and the Environment. In June 2018, after a competitive solicitation process, the City Council appointed consultant Perkins + Will to assist the City and Working Group in preparation of the NVCAP. Community Engagement The NVCAP planning process includes a comprehensive community outreach. This outreach program includes (1) regular monthly Working Group meetings; (2) stakeholder group meetings4; (3) study sessions and periodic check-ins with decision-makers at key project milestones; (4) community workshops; and (5) a robust project website.5 Working Group In April 2018, the City Council appointed a 14-member Working Group (listed on Attachment F) to serve as an advisory body to assist in the planning effort (Staff Report).6 The Working Group includes residents, property owners, and business owners within the plan area and surrounding neighborhoods. The group also includes one representative each from the PTC, the Architectural Review Board, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Staff and Working 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. 3 Details on the grant funding and resolution are available at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61744 4 At project onset, Perkins+Will conducted stakeholder interviews with property owners, commercial tenants, area residents, affinity groups, and other advocates (affordable housing representatives, bicycle groups, environmental representatives, etc.). 5 https://www.paloaltonvcap.org 6 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64658 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Group members have met regularly (with 11 meetings since October 2018); the website lists all of the meetings and topics discussed.7 Joint City Council and Working Group Town Hall Meeting (March 2019) At the March 2019 Town Hall meeting, the City Council received an update on the NVCAP project (Staff Report)8 and expanded the scope of the planning process. When presented with a contract for expanded services in August of 2019, the Council approved the amended contract that included the expanded scope. Council, however, did not approve additional budget to support that scope. The gap in funding effectively meant the City needed to work to fulfill the original project scope. Separately, on August 2019, the Council did approve the analysis of naturalization options for Matadero Creek. Historic Study and Historic Resources Board (HRB) Meeting (July 2019) A survey, conducted by Page and Turnbull in January 2019, of all properties 50 years and older within the NVCAP area revealed that no properties are listed on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the CRHR. (NVCAP Preliminary Historic Resource Eligibility Analysis). Page and Turnbull found only 340 Portage Avenue and the associated office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street eligible for listing on the CRHR. The properties are also eligible for the NRHP. The properties are eligible at the local level of significance under Criterion 1 (Events) for association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. These properties were part of the Bayside Canning Company, developed by Thomas Foon Chew in 1918.9 Canning ceased around 1949. Since then, the building has been altered and has had many tenants. The properties qualify as historic resources for the purposes of development review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Actual CRHR listing is not required for the properties to qualify as historic resources. In July 2019, the HRB reviewed the Page and Turnbull’s Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) and heard public testimony from five speakers. The HRB concurred with the HRE findings that the 7 https://www.paloaltonvcap.org/working-group-meetings 8 The NVCAP Draft Existing Conditions Memo was presented at this meeting. 9 This site was Mr. Chew’s second cannery, strategically located alongside the 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 from 1965 reveal that the building continues to have the same shape and general form today. Following the closure of the cannery, the site was occupied by an extensive retailer Maximart and later, other retail and office uses. The last significant and largest tenant was Fry’s Electronics. The HRE provides a detailed history and a construction chronology on pages 34-36 (340 Portage Ave. HRE). 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 properties are historically significant and CRHR and NRHP eligible (Staff Report10 and Meeting Minutes).11 Matadero Creek Study and Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting (January 2020) The City hired consulting firm Wetlands Research Associates (WRA) to evaluate the feasibility of three levels of naturalization for the portion of Matadero Creek adjacent to the plan area. The options range from partial to full naturalization of the creek. The final report is underway. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the draft feasibility analysis and designs in January of 2020 (Staff Report and Attachments). The Commissioners felt that restoration of soft bottom on the creek bed, addition of walking and biking paths, while maintaining the current creek easement, would be most feasible. This balances the desire to provide a natural amenity and restore nature with the desire to constrain costs and preserve land for housing development. The study also explores extending naturalization of the creek into the portion that flows through Boulware Park, connecting the park and project area. City School Committee Staff presented to the City School Committee on December 2018 and again on February 20, 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. Given the land ownership constraints, it is unlikely the plan will result in zoning privately owned land for exclusive use as a public school. Community Workshops The first community workshop was held in February 2019. The workshop featured interactive discussions on several topics ranging from housing needs for the community, traffic conditions of the area, lack of open space, bike and pedestrian safety, and land use and urban design of the plan area. The community feedback helped to frame the basis of the proposed draft plans.12 The City hosted the second community workshop on February 27, 2020. This workshop was a joint effort for NVCAP and the City’s Public Works Department’s Boulware Park design improvement. The workshop solicited input on the three draft plan alternatives and endeavored to identify community priorities on various topics. Staff is reviewing the feedback received from this February workshop, which will further inform the proposed draft alternatives.13 Analysis 10 HRB staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72490 11 HRB meeting minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74501 12 The Community Workshop summary and presentations are available at NVCAP Community Workshop #1. 13 The comments received from the Community Workshop #2 are listed here: NVCAP Community Workshop #2 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 Planning & Transportation Commission Three draft plan alternatives have been created (Attachment G). Staff seeks input from the Planning and Transportation Commission on the draft alternatives. The alternatives will be refined based on feedback from the PTC, community, and Working Group. Key Themes The draft proposals are based on themes identified at the February 2019 workshop, including: • the need for housing for all range of incomes, including affordable housing, • an interest in naturalizing the creek as an open space amenity, • a desire to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity over vehicular traffic, and • quality design to create an interconnected neighborhood with community spaces. The Working Group created a vision for the plan area that aligns with the above themes: 14 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 theatres, which encourage lively foot traffic. The plan area also should provide diverse housing opportunities, with minimum intrusion from automobile traffic. While the vision above has broadly shared consensus among the Working Group, there are areas of convergence and divergence regarding the appropriate means to realize the vision. In addition, some elements of the vision may not be feasible, even if they are desirable. Supporting more access for pedestrians and bicyclists, while minimizing vehicular traffic is broadly supported. Likewise, the Working Group hopes local shops can be supported along the ground floor of new multi-family housing buildings. While the site is located near transit, the broader Palo Alto area is car-dependent. In addition, retailers may rely on patrons beyond the walkable neighborhood. Finding ways to limit new car trips while also supporting new retailers may prove challenging. In addition, new families will likely own cars. Though it is possible that, with the proximity to rail and jobs, many peak-hour trips can be made via transit, biking, or walking, thus minimizing impact to traffic congestion. Further study is needed regarding traffic impacts. To promote walking and biking as the primary means of transportation, and to sustain neighborhood retail, the plan area will need walkable destinations as well as population density. The draft alternatives propose different amounts of housing density and retail. Many 14 Working Group Vision 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 Working Group members felt the proposed housing and job densities were too great. Calibrating walkability and retail with the population density and urban form remains a key discussion point for the Working Group. Providing more open space within the plan area is a broadly shared goal. Many Working Group members support naturalization of the Matadero Creek, including a walking and biking path along the creek. A park or greenway running alongside the creek, in what is currently the 340 Portage parking lot, fronted with new shops and cafes lining Portage, has become a centerpiece of the vision. Establishing a publicly owned park here—or elsewhere in the plan area—would require either subdivision of the parcel and purchase of the land by City, or establishment of a community benefits agreement that included parkland dedication, or development standards requiring privately owned public open space. It would also require the parking for 340 Portage be provided offsite. While this vision is not impossible, it requires collaboration, coordination, and an incentive for the landowner to participate. There is a strong feeling from many in the Working Group and neighborhood that no new office space be permitted in the NVCAP. Currently, there is 400,000 sf of existing office space in the plan area. With the lucrative office market in Palo Alto, not permitting new office space might make current owners of office space reluctant to redevelop their properties into housing that doesn’t include some office space. Conversely, for redevelopment of an office building into housing to produce comparative revenues, the scale of the housing project may be larger than what the neighborhood desires. In addition, office workers are important daytime customers for neighborhood retail. These challenges and trade-offs are not insurmountable. With critical thinking, collaboration, and dedication to working together, the NVCAP can be a feasible plan that achieves the shared vision of the Working Group. Four Plan Elements The draft alternatives address four plan elements: (1) building typologies, (2) circulation and traffic, (3) program and ground floor use, and (4) district character and open space. 