Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-28 Planning & transportation commission Agenda PacketPLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Wednesday, June 28, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM Commissioner Keith Reckdahl Remote Call In Location:Holiday Inn Huntsville‐Research Park Address: 5903 University Dr NW, Huntsville, AL 35806 Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and minutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499) Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker. 2.2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Request for Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and to apply the R‐1 Zoning to 702 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single‐Story, Single‐Family Residence      6:10 PM – 7:10 PM 3.Amendment to Title 18 Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.18, 18.42, 18.52, 18.76 and Title 16 Chapter 16.20 to Waive Parklets from Certain Planning and Zoning Requirements.      7:10 PM – 8:10 PM STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Discuss Work Plan to Amend the Palo Alto Zoning Code to Implement Housing Element Programs 1.1 and 3.4      8:10 PM – 9:10 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of May 31, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below.  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 Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, June 28, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMCommissioner Keith Reckdahl Remote Call In Location:Holiday Inn Huntsville‐Research ParkAddress: 5903 University Dr NW, Huntsville, AL 35806Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker. 2.2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Request for Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and to apply the R‐1 Zoning to 702 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single‐Story, Single‐Family Residence      6:10 PM – 7:10 PM 3.Amendment to Title 18 Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.18, 18.42, 18.52, 18.76 and Title 16 Chapter 16.20 to Waive Parklets from Certain Planning and Zoning Requirements.      7:10 PM – 8:10 PM STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Discuss Work Plan to Amend the Palo Alto Zoning Code to Implement Housing Element Programs 1.1 and 3.4      8:10 PM – 9:10 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of May 31, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below.  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 Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, June 28, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMCommissioner Keith Reckdahl Remote Call In Location:Holiday Inn Huntsville‐Research ParkAddress: 5903 University Dr NW, Huntsville, AL 35806Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker. 2.2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Request for Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and to apply the R‐1 Zoning to 702 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single‐Story, Single‐Family Residence      6:10 PM – 7:10 PM 3.Amendment to Title 18 Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.18, 18.42, 18.52, 18.76 and Title 16 Chapter 16.20 to Waive Parklets from Certain Planning and Zoning Requirements.      7:10 PM – 8:10 PM STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Discuss Work Plan to Amend the Palo Alto Zoning Code to Implement Housing Element Programs 1.1 and 3.4      8:10 PM – 9:10 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of May 31, 2023 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below.  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 Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, June 28, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMCommissioner Keith Reckdahl Remote Call In Location:Holiday Inn Huntsville‐Research ParkAddress: 5903 University Dr NW, Huntsville, AL 35806Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five (5) minutes per speaker.2.2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Request for Rezoning to Amend PlannedCommunity 2343 (PC 2343) and to apply the R‐1 Zoning to 702 Ellsworth Place to Enablethe Development of a Single‐Story, Single‐Family Residence      6:10 PM – 7:10 PM3.Amendment to Title 18 Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.18, 18.42, 18.52, 18.76 and Title 16Chapter 16.20 to Waive Parklets from Certain Planning and Zoning Requirements.     7:10 PM – 8:10 PMSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Discuss Work Plan to Amend the Palo Alto Zoning Code to Implement Housing ElementPrograms 1.1 and 3.4      8:10 PM – 9:10 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTES5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutesof May 31, 2023COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below.  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 Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONRegular MeetingWednesday, June 28, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid6:00 PMCommissioner Keith Reckdahl Remote Call In Location:Holiday Inn Huntsville‐Research ParkAddress: 5903 University Dr NW, Huntsville, AL 35806Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas andminutes are available at http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/91641559499)Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toPlanning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Council and available forinspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencingin your subject line.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. Touphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storagedevices are not accepted.TIME ESTIMATESListed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while themeeting is in progress. The Commission reserves the right to use more or less time on any item,to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items maybe heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to bestmanage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others:Five (5) minutes per speaker.2.2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Request for Rezoning to Amend PlannedCommunity 2343 (PC 2343) and to apply the R‐1 Zoning to 702 Ellsworth Place to Enablethe Development of a Single‐Story, Single‐Family Residence      6:10 PM – 7:10 PM3.Amendment to Title 18 Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.18, 18.42, 18.52, 18.76 and Title 16Chapter 16.20 to Waive Parklets from Certain Planning and Zoning Requirements.     7:10 PM – 8:10 PMSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Discuss Work Plan to Amend the Palo Alto Zoning Code to Implement Housing ElementPrograms 1.1 and 3.4      8:10 PM – 9:10 PMAPPROVAL OF MINUTES5.Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutesof May 31, 2023COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments  m a y   b e   s u b m i t t e d   b y   e m a i l   t o planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below.  