1. Building Typologies To realize the goal of providing housing and a bustling town square, Perkins + Will, with their subconsultant Strategic Economics, identified 5 housing typologies. Attachment H shows the referred building typologies used in the draft alternatives and the financial feasibility analysis supporting their development. At the time of their development—before the COVID-19 pandemic—the typologies were financially feasible. The analysis assumed ownership developments include the City’s 15% inclusionary rate and that rental developments pay the in- lieu fee which supports development of affordable housing elsewhere in the City. All the proposed typologies are self-parked. The draft plan alternatives contain the following five typologies: 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 a) Townhomes: These are three-story, attached units with a typical density of 33 du/acre. b) Low-Rise Greenway: These are typically four stories with linear open space in front. The typical density is 107 du/acre. c) Low-Rise Block: These can be typically four stories with central open space. The typical density is 124 du/acre. d) Low-Rise Block with Neighborhood Serving Commercial: These are five stories with interior courtyards and ground-floor retail. The typical density is 147 du/acre. e) Mid-Rise Block: These can be up to eight stories high with an interior courtyard. The style typically steps back above six stories. The typical density is 159 du/acre. Regarding design standards, the proposed housing typologies include some design standards, such as open space, location of parking, and use of front stoops. As presented, the typologies are primarily massing models that do not suggest one specific architectural style. This work remains to be completed with ample time for discussion regarding desired architectural approaches. 2. Circulation and Traffic The alternatives propose improvements designed to increase connectivity to and through the plan area, while also seeking to limit increases in traffic. Increasing pedestrian and bicycle access while limiting vehicular access—particularly cut through traffic—is a broadly shared strategy for enhancing mobility in the plan area. 3. Program and Ground Floor Use The draft alternatives propose mixed-use neighborhoods with a balance of retail and office uses. A mix of personal business and retail uses can be accommodated at different locations within the plan area. 4. Open Space Open space in the draft alternatives falls into three categories: (1) publicly owned centralized open space, like parks or plazas; (2) publicly accessible but privately owned open space, like courtyards or rooftop gardens; and (3) public open spaces, such as greenways, connecting places. Providing the appropriate amount of open space as the neighborhood grows is essential to maintaining a high quality of life and addressing the current lack of open space. Policy Proposals Preventing displacement of current residents from the plan area remains a priority for the Working Group. Homeownership protects some residents from displacement, while others may be displaced if rents increase or if their homes are redeveloped. As the draft alternatives are refined, staff and the Working Group will consider and propose anti-displacement policies. Additional policy proposals related to parking, open space, and other topics are needed to support the preferred alternative. Draft Alternative 1: Minimum as per Comprehensive Plan 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 Draft Alternative 1 adds 386 housing units to the existing number of units. This number closely approximates the amount of housing allowed under the existing zoning, as identified in the City’s 2015-2023 certified Housing Element. Housing: Housing is concentrated on existing housing inventory sites through townhomes and multi-family buildings. All existing single-family homes along Olive and Pepper Avenues remain. Building heights range from three to four stories with higher heights concentrated along El Camino Real. Retention of 340 Portage Avenue and its surface parking limits overall housing yield and community benefits (open spaces, community amenities, etc.). Commercial Use: 340 Portage Avenue will retain its existing office and retail uses in their current proportion. This option also assumes that existing office use on the housing inventory sites identified along Portage Avenue will be eliminated, resulting in a net reduction of office space by 45,000 sf. The existing Cloudera office use will remain. Open Space and Community Space: This alternative proposes no centralized public open space or community facility space; it features private open space dedicated for the use of residents of multi-family buildings and privately owned, publicly accessible open space. Draft Alternative 2: Prioritize Portage Avenue Draft Alternative 2 imagines Portage Avenue as a vibrant commercial spine, lined with ground- floor retail and services. Portage Avenue is proposed to be extended to Park Boulevard, with a portion dedicated to non-motorized traffic. Housing: This option proposes to add 979 housing units through a mix of single-family townhomes and multi-family residential complexes. A parking garage is proposed at the back of 340 Portage Avenue to replace the parking lost to development of housing along the Matadero Creek-adjacent side of the property. Commercial Use: In this option, the 340 Portage Avenue building remains and the use is redistributed to 30,000 sf of retail and 210,000 sf of office. There is an increase in office square footage from 163,000 sf to 210,000 sf inside the 340 Portage Avenue site. It is anticipated that the increase in office square footage could partially subsidize proposed community benefits. Net office square footage for the project boundary overall in this option is reduced by 18,000 sf. Open Space and Community Space: This option proposes approximately 1.10 acres of public open space, including 0.8 acres of centralized open space on the 340 Portage Avenue parcel. The 3201-3225 Ash Street building would be converted into a 6,000-sf community-directed space. This plan takes advantage of the proposed Matadero Creek naturalization. Draft Alternative 3: Designed Diversity Draft Alternative 3 proposes maximum development potential, leveraging the plan area's proximity to transit to increase intensity of housing and commercial use. 2 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 12 Housing: This alternative adds 2,475 housing units. This option proposes denser housing development, concentrating height and density along Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. 340 Portage Avenue and the Cloudera site are both replaced with housing and office space. Height limits range from three to eight stories, and development can reach a maximum of 100 dwelling units per acre. Commercial Use: In this option, the 340 Portage Avenue building and Cloudera site would add 60,000 sf of additional office space each. Ground-floor retail use will be reduced by approximately 59,000 sf and will be concentrated mostly along El Camino Real. Open Space and Community Space: This option will enable approximately 2.7 acres of open space, with 1.6 acres of centralized open space on the 340 Portage Avenue parcel and 0.5 acres on the Cloudera parcel. The 3201-3225 Ash Street building would be converted to community space. Discussion The draft alternatives have been created and presented to stimulate discussion regarding tradeoffs, preferences, and feasibility, allowing the community to grapple with and ultimately make choices. Conversation has indeed been stimulating. To gain feedback on these draft alternatives, staff developed, released, and eventually closed an online survey that gathered feedback on the three draft alternatives, as well as other discrete elements of the plan (architecture, retail uses, open space, etc.). While the survey respondents reflect a range of opinions that can be difficult to reconcile, the feedback received will allow the Working Group, staff, and consultant team to refine the next versions of the alternatives.15 In addition, three Working Group members have thoughtfully developed proposed alternatives. We expect to share these with the Working Group via email and discuss them during our first virtual Working Group meeting. We hope to hold that meeting in May. Members of the public also expressed interest in reviewing these options; representing them in the recent online survey seemed untimely since the full Working Group had not yet considered them. Staff and the consultant team have listened to and responded to feedback we received in January 2020 (before the recent workshop and survey). The three alternatives represent a wide range of growth scenarios from 386 up to 2,467 new housing units. The alternatives also range from decreasing office space to increasing total office space by 18,000 sf. These elements and others were created in consideration of City Council, Working Group, and community feedback. 15 View the survey questions: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=76365&t=68497.3 View the responses to multiple choice questions: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=76366&t=68497.31 View the responses to open-ended questions: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=76367&t=68497.31 2 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 13 Staff worked with consultants to create a “go big with housing” alternative. We also heard initial feedback from the Working Group that all the options were too dense. As a result, the three draft alternatives before the PTC for consideration include a very low-density option (draft alternative 1) and a moderated density option (draft alternative 2), while maintaining a “go big with housing” option (draft alternative 3). Finally, due to the planned retention of 340 Portage Avenue by the property’s owner, only 1 draft alternative suggests demolition. This spring, the City anticipates the release of new regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) from the State’s Housing and Community Development Department. To date, there is no indication that this process will be adjusted due to COVID-19. Based on preliminary projections and mapping available, it is expected that the Bay Area and Palo Alto will receive increased RHNA. In addition, the City hopes to begin work this year on our 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, which will need to include identification of Housing Opportunity Sites that can accommodate the RHNA. Adding further complexity, the City cannot use Housing Opportunity Sites that have been identified in the previous two housing element cycles. Thus, though sites such as 340 Portage Avenue remain excellent opportunities for housing and any housing constructed would contribute to meeting our RHNA targets, the site cannot be counted as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element. Certainly, the Ventura neighborhood and NVCAP area cannot absorb Palo Alto’s entire RHNA allocation; the area is only part of the solution. As the City plans for growth, locating housing and jobs near transit helps achieve smart growth, reduce green house gas emissions, and reduce peak hour commute trips. Environmental Review The City anticipates that either an Addendum or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2017) will be the appropriate level of environmental review. The level of environmental review depends upon plan development. EIR scoping meetings are planned for late 2020, followed by analysis through spring of 2021. Public Notification and Outreach Earlier sections of this report describe NVCAP outreach and engagement. Next Steps Staff are working with the co-chairs of the Working Group to plan how to best host Working Group meetings that allow the refinement of alternatives to continue. Following this effort, the draft alternatives and the Working Group preferred alternative will be presented to the City Council. Following Council direction on the concept plan, staff will prepare additional environmental analysis, draft the coordinated plan, and return to the PTC for recommendation to the City Council. Staff hopes a preferred plan can be identified in the early fall, which will allow the environmental analysis to begin. Public Notification 2 Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 14 The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require notice of this item because it is a study session. Nevertheless, notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 17, 2020, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the PTC may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC16 Liaison & Contact Information Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director (650) 329-2441 (650) 329-2441 rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Plan Area Map within Census Tract (PDF) • Attachment B: North Ventura and Surrounding Area Land Use Map (PDF) • Attachment C: NVCAP Parcel Ownership Map (PDF) • Attachment D: Existing Pedestrian Connectivity to Nearby Destinations Map (PDF) • Attachment E: City Council Adopted NVCAP Goals and Objectives (PDF) • Attachment F: NVCAP Working Group Roster (PDF) • Attachment G: Draft Proposed Planning Alternatives (PDF) • Attachment H: Building Typologies & Financial Feasibility Presentation (PDF) 16 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 21 CENSUS DATA This document uses data from Census Tract 5107 Block Group 1 to study the demographics and other charac- teristics of the NVCAP site. City Staff believe this data provides a useful baseline for the neighborhood as a whole as well as the NVCAP site. The NVCAP site lies almost entirely within Census Tract 5107 Block Group 1. However, this Census designated area of study also extends beyond the bounds of the NVCAP site to capture a portion of the surrounding Ventura neighborhood. Please see the map to the right to better understand the relationship between the NVCAP site and Census Tract 5107 Block Group 1. Cur t n e r A v e n u e Ven t u r a A v e n u e Mac l a n e Em e r s o n S t r e e t Ve n t u r a C t Par k B o u l e v a r d El C a m i n o R e a l Cy p r e s s L a n e Mac l a n e Se c o n d S t r e e t Wil k i e W a y Lom a V e r d e A v e n u e Gary C o u r t Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t So u t h C o u r t Br y a n t S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Al m a S t r e e t El C a r m e l o A v e n u e Cam p e s i n o A v e n u e Dymond C t Mart i n s e n C t Towle PlaceWellsbury C t Avalon Cou Kipling Street Co w p e r S t r e e t El V e r a n o A v e n u e Wellsbury W a y Ha n o v e r S t r e e t Coll e g e A v e n u e Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Ha n o v e r S t r e e t Ra m o s W a y ( P r i v a t e ) Pag e M i l l R o a d Ha n s e n W a y Han o v e r S t r e e t Tip p a w i n g o S t Mata d e r o A v e n u e Chim a l u s D r i v e Ken d a l l A v e n u e Whi t s e l l A v e n u e Bar r o n A v e n u e Mag n o l i a D r N o r t h Milit a r y W a y Fer n a n d o A v e n u e Mata d e r o A v e n u e Lam b e r t A v e n u e Han s e n W a y El C a m i n o R e a l Mar g a r i t a A v e n u e Mata d e r o A v e n u e Wilto n A v e n u e Oxford A v e n u e Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e We l l e s l e y S t r e e t Prin c e t o n S t r e e t Cor n e l l S t r e e t Cam b r i d g e A v e n u e Coll e g e A v e n u e Willi a m s S t r e e t Yal e S t r e e t Sta u n t o n C o u r t Oxfo r d A v e n u e El C a m i n o R e a l Stanford A v e n u e Birch StreetAsh Street Gra n t A v e n u e She r i d a n A v e n u e Jac a r a n d a L a n e El C a m i n o R e a l She r m a n A v e n u e Ash S t r e e t Pag e M i l l R o a d Mi m o s a L a n e Che s t n u t A v e n u e Port a g e A v e n u e Pep p e r A v e n u e Oliv e A v e n u e Aca c i a A v e n u e Em e r s o n S t r e e t Pa r k B o u l e v a r d Ori n d a S t r e e t Bir c h S t r e e t As h S t r e e t Pag e M i l l R o a d Ash S t r e e t Par k B o u l e v a r d Coll e g e A v e n u e Cam b r i d g e A v e n u e New M a y f i e l d L a n e Birc h S t r e e t Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Par k B o u l e v a r d Nogal Lane Colorado A v e n u e Street Em e r s o n S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Bry a n t S t r e e t South Court El D o r a d o A v e n u e Alma Street Al m a S t r e e t HighStre e t EmersonHigh Street Oregon E x p r e s s w a y Ramona Street Waverley Street Se d r o L a n e Per a l L a n e Ma d e l i n e C t Sh e r i d a n A v e n u e Jac o b ' s C t Ca l T r a i n R O W Lan e 6 6 Lan e 6 6 La S el v a Driv e OlmstedRoad El D o r a d o A v e n u e Pag e M i l l R o a d Abr a m s C o u r t Bar n e s C o u r t Olmsted R o a d Welle s l e y S t Yal e S t Alma Street Al m a S t r e e t Al m a V i l l a g e L a n e Al m a V i l l a g e C i r c l e Bir c h S t r e e t Census Tract 5107 Block Group 1 NVCAP Boundary 2524 Attachment A2.a Packet Pg. 22 North Ventura and Surrounding Area Land Use Map Attachment B 2.b Packet Pg. 23 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 Housing Inventory Site BOULWARE PARK 340 PORTAGE MATADERO CREEK EL CA M I N O R E A L PAG E M I L L R D PARK B L V D LAM B E R T A V E POR T A G E A V E PEPP E R A V E OLIV E A V E ASH S T ASH S T ACAC I A A V E Common & Contiguous Ownership Attachment C 2.c Packet Pg. 24 11 December 18, 2018 Re: DRAFT - Existing Conditions and Analysis Memo Figure 4: Existing pedestrian connectivity to nearby destinations Attachment D2.d Packet Pg. 25 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Project Goals, Objectives, Milestones and Boundary March 5, 20181 The North Ventura area is roughly bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue and the Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto and represents a rare opportunity within the City to plan proactively for a true transit‐oriented mixed‐use neighborhood. The project area includes one of the City’s largest housing opportunity sites, which is currently occupied by Fry’s Electronics, as well as a mix of small and large businesses and single family residences. The purpose of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) is to provide a vision for the future of this area. The group will address areas including policies, development standards, and design guidelines. The NVCAP should strengthen the neighborhood fabric and consider infrastructure needs, providing for a mix of land uses that take advantage of the proximity of the Caltrain station, the California Avenue area, and El Camino Real. 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 and possibly start up space, 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 and small businesses. 1 Approved by City Council on March 5, 2018 Page 1 of 4 03/05/2018 Attachment E2.e Packet Pg. 26 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. Include transition zones to surrounding neighborhoods. 7. Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. 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 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. Page 2 of 4 03/05/2018 2.e Packet Pg. 27 Proposed NVCAP Project Milestones Milestone Tentative Timeframe* City Staff submit PDA Planning Grant proposal to VTA July 2017 PDA Planning Grant Awarded by VTA Board of Directors September 7, 2017 Plan Initiation, Council resolution confirming grant support, and agreement with Sobrato Organization for matching funds November 6, 2017 Budget adjustments and March 5, 2018 Council approval of preliminary Project Boundaries and Goals/Objectives, and Project Schedule Solicit Applications for the Working Group March 2018 Issue RFP for Consultant Services Council Appointment of Working Group Members April 2018 Consultant Contract Award on Council Consent Agenda May 2018 Project Kickoff May 2018 First Working Group Meeting June 2018 Community Meetings and Check‐in Meetings with PTC and Council As Needed Council to Review Draft Plan and Initiate Environmental Review First Quarter 2019 Project Substantially Complete (18 Months Following Project Kickoff) December 2019 Project Adoption Mid 2020 *All milestones and dates subject to modification. Page 3 of 4 03/05/2018 2.e Packet Pg. 28 Waverley Sout Bryan Ramona S Alma Street El Carmelo Avenue Ramos Way (Private) Tippawingo St ue e Fernando Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita A Oxford Avenue Wellesley Street Cambridge Avenue College Avenue Williams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford Avenue El Camino Real Birch Street Ash Street Alma Street Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mi ll Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Ac acia Av enue Emerson Stre Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue Ne w Mayfield Lane Birch Street Ca lifornia Av enue Park BoulevardNogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Washington Avenue Sant Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado Avenue Street Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado Avenue Alma Street Alma Street High Street Emerson Bryant Street South Court Emerson Street Nevada Avenue North California Av enue Ramona Street High Street North Ca Oregon Expressway Ramona Street CSouth Court Sedro Lane Peral Lane Oregon Ex S h e rid a n A v e n u e CalTrain ROW Lane 66 El Dora do Avenue Alma Street Birch Street Stanford ResearchPark Fry's ElectronicsSite JohnBoulwarePark CaltrainStation SarahWallis Park Santa Clara CountySuperior Court Mat a d e ro Cr eek This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Priority Development Area PTOD Area NVCAP Project Boundary 0' 612' NV C A P Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto cmoitra, 2019-02-28 10:28:45 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.e Packet Pg. 29 APPOINTED NVCAP WORKING GROUP The NVCAP Working Group is comprised of 11 citizens appointed by City Council and also includes one representative from the Architectural Review Board, one from the Parks and Recreation Commission and one from the Planning & Transportation Commission. APPOINTEES •Angela Dellaporta - Resident within greater N. Ventura neighborhood (north of Ventura Ave) •Kirsten Flynn – Resident and Business owner or work in surrounding area •Terry Holzemer - Resident within Mayfield •Waldek Kaczmarski - Resident within NVCAP •Gail Price - Resident within Barron Park •Heather Rosen – Resident within greater Ventura neighborhood •Lund Smith - Property owner •Yunan Song - Resident within NVCAP •Tim Steele - Property owner •Lakiba Pittman - Resident within NVCAP and business owner •Siyi Zhang - Resident within greater Ventura neighborhood •Doria Summa – Planning and Transportation Commissioner •Alex Lew – Architectural Review Board Member •Keith Reckdahl – Parks and Recreation Commissioner Attachment F2.f Packet Pg. 30 DRAFT PLAN ALTERNATIVES NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN UPDATED - 04/02/20 Attachment G2.g Packet Pg. 31 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 Housing Inventory Site Single Family Housing Multi-family Housing Auto, Industry, or Storage Neighborhood- Serving Commercial and Recreational Personal Services Office Parking BOULWARE PARK 340 PORTAGE MATADERO CREEK EL CA M I N O R E A L PAG E M I L L R D PARK B L V D LAM B E R T A V E POR T A G E A V E PEPP E R A V E OLIV E A V E ASH S T ASH S T ACAC I A A V E Housing Inventory Sites & Existing Use 2.g Packet Pg. 32 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 Housing Inventory Site BOULWARE PARK 340 PORTAGE MATADERO CREEK EL CA M I N O R E A L PAG E M I L L R D PARK B L V D LAM B E R T A V E POR T A G E A V E PEPP E R A V E OLIV E A V E ASH S T ASH S T ACAC I A A V E Common & Contiguous Ownership 2.g Packet Pg. 33 4 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 For All Alternatives ‒All alternatives assume a plan horizon of 10-30 years depending on intensity ‒Housing inventory sites are prioritized; existing office and retail use on housing inventory sites is elminated ‒Parcels with common, contiguous ownership are assumed to be consolidated over time ‒Additional proposed office square footage subsidizes community benefits (housing, retail, open space, and community space) ‒New jobs calculation is based on proposed office (1 employee/ 250sf) and retail (1 employee/500sf )program ‒Location of housing typologies considers both proximity to transit and sensitive surrounding uses ‒Alternatives' open space calculation includes only centralized open space that is not integrated with a housing typology ‒All new residential construction is self-parked with underground garages ‒Parking is calculated based on the following ratios: 1 space per housing unit; 1 space per 300 sf combined retail and office space Plan Area Existing Conditions 128 Housing Units 578k gsf Class A Office 152k gsf Retail 2,441 Parking Spaces Alternative Assumptions 2.g Packet Pg. 34 5 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 ‒Housing is concentrated on housing inventory sites ‒Fry’s building remains with existing uses (77k retail, 163k office); this assumes a retail use with a regional draw ‒All surface parking on 340 Portage Parcel remains ‒Height concentrated along ECR ‒Net office for Plan Area reduced by 45k sf; office is eliminated on housing inventory sites along Portage Ave ‒No centralized public open space Existing Fry’s building and Cloudera site to remain Townhome Low-Rise Greenway Low-Rise Block Neighborhood- Serving Commercial Office Integrated Open Space Allowed Fourplex Total Build Out Net Change BOULWARE PARK 340 PORTAGE MATADERO CREEK EL CA M I N O R E A L PAG E M I L L R D PARK B L V D LAM B E R T A V E POR T A G E A V E PEPP E R A V E OLIV E A V E ASH S T ASH S T ACAC I A A V E * Existing office and retail uses located on Housing Priority Sites are eliminated with the exception of 340 Portage ** Centralized open space only. Does not include Boulware Park or 3350 Birch site. Alternative 1: Minimum as per Comprehensive Plan Housing 514 units +386 units Office 533k sf -45k sf* Retail 150k sf -2k sf* Open Space** 0 acres 2.g Packet Pg. 35 6 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 ‒Retaining the Fry’s building and existing uses limits overall housing yield and community benefits (open space, community center) Single-Family Units (44k gross sf) 29 townhomes Multi-Family Units (250k gross sf) 357 apartments Residents*926 people Jobs**822 employees Parking1 space per unit on-site Open Space/1k Residents 0 acres/1k residents (City Target = 2 acres)*** Community Space0k sf New Program Details * Assumes average household size of 2.4 **Assumes ratio of 1 job per 250 sf of office space and 1 job per 500 sf of retail space; jobs figure reflects only the proposed program, not final buildout. *** Centralized open space only. Does not include Boulware Park or 3350 Birch site. Existing Fry’s building and Cloudera site to remain Townhome Low-Rise Greenway Low-Rise Block Neighborhood- Serving Commercial Office Integrated Open Space Allowed Fourplex BOULWARE PARK 340 PORTAGE MATADERO CREEK EL CA M I N O R E A L PAG E M I L L R D PARK B L V D LAM B E R T A V E POR T A G E A V E PEPP E R A V E OLIV E A V E ASH S T ASH S T ACAC I A A V E Alternative 1: Minimum as per Comprehensive Plan 2.g Packet Pg. 36 7 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 ‒Assume parcel consolidation on housing priority sites where there is contiguous, common ownership ‒Portage Avenue activated by ground floor use (retail, personal services) ‒340 Portage building remains and current use is redistributed to 30k retail and 210k office (formerly 77k retail, 163k office) ‒Parking garage on 340 Portage to support office and regional retail ‒17 housing units on 340 Portage Parcel ‒6K former office building on Ash given to community use ‒0.8 acres of centralized open space at 340 Portage parcel ‒Net office for Plan Area reduced by 18k sf Existing Fry’s building and Cloudera site to remain Total Build Out Net Change Housing 1,107 units +979 units Office 560k sf -18k sf* Retail 150k sf -2k sf* Open Space** 1.1 acres Townhome Low-Rise Greenway Low-Rise Block Neighborhood- Serving Commercial Office Community Integrated Open Space Centralized Open Space Parking Structure Allowed Fourplex * Existing office and retail uses located on Housing Priority Sites are eliminated with the exception of 340 Portage ** Centralized open space only. Does not include Boulware Park or 3350 Birch site. BOULWARE PARK 340 PORTAGE MATADERO CREEK EL CA M I N O R E A L PAG E M I L L R D PARK B L V D LAM B E R T A V E POR T A G E A V E PEPP E R A V E OLIV E A V E ASH S T ASH S T ACAC I A A V E Alternative 2: Prioritize Portage 2.g Packet Pg. 37 8 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 Existing Fry’s building to remain and Cloudera site to remain: Trade-offs ‒Increasing office within the 340 Portage building incentivizes developer to contribute community and open space ‒Retail concentrated along Portage creates an active, pedestrian boulevard Proposed Program Details Single-Family Units (74k gross sf) 49 townhomes Multi-Family Units (651k gross sf) 930 apartments Residents*2,350 people Jobs**1,040 employees Parking1 space per unit on-site Open Space/1k Residents 0.4 acres/1k residents (City Target = 2 acres)*** Community Space6k sf * Assumes average household size of 2.4 **Assumes ratio of 1 job per 250 sf of office space and 1 job per 500 sf of retail space; jobs figure reflects only the proposed program, not final buildout. *** Centralized open space only. Does not include Boulware Park or 3350 Birch site. Townhome Low-Rise Greenway Low-Rise Block Neighborhood- Serving Commercial Office Community Integrated Open Space Centralized Open Space Parking Structure Allowed Fourplex BOULWARE PARK 340 PORTAGE MATADERO CREEK EL CA M I N O R E A L PAG E M I L L R D PARK B L V D LAM B E R T A V E POR T A G E A V E PEPP E R A V E OLIV E A V E ASH S T ASH S T ACAC I A A V E Alternative 2: Prioritize Portage 2.g Packet Pg. 38 9 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 Maximize Housing for Inclusivity and Diversity ‒Leveraging the Plan Area's proximity to transit to increase intensity of housing and commercial use ‒Concentrating height and density along ECR and Page Mill ‒340 Portage building is taken down to increase housing and site porosity ‒509 housing units and 60k sf new office at 340 Portage Parcel ‒Existing ECR ground floor retail mainted with housing above ‒628 new multi-family units and 60k new office on Cloudera parcel ‒Half acre of centralized open space at Cloudera ‒1.6 acres of centralized open space at 340 Portage parcel Total Build Out Net Change Housing 2,603 units +2,475 units Office 597k sf +18k sf* Retail 93k sf -59k sf* Open Space** 2.7 acres * Existing office and retail uses located on Housing Priority Sites are eliminated with the exception of 340 Portage ** Centralized open space only. Does not include Boulware Park or 3350 Birch site. BOULWARE PARK MATADERO CREEK EL CA M I N O R E A L PAG E M I L L R D PARK B L V D LAM B E R T A V E POR T A G E A V E PEPP E R A V E OLIV E A V E ASH S T ASH S T ACAC I A A V E Townhome Low-Rise Greenway Low-Rise Block Mid-Rise Block Neighborhood- Serving Commercial Office Community Integrated Open Space Centralized Open Space Parking Structure Allowed Fourplex Alternative 3: Designed Diversity 2.g Packet Pg. 39 10 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 02/21/20 Maximize Housing for Inclusivity and Diversity: Trade-offs ‒Additional office sf at Cloudera is maintained within existing footprint ‒Increasing office at Cloudera and 340 Portage incentivizes developer to create housing and provide open space ‒Permitting housing to develop at a higher density (100 du/acre) encourages redevelopment ‒Type III building increases the potential for a greater mix of unit types Proposed Program Details Single-Family Units (209k gross sf) 139 townhomes Multi-Family Units (1.7 million gross sf) 2,336 apartments Residents*5,921 people Jobs**2,186 employees Parking1 space per unit on-site Open Space/1k Residents 0.4 acres/1k residents (City Target = 2 acres)*** Community Space6k sf * Assumes average household size of 2.4 **Assumes ratio of 1 job per 250 sf of office space and 1 job per 500 sf of retail space; jobs figure reflects only the proposed program, not final buildout. *** Centralized open space only. Does not include Boulware Park or 3350 Birch site. Townhome Low-Rise Greenway Low-Rise Block Mid-Rise Block Neighborhood- Serving Commercial Office Community Integrated Open Space Centralized Open Space Parking Structure Allowed Fourplex BOULWARE PARK MATADERO CREEK EL CA M I N O R E A L PAG E M I L L R D PARK B L V D LAM B E R T A V E POR T A G E A V E PEPP E R A V E OLIV E A V E ASH S T ASH S T ACAC I A A V E Alternative 3: Designed Diversity 2.g Packet Pg. 40 DRAFT PLAN ALTERNATIVES NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 2.h Packet Pg. 41 5 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 Building Typologies Attachment H 2.h Packet Pg. 42 FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1 •Low Income Housing Tax Credits are major source –especially at very low income and below (approx. 60% AMI and below) •County funding sources (Measure A) target homeless and extremely low income households (30% AMI and below) and are very competitive •State funding sources also target homelessness and low income households (80% AMI and below) and are very competitive •City’s housing impact fees/ in lieu fees augment affordable housing funding at the local level Extremely Low, Very Low, Low Income •No existing subsidies at the federal, state, or county levels •Inclusionary requirement for ownership housing targets moderate income households (100-120% AMI) Moderate and Middle Income Source: City of Palo Alto Housing Element, 2015 to 2023; Strategic Economics, 2020. 2.h Packet Pg. 43 VALUE OF RENTAL UNITS DEVELOPMENT COST FROM $700KTO $800K PER UNIT 2 $783,976 $739,431 $426,284 $297,053 $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 MARKET RATE VALUE BMR VALUE -MODERATE INCOME (100%-120% AMI) BMR VALUE -LOW INCOME (80% AMI) BMR VALUE -VERY LOW INCOME (60% AMI) Market Rate and BMR Values for Rental Units Source: Strategic Economics Draft Feasibility Analysis, 2020. 2.h Packet Pg. 44 VALUE OF OWNERSHIP UNITSDEVELOPMENT COST FROM $765K -$980K PER UNIT 3Source: Strategic Economics Draft Feasibility Analysis, 2020. . $1,440,000 $1,150,000 $529,561 $448,278 TOWNHOME M_V (TRANSITION CONDO) Market Rate and BMR Values for Ownership Units Market Rate BMR Moderate Income 2.h Packet Pg. 45 FEASIBILITY RESULTS:OWNERSHIP TYPOLOGIES 4 •Ownership projects are feasible and can provide community benefits, including on-site BMR units and park fee revenues •Higher density prototypes can contribute more community benefits than townhome developments 2.h Packet Pg. 46 FEASIBILITY RESULTS:RENTAL TYPOLOGIES 5 •Rental projects are more financially constrained than ownership projects because values are lower but construction and land costs are similar •Providing community benefits, including on-site BMR units, is more challenging in a rental project than an ownership project •The mid-rise prototype does not feasibly support ground-floor retail 2.h Packet Pg. 47 COST OF DEVELOPMENT MARKET-RATE RENTAL UNIT IN 4-STORY “LOW-RISE” 6 $429,000 $128,700 $95,071 $117,499 $770,270 $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 Hard Construction Costs Soft Costs, Including City Fees and Financing Land Costs Profit/Return Total Development Cost Source: Strategic Economics Draft Feasibility Analysis, 2020. 2.h Packet Pg. 48 COMPARING RENTAL HOUSING AND OFFICEPROTOTYPICAL SCENARIOS 7Source: Strategic Economics Draft Feasibility Analysis, 2020. Land Use Rental Apartment Office Building Type 4-story “low rise” with underground parking 2-3 story with structured parking Total Development Costs per sq. ft.$988 $1,097 Market-Rate Value per sq. ft.$1,005 $1,224 Value per sq. ft. for BMR LI Units $547 n/a Value per sq. ft. for BMR VLI Units $381 n/a Average Value per sq. ft.$928 n/a Net Value per sq. ft.-$59 $127 •BMR requirements and city fees are a substantial cost for new housing development •Depending on the prototype, office development could yield a higher net value than housing •Office can potentially contribute more towards community benefits 2.h Packet Pg. 49 7 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 ‒Up to 8 stories, with central open space ‒Stepbacks above 6 stories ‒Typical Density = 159 du/acre ‒Rental model ‒1 parking space / unit ‒Individual ground floor unit entries with front stoops ‒Underground parking ‒“Building blocks” of housing that could be arranged in a variety of ways throughout the NVCAP Plan Area ‒All typologies are considered “feasible” to construct given current Palo Alto development conditions Mid-Rise Block ‒4-stories, with linear open space ‒Typical Density = 107 du/acre ‒For-sale or rental models ‒1 parking space / unit ‒Individual ground floor unit entries with front stoops ‒Underground parking Low-Rise Greenway Building Typologies ‒4-stories with central open space ‒Typical Density = 124 du/acre ‒For-sale or rental models ‒1 parking space / unit ‒Individual ground floor unit entries with front stoops ‒Underground parking ‒5* stories with central open space ‒Typical Density = 147 du/acre* *More units required to make the ground floor commercial viable Neighborhood-serving commercial uses could include: restaurants, coffee shops, pharmacies, local merchants, or specialty foods Low-Rise Block + Neighborhood Serving Commercial ‒3-stories, attached units ‒Typical Density = 33 du/acre ‒1 parking space / unit ‒For-sale model ‒Individual unit entries with front stoops ‒Ground floor parking, accessed via rear alley Townhomes 2.h Packet Pg. 50 8 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 Emeryville, California Portland Oregon Issaquah, Washington Townhomes Building Typologies Massing and Articulation • 1 Varied roof lines and facade planes • 2 Individually articulated units with a scale and rhythm that evokes the surrounding single-family residential character Frontage Zone • 3 Unit entries along street • 4 Planting strip for screening and urban greening • 5 Upper level balconies for increased street life Usable Open Space • 6 Individual front gardens for each unit • 7 Shared alley provides open space and more pedestrian porosity through the neighborhood 1 2 7 5 6 4 3 2.h Packet Pg. 51 9 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 Emeryville, California Portland Oregon Issaquah, Washington Building Typologies Townhomes Typical Prototype Metrics Stories 3 Ground Floor Height 15 ft. Typical Floor Height 10 ft. Total Height 35 ft. Average Unit Size 1,500 s.f. Dwelling Units 18 Density 33 du/acre Parking Spaces 18 spaces Parking Ratio 1 space/du He i g h t 35 ’ 3-story unit 1-car garage *Minimum Width = 120’ Street Shared Alley 30’Unit Depth 35’Setback 10’ Street 2.h Packet Pg. 52 10 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 Low-Rise Greenway Building Typologies Massing and Articulation • 1 Varied facade planes • 2 Change in material, color, and massing to break building’s volume down into a more human scale Frontage Zone • 3 Unit entries along street and public open space • 4 Individual ground level terraces provide screening and urban greening • 5 Upper level balconies for increased street life Usable Open Space • 6 Individual front gardens for each unit • 7 Linear greenway offers publicly accessible open space Malmo, Sweden Union City, California Hammarby, Stockholm Hammarby, Stockholm 1 2 6 7 5 3 4 2.h Packet Pg. 53 11 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20Building Typologies Low-Rise Greenway Typical Prototype Metrics Stories 4 Ground Floor Height 15 ft. Typical Floor Height 10 ft. Total Height 45 ft. Typical Unit Size*700 s.f. Dwelling Units 50 Density 107 du/acre Parking Spaces 50 spaces Parking Ratio 1 space/du *700 sf = typical 1 bedroom rental unit Typology assumes a mix of studios, 1- and 2-bedroom units Malmo, Sweden Union City, California Hammarby, Stockholm Hammarby, Stockholm He i g h t 45 ’ 3-story unit Street Street Double-Loaded Corridor 64'Linear Greenway 45’Setback 10’ 2-Levels Underground Parking *Minimum Width = 120’ 2.h Packet Pg. 54 12 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 Low-Rise Block Building Typologies Massing and Articulation • 1 Varied facade planes • 2 Change in material, color, and massing to break building’s volume down into a more human scale Frontage Zone • 3 Unit entries along street and public open space • 4 Individual ground level terraces provide screening and urban greening • 5 Upper level balconies for increased street life Usable Open Space • 6 Individual front gardens for each unit • 7 Internal courtyard offers publicly accessible open space 1 2 7 6 5 Palo Alto, California Palo Alto, California Palo Alto, California 3 4 2.h Packet Pg. 55 13 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 Palo Alto, California Palo Alto, California Palo Alto, California Building Typologies Low-Rise Block Typical Prototype Metrics Stories 4 Ground Floor Height 15 ft. Typical Floor Height 10 ft. Total Height 45 ft. Average Unit Size*700 s.f. Dwelling Units 156 Density 124 du/acre Parking Spaces 156 spaces Parking Ratio 1 space/du *700 sf = typical 1 bedroom rental unit Typology assumes a mix of studios, 1- and 2-bedroom units He i g h t 45 ’ Street Double-Loaded Corridor 60'Courtyard 110’Setback 10’ 2-Levels Underground Parking *Minimum Width = 250’ 2.h Packet Pg. 56 14 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 Low-Rise Block + Neighborhood Serving Commercial Building Typologies Massing and Articulation • 1 Varied facade planes • 2 Change in material, color, and massing to break building’s volume down into a more human scale Frontage Zone • 3 Unit entries along street and public open space • 4 Individual ground level terraces provide screening and urban greening • 5 Upper level balconies for increased street lifeUsable Open Space • 6 Linear spill-out social space activated by ground floor commercial use • 7 Individual front gardens for each unit • 8 Internal courtyard offers publicly accessible open space 1 2 8 6 75 San Francisco, California Seattle, WA 3 4 2.h Packet Pg. 57 15 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 Portland, Oregon San Francisco, California Seattle, WA Building Typologies Typical Prototype Metrics Lot Area 1.3 acres (55,000 s.f.) Building Footprint 35,000 s.f. Stories 5 Ground Floor Height 20 ft. Typical Floor Height 10 ft. Total Height 60 ft. Average Unit Size*700 s.f. Dwelling Units 185 Density 147 du/acre Parking Spaces 185 spaces Parking Ratio 1 space/du *700 sf = typical 1 bedroom rental unit Typology assumes a mix of studios, 1- and 2-bedroom units Low-Rise Block + Neighborhood Serving Commercial He i g h t 55 ’ Street Double-Loaded Corridor 60' Courtyard 110’ Active Ground Floor Setback 20’ 2-Levels Underground Parking *Minimum Width = 250’ 2.h Packet Pg. 58 16 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20Building Typologies Massing and Articulation • 1 Varied facade planes and stepbacks above 6 stories • 2 Change in material, color, and massing to break building’s volume down into a more human scale Frontage Zone • 3 Unit entries along street and public open space • 4 Individual ground level terraces provide screening and urban greening • 5 Upper level balconies for increased street life Usable Open Space • 6 Individual front gardens for each unit • 7 Internal courtyard offers publicly accessible open space • 8 Accessible green roofs 4 1 2 7 6 5 3 8 Union City, California Houston, TX Mid-Rise Block 2.h Packet Pg. 59 17 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 Union City, California Houston, TX He i g h t 85 ’ Double-Loaded Corridor 60' Courtyard 110’ 2-Levels Underground Parking *Minimum Width = 250’ Building Typologies Mid-Rise Block Typical Prototype Metrics Lot Area 1.3 acres (55,000 s.f.) Building Footprint 35,000 s.f. Stories 8 Ground Floor Height 15 ft. Typical Floor Height 10 ft. Total Height 85 ft. Average Unit Size*1,000 s.f. Dwelling Units 201 Density 159 du/acre Parking Spaces 201 spaces Parking Ratio 1 space/du *1,000 sf average assumes a mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units Setback 10’ Stepback 10’ 2.h Packet Pg. 60 18 CITY OF PALO ALTO NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN 01/21/20 ‒All typologies work for a variety of architectural styles ‒All typologies can incorporate stoops, balconies, varied rooflines, and setbacks that contribute to the public realm ‒Up to 8 stories ‒Does not support ground floor retail ‒Rental product ($4,675/month) ‒Publicly accessible internal courtyard ‒Denser typology allows for larger average unit sizes and a greater mix of unit types Mid-Rise Block ‒4-stories ‒For sale and rental product ($1.15 Million; $4,290/month) ‒Individual front gardens; publicly accessible greenway ‒By reducing average unit size, increases open space opportunity ‒Can act as a buffer between single-family homes and taller typologies and can fit on smaller parcels (less than one acre) Low-Rise Greenway Building Typology Trade-offs ‒4-stories ‒For sale and rental product ($1.15 Million; $3,850/month) ‒Individual front gardens; publicly accessible internal courtyard ‒Examples found throughout Palo Alto Low-Rise Block + Neighborhood Serving Commercial ‒3-story, attached units ‒Does not support ground floor retail ‒For-sale product ($1.4 Million/ 2-3 bdr) ‒Individual front gardens; shared open space between rows that increases site circulation Townhomes ‒5 stories ‒Supports retail on the ground floor ‒Rental product ($3,850/month) ‒Spill-out space; publicly accessible internal courtyard ‒Best suited to sites along main streets (Portage) or Plan Area edges to ensure visibility 2.h Packet Pg. 61 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 11153) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/29/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3000 Alexis Drive (Golf Course Renovation) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3000 Alexis Drive [19PLN- 00304]: Recommendation of a Site and Design Review for the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club to Renovate the 18-hole Golf Course. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From CEQA Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. Zoning District: OS (Open Space). For More Information Please Contact Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary Palo Alto Hills Golf & Country Club (Club) proposes a renovation to the 18-hole golf course in two phases. The renovation would include grading to update the existing greens, tees and sand bunkers, using current design techniques. The Club seeks to improve playing conditions, drainage and maintenance of the course, which was established in 1961. The project would result in a reduction in the amount of impervious coverage on the site. The project also includes: • improvements to the current practice facilities, • upgrades to the irrigation system, • replacement of certain golf course pathways with pervious surfaces, and • installation of flatwork for a small patio expansion at the clubhouse. 3 Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Commercial Recreation is a conditionally permitted use within the OS zone district. The project does not constitute an expansion of the Club property or facilities. Therefore, the project does not require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City Council modified the CUP in 2008 with City Council approval in conjunction with a Site and Design Review approval (CMR 413:08). The CUP restricts the Club membership numbers (425 proprietary members and 200 social members), events, and addressed other aspects, including the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Background Project Information Owner: Palo Alto Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc. Architect: Brian Costello Representative: Jeffrey Froke, Golfauna, 3158 Bird Rock Road, Pebble Beach, CA 95953 Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 3000 Alexis Drive Neighborhood: Palo Alto Hills Lot Dimensions & Area: Irregular shape / 119.93 acres Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: 71 protected trees Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 86,303 sf; Two stories; 35 feet in height; 1961 Existing Land Use(s): Recreation (Golf course & tennis club) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PF (D)-Public Facilities with Site and Design (Arastradero Preserve) West: OS-Open Space & RE-Residential Estate (Single-Family Residential) East: RE-Residential Estate (Single-Family Residential) South: RE-Residential Estate (Single-Family Residential) Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: CNES/Airbus, Maxar Technologies, Planet.com, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency 2020 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: OS-Open Space Comp. Plan Designation: Open Space/Controlled Development Context-Based Design: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Yes 3 Packet Pg. 64 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Uses or Districts (150'): Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: September 15, 2008 https://tinyurl.com/9-15-2008-City-Council and https://tinyurl.com/City-Council-RLUA PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant proposes a renovation of the 128.58 acre 18-hole golf course that was originally completed in 1961. The Golf Club constructed a new fitness center and other improvements in 2008, approved by Council via the Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit process. Construction of the proposed project would be divided into two nine-hole phases. The focus of the renovation would update the golf course features and infrastructure, including the existing greens, fairways, tees and bunker complexes. The use of current green rebuilding techniques and design principles will improve playing conditions and drainage and reduce the need for maintenance. The facilities would be updated following the United States Golf Association (USGA) guidelines. Grading activities would involve 39,750 cubic yards of soil, balancing cut and fill resulting in a net zero change. No truck hauls of soil are necessary to and from the site. The renovation also addresses the need to update the golf course, given advances made in golf and playing equipment technologies affecting the play of the game. Some of these considerations include re-alignment of the fairways, realignment and shaping of the sand bunkers, and reduction of the slope gradient on putting greens. The project includes the removal of 39 trees, including four protected trees, and the planting of 132 trees. Additional infrastructure improvements include updating the irrigation system and replacing certain golf cart pathways with permeable surfaces. Other improvements include upgrading the current practice facilities, including the chipping and putting greens, and adding a new short game green. A proposed patio expansion with flatwork on the course side of the clubhouse will reduce the impervious footprint. The overall impervious surface area on the site will be reduced by 14,402 square feet (sf). Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: • Site and Design Review: Site and Design is the review process for development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions. The process goals are to assure that use and development will be 3 Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 (1) harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, (2) compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and (3) in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Site and Design Review process typically includes an Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing following PTC review; however, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), Section 18.28.070(b) sets forth a modified Site and Design review process specific to the OS district that results in the items being placed on the City Council’s consent agenda following PTC review. OS district Site and Design Review applications are still evaluated to the same specific findings, which must all be made in the affirmative to approve the project. The findings to approve a Site and Design Review application are provided in Attachment B. For non-single family OS district homes subject to Site and Design Review, Architectural Review may be separately required per PAMC Section 18.76.020 (b)(3)(E); the landscaping and patio expansion proposals are considered minor changes to plans that previously received Site and Design Review approval at Council level. • Architectural Review (AR): PAMC 18.77.070 enables staff-level minor Architectural Review. This level of AR is intended for minor changes to projects Council approves via the Site and Design Review process. Though the amount of grading is not minor and therefore subject to PTC review, the Director determined the proposed landscaping and patio changes to the 2008 project qualify as staff level AR. Following the Director’s AR decision, anticipated in May, any person can request an ARB hearing to review the design. All Director’s AR decisions are appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. The AR decision can also be bundled with the Site and Design Review application to go to Council. AR findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application will be provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is an existing 128.58-acre golf course and tennis club. The site’s buildings include a clubhouse (37,322 sf), fitness facility (38,881 sf), maintenance building (9,100 sf), and a snack building (1,000 sf) on the course. The property has a swimming pool, three tennis courts, and a parking lot with 302 automobile parking spaces. The golf course property is 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. 3 Packet Pg. 66 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 located within the foothills of Palo Alto west of Interstate 280. Large properties, including single family home properties, are abutting the east and south sides of the golf course. The remainder of the Club’s property abuts the Pearson-Arastradero Natural Preserve. Views of the property are limited from adjacent streets; however, the abutting properties do have views of the Club’s property from their rear yards. In the case of the Preserve, the trail has some limited views of the far edges of the Club property. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes goals, policies, and programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and staff uses the Plan’s policies to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Furthermore, in accordance with PAMC 18.30(G).055, Site and Design Review requires that the PTC make a recommendation for a project that accomplishes objective (d) regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The property has a land use designation of Open Space/Controlled Development. This considers land having all the characteristics of open space but where some development may be allowed on private properties. Open space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range from 0.1 to one dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of two units per acre where second units are allowed, and population densities range from one to four persons per acre. Other uses such as agricultural, recreational, and non-residential uses may be allowed consistent with the protection and preservation of the inherent open space characteristics of the land. The following are applicable Comprehensive Plan policies: • Policy L-1: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. • Policy N-1.8. Minimize impacts of any new development on the character of public open space and the natural ecology of the hillsides. • Policy N-1.9. All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should visually blend in with its surroundings and minimize impacts to the natural environment. As such, development projects should: o Not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 67 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 o Be located away from hilltops. o Be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding to reduce conspicuousness minimize access roads, and to reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. o Include built forms and landscape forms that mimic the natural topography. o Retain existing vegetation as much as possible. o Utilize natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. o Include landscaping composed of native species that require little or no irrigation. o Include exterior lighting that is low-intensity and shielded from view. o Include access roads of a rural rather than urban character. On balance, the project would be consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is reflected in the summary table provided in Attachment C. The property currently has impervious area that exceeds the maximum amount allowed in the zoning code. PAMC Section 18.28.050 (b) (2), prescribes the maximum impervious area for open space sites with non- residential development as 5%. The property was previously approved with an impervious area of 6.5%, which the Site and Design process can permit (PAMC 18.28.050(b)(2) as long as the impervious coverage area does not exceed 10%. The proposal includes a reduction of the overall impervious area to 6.25%. The proposed project complies with all other applicable codes. The site is subject to a CUP for the operation of the club. The club does not request an amendment to the CUP for the expansion of the facility or an increase in membership limits. Consistency with Application Findings The PTC will recommend approval, or recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following objectives: a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 68 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 A Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B) provides tailored findings for Site and Design Review approval of the project for the PTC to review and recommend to the City Council. In addition to the Site and Design Review Objectives, PAMC Section 18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations, Section (p) Open Space Review Criteria, sets forth 12 review criteria taken from the Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Element. The attached Draft Record of Land Use Action reflects staff’s analysis of the project’s compliance with these criteria. Tree Protection An arborist report provides a survey of the trees onsite as to their health, status as regulated or protected trees, and measures to follow for tree protection during construction activities. Each tree is numbered, and recommendations are provided for tree protection during construction, and to ensure long-term health. The site includes 71 protected trees4. Of these, four are proposed for removal. The remaining protected trees will benefit from tree protection measures or would not be impacted by the construction activity. Thirty-five non-protected trees are proposed for removal because they are diseased, represent a safety hazard, are non- native species or would interfere with grading activities (or a combination of these factors). The tree removals are shown on Sheet 5 of the project plans. The project includes the planting of 132 trees (62 Coast Redwoods, 61 Coast Live Oaks and nine Valley Oaks) throughout the project area. Impervious Coverage Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.28.050(b), Table 3, the maximum impervious coverage for the site is 182,845 sf. The Council previously approved 364,507 sf of impervious surface coverage, which includes buildings, parking lot area, and golf cart pathways. The proposed project would result in a 14,209 square foot reduction of impervious coverage, for a new total impervious area of 350,298 sf. Multi-Modal Access, Parking and TDM The parking lot and driveways to the site will remain unchanged and in compliance with previous approvals. The project does not result in the need for additional parking spaces. A TDM was required for the Club as part of the 2008 project. The Club does not request an expansion of the Club that would necessitate changes to the TDM. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant 4 Protected Tree means (1) Any tree of the species Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and onehalf inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade; and (2) Any Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade, and (3) A heritage tree designated by the city council in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (PAMC Chapter 8.10 Section 8.10.020 Definitions) 3 Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 to CEQA Guideline 15304, Minor Alterations to Land, since grading would occur on land with a slope less than 10%. The average grade of the slope for the site is 8.8%. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 15, 2020, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 15, 2020, 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. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the PTC may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC5 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director (408) 3401-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2441 sahsing@m-group.us rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 70 3.a Packet Pg. 71 ACTION NO. 2020-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3000 ALEXIS DRIVE: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW [19PLN-00304] On ____________, 2020, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Site and Design Review application for the renovation of an existing golf course facility, including the addition of flat work for a patio, construction of a trash enclosure, grading and updating fairways, greens and tees and associated improvements, including removal of 39 trees and planting of 132 trees, on a 128.58 acre parcel in the Open Space Zone District, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. Jeffrey Froke of Golfauna on behalf of Palo Alto Hills Golf & Country Club, Inc., property owner, requested the City’s approval to allow the renovation of an existing golf course facility, including the addition of flat work for a patio, construction of a trash enclosure, grading and updating fairways, greens and tees and associated improvements on a 128.58 acre parcel (“The Project”). B. The project site is a single parcel (APN 182-35-035 & 182-35-008) of 128.58 acres in size in the Palo Alto Foothills. The site is developed, containing an existing golf and tennis club operating an 18-hole golf course, three tennis courts, swimming pool, clubhouse and maintenance facility. The site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space and is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district. The project includes the phased rehabilitation of the golf course fairways, greens, tees, the addition of practice greens, trash enclosure, and flatwork to create a patio adjacent to the clubhouse. The construction of the patio would result in a reduction of impervious surface coverage. Certain golf cart paths will have their surfaces replaced also resulting in a reduction of impervious surfaces. The total impervious area (including building foot print and other hardscape areas) would be 350,298 square feet (a reduction of 14,209 square feet). C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Project on ---------, 2020. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR -------- and the attachments to it. D. On _____ 2020, the City Council reviewed the project design. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the project subject to the conditions set forth in Section 4 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land, since grading would occur on land with a slope less than 10%. 3.b Packet Pg. 72 SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings 1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project is a renovation of an existing golf course and tennis club. Portions of the project site are adjacent to properties with single-family residences. Other portions of the property abut a natural preserve area. Views of the golf course from the adjacent roadways are limited and some rear yards of the neighboring residences have views of the property. The project includes planting 132 trees on site and removal of 39 trees. It is expected with the completion of the project, the property will continue to operate in a similar harmonious way as it has in the past. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The golf course and tennis club has been in existence since the 1960s. The project will upgrade the facility using current design standards improving the playing conditions, reducing maintenance and the long-term viability of the club. 3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project. The project has been designed to minimize the impact on the environment. Grading activities will keep the soil onsite and result in a net zero cut/fill grading. Drainage and irrigation will be improved and as a result maintenance activities can be reduced. Four protected trees are proposed for removal, 35 non-native trees are removed and 132 redwoods and oaks are proposed to be planted. 4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including: Policy L-1: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. Policy N-1.8. Minimize impacts of any new development on the character of public open space and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Policy N-1.9. All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should visually blend in with its surroundings and minimize impacts to the natural environment. As such, development projects should: o Not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. o Be located away from hilltops. 3.b Packet Pg. 73 o Be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding to reduce conspicuousness minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. o Include built forms and landscape forms that mimic the natural topography. o Retain existing vegetation as much as possible. o Utilize natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. o Include landscaping composed of native species that require little or no irrigation. o Include exterior lighting that is low-intensity and shielded from view. o Include access roads of a rural rather than urban character. Policy L-7.15. Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats and remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the 19th century. Views of the golf course are limited from adjacent streets. Certain rear yards of abutting residential properties have views of the project site. Trees are proposed to be planted to frame views and provide screening. Conditions of approval ensure that in the unlikely event of any archaeological resource discovery, protocols are in place. The renovation will use the latest design and construction techniques to reduce maintenance and improve sustainability. Grading would result in a net zero cut/fill amount. SECTION 4. Open Space Review Criteria The project proposal meets the following Open Space Review Criteria (italicized) and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open space areas. 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. There are limited views of the project site from the adjacent public roadways. Views from the adjacent natural preserve trails are also limited and taken from higher vantage points. Additional trees are proposed to be planted that will help the site further blend with its surroundings. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline. The project does not extend to the nearest ridgeline. 3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. The views from the neighboring properties would be similar as they are today. Additional trees will be planted that may affect future views. 4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. The golf course will remain similar which changes to the fairways, greens and tees. A trash enclosure will be constructed adjacent to the clubhouse and flat work to expand a patio will be constructed adjacent to the clubhouse on the western side and not visible from the road or residences. 5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building 3.b Packet Pg. 74 lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The golf course is existing and the renovations will closely follow the topography as it is currently. The grading activities will result in a net zero cut and fill of soil. 6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. The Arborist Report and construction plans have been evaluated by the City’s Planning Arborist, who agreed sufficient tree protection measures are included in the project to ensure the retention of healthy, protected trees. Four protected trees are proposed for removal because of safety or health of the trees and 35 non-native trees will be removed and 132 redwood and oak trees are proposed for planting. 7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. The project proposes grading that includes both cut and fill. There is zero net amount of cut and fill for the project. 8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Impervious areas are reduced from 6.5% to 6.25%. The project includes a renovation of a golf course that would improve the drainage onsite. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural building materials in earthtones are proposed. All proposed building materials are natural in appearance. 10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The landscape plan was designed for lower maintenance. Native and drought tolerant plants were chosen, with the exception of the sod turf. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. No additional lighting is proposed for the project. 12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment). The existing access way will be maintained. 13. For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations. The project is within the City limits and meets the O-S (Open Space) District zoning regulations. SECTION 5. Site and Design Approvals Granted. 3.b Packet Pg. 75 Site and Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 19PLN-00304, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of the Record. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning Division 1) CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Palo Alto Hills Golf & Country Club” stamped as received by the City on January 23, 2020 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2) BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3) BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The Record of Land Use Action including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5) PROJECT EXPIRATION: The project approval shall be valid for through two years after the adoption date of the Record of Land Use Action. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 6) ARCHAELOGICAL RESOURCES: Palo Alto is known to contain widely dispersed prehistoric sites with shell ridden components, including human burials and a variety of artifacts. Therefore, cessation of all grading and construction activities is required, if any archaeological or human remains are encountered. At that time, retention of a qualified archaeologist to address the find in the field, notification of the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office, and if native American remains are discovered, evaluation of the finds by a Native American descendent shall be required. The Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, would provide implementation of additional mitigation measures. 7) NESTING BIRDS AND NEST AVOIDANCE: Construction of the project, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey of adjacent street trees to determine the 3.b Packet Pg. 76 presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish & Wildlife Code (CFWC), nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. 8) INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9) DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees ($3,834,694.42) plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 10) IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 11) FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions 3.b Packet Pg. 77 during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. Public Works Engineering 12) EASEMENT: City records indicate an existing Public Utilities Easement running through a portion of the site. Provide location and note the easement in plan set. Proposed items shall be placed outside of existing easement area. Refer to Utilities 13) DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 14) GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 15) GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 16) UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 17) TRASH ENCLOUSRE: Proposed trash enclosures shall drain to sanitary only. 18) EROSIONAL CONTROL: Plan set shall include a full erosional control plan outlining mitigation measures along with appropriate details for each component. 3.b Packet Pg. 78 19) EXCAVATION: Provide deepest excavation depth on plan set (sections) with a note and dimension. 20) DEWATERING: Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. 21) Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Grading Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a Grading Permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 22) WATER FILLING STATION: applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right- of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 23) WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 24) Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of- way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING 3.b Packet Pg. 79 PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 25) Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 26) Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 27) IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. Include a hard copy in submittal. 28) PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS CONDITIONS: The City's full-sized "Standard Conditions" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67175.06&BlobID=66261 29) STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 30) LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor/designer must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. This plan shall be in the building set of plans. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2719 31) STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to building permit approval. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. Submit a hard copy of this item (document emailed alongside these comments). Urban Forestry 3.b Packet Pg. 80 32) TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 33) PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 34) TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20- 2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 35) GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 36) TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 37) EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 38) PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a) SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree 3.b Packet Pg. 81 Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b) The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c) Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. Waste Gas Water 39) The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads 40) The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way. 41) The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 42) The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 43) The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 44) An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be 3.b Packet Pg. 82 installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 45) An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 46) The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 47) Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 48) All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 49) Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 50) All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Fire 51) Improve/create driveway approach onto the golf course property from Alexis Drive near the existing water well by the 8th Hole (proposed 7th hole). Security gate/chain across the opening to prevent unauthorized vehicle entry is recommended. 52) Label golf course emergency vehicle access points with numbers/letters following the PAFD sign standard. 53) Install 2-1/2" wharf hydrants along the golf cart pathway where the greens parallel the wildland urban interface. The wharf hydrant water source can be connected to the golf course irrigation system. Contact Karl Schneider/Claire Shum w/ PAFD 650-329-2573 for preferred location of wharf hydrants. 3.b Packet Pg. 83 54) Improve vertical clearance along golf cart pathways so fire apparatus can drive underneath and not impact landscaping/trees. 55) Paint fire hydrants/fire department connection at club house/fitness center. Clear landscaping around fire hydrants/fire department connections. Install blue roadway marker at fire hydrants near club house/fitness center. Watershed Protection 56) The applicant shall work with the Watershed Protection Group to outline O&M practices and frequencies onsite with respect to any fertilizers in the form of an agreement (or similar) prior to the issuance of a building permit for this work. This agreement shall be noted in the entitlement plan set and a draft agreement shall be included in the first submittal for the building plan set. 57) Stormwater treatment measures All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. 58) Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. 59) For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at pamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 60) Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. 61) Stormwater quality protection temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. Building 62) Golf facilities shall comply with 11B-238, CBC. Amend plans to show and illustrate accessible compliance at all areas. Provide an accessible path plan by means of a dashed line to all public areas. If site infeasibility, please include explanation of operations as part of plans. 63) Retaining walls shall be designed by a civil/structural engineer. Submit the design at building permit. See LD-1 for retaining walls. Recycling 64) Applicant shall ensure that all internal and external containers include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Each container shall be placed closely 3.b Packet Pg. 84 together, color coded, with proper signage. Single waste containers in common areas are prohibited for waste disposable. 65) Trash enclosure must be covered. 66) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access. 67) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is used. 68) Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs" 69) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply. 70) All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. 71) New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce wear-and-tear on walls. 72) Service must be provided for garbage, recycling, and compost 73) Project plans must show the placement of all three refuse containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables. SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).080. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning & Development Services 3.b Packet Pg. 85 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Costello – Hollinger - Moore entitled “Palo Alto Hills Golf & Country Club”, consisting of 47 pages, dated January 15, 2020, and received on January 23, 2020. 3.b Packet Pg. 86 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3000 Alexis Drive 19PLN-00324 Table 1a: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (OS DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, Width and Depth Area: 10 acres Width: No standard Depth: No standard Area: 128.58 acres Width: approx. 3,500 feet Depth: approx. 2,350 feet No change Front Yard 30 feet 280 feet to clubhouse No change Street Side Yard 30 feet N/A N/A Rear Yard 30 feet 1,448 feet to clubhouse No change Interior Side Yard 30 feet Clubhouse: 66 feet on left side 2,559 feet on right side No change Max. Building Height 25 feet average height of the highest gable 25 feet No change Maximum Impervious Coverage 3.5% of site (196,033 sf) 6.5% (364,507 sf)1 6.25% (350,298 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 5% (280,047 sf) for a 128.58 acre site 0.16% (86,903 sf) 0.16% (87,303 sf) 1 Approved as legal non-conforming in 2008. Table 1b: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Recreation Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking One space per four person capacity = 302 spaces1 302 spaces No change 1 Approved with CUP in 2008. 3.c Packet Pg. 87 Attachment D Project Plans Due to the current shelter-in-place, these plans are only available to the public online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “3000 Alexis Drive” 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/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4818&TargetID=319 3.d Packet Pg. 88 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 11198) Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/29/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: February 12, 2020 Draft Meeting Minutes Title: February 12, 2020 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the February 12, 2020 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meetings were made available to the Commissioners prior to the April 29, 2020 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed on line on the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. 4 Packet Pg. 89 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 11199) Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/29/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: February 26, 2020 Draft Meeting Minutes Title: February 26, 2020 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the February 26, 2020 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meetings were made available to the Commissioners prior to the April 29, 2020 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed on line on the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. 5 Packet Pg. 90