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 Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 916 4155 9499   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 28, 2023 Report #: 2306-1619 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 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 •Upcoming PTC Agenda Items Commissioners are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the 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 quasijudicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/City-Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/cityofpaloalto/boardsandcommissions/planni ng-and-transportation-commission. UPCOMING PTC MEETINGS July 12: Action Item: 3200 Park Boulevard (Sobrato project) Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 July 26: Legislative Items: Municipal Code update (18.54, 10.32, & 10.64), Electrification Equipment Noise Ordinance (Residential), and a State Law Implementation Ordinance (addressing laws such as SB 6 & AB 2011 effective July 1, 2023) August 9: Meeting under consideration - cancellation for a summer break is pending discussion ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023 Meeting Schedule and Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 7     Planning & Transportation Commission 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2023 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/11/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 1/25/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2/08/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 2/22/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/08/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 3/29/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 4/12/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled Bryna Chang 4/26/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Bart Hechtman 5/08/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Joint Session w/ Council 5/10/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 5/31/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 6/14/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Bart Hechtman 6/28/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Bryna Chang 7/12/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular Bart Hechtman 7/26/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular George Lu 8/09/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 8/30/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/13/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 9/27/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/11/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 10/25/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/08/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 11/29/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/13/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Regular 12/27/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Cancelled 2023 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Giselle Roohparvar Keith Reckdahl Bart Hechtman Doria Summa Doria Summa Bryna Chang Bryna Chang Keith Reckdahl Keith Reckdahl Bart Hechtman July August September October November December Cari Templeton Allen Akin Bart Hechtman George Lu Doria Summa Keith Reckdahl Bryna Chang Cari Templeton Allen Akin Bart Hechtman George Lu Doria Summa Item 1 Attachment A 2023 Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 9 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 28, 2023 Report #: 2305-1418 TITLE 2901 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place: Request for Rezoning to Amend Planned Community 2343 (PC 2343) and to apply the R-1 Zoning to 702 Ellsworth Place to Enable the Development of a Single-Story, Single-Family Residence RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend City Council adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A), approving the applicants’ request to modify the 1967 Planned Community (PC), PC 2343, to remove the 702 Ellsworth Place property from the underlying PC boundary and restore the former R-1, single family residential zoning of the 702 Ellsworth Place parcel. BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zoning and City Records When the City Council approved the Planned Community project for this site back in 1967, it appears the City’s zoning map was never updated to reflect that decision. As a result, the R-1 zoning of 702 Ellsworth Place and RM-20 zoning of 2901 Middlefield Road has continued to be shown on zoning maps over the past several decades. The zoning map has consistently shown Ellsworth Place as a 20-foot-wide private street. Below is an excerpt of the zoning map as it appears today with the subject parcels highlighted (parcels south, north, and east of Ellsworth Place are zoned R-1 except for two R-2 zoned lots): Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 9 In 2017, the properties (totaling 26,386 square feet or 0.6 acre) were sold to a new owner, Dewey Land Company LLC (Dewey). At the time, 2901 Middlefield Road was shown on the City’s zoning map as an RM-15 zoned parcel.1 In late 2022, Dewey sold 702 Ellsworth Place (6,493 square feet) to Handa Developer’s Group/RRP (Handa); Handa purchased the property with the intent to redevelop it as a single-family home. Residents familiar with the site history raised concerns when they learned 702 Ellsworth Place had been sold to a separate owner. The applicant prepared a request letter (Attachment J) that provides the back story and purposes of the requested rezoning. The applicant, staff, and residents have researched the Ellsworth Place ownership and easements, discussed in this report. The prescreening report for the March 13, 2023 City Council meeting (item 2 on the agenda2) informed the Council that: •Zonings of RM20 and R1 for the subject parcels have been incorrectly shown on the City’s zoning maps for decades. •When the City implemented its online property parcel records, the subject property (2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place) did not include information about the applicable PC zoning designation on the parcel report. 1 On April 1, 2019, the City amended the RM-15 zone to be RM-20. 2 Link to March 13, 2023 Council agenda including public correspondence from March https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1091 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 9 •The online parcel records were updated early 2023 to reflect the PC 2343 zoning. •Real estate professionals, developers, and property owners rely in part on this online information to make decisions about property acquisition and development. •Staff consults these records when providing information to the public. •It was not until residents filed a code enforcement complaint concerning fencing placed around 702 Ellsworth Place in anticipation of future home development that research began and uncovered this mapping error. •Staff engaged with area residents, Handa, and Dewey regarding the PC process. Note: The Council packet for March 13, 2023 contains correspondence (including the San Carlos Neighborhood letter, Attachment H of item 2, and several other public comment letters, noted as ‘item 2 public comments’). PC Review Process – Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board As set forth in Chapter 18.38, the PTC is requested to conduct an initial review of the PC application; PAMC Section 18.38.060 sets forth the required findings for approval of a PC or PC amendment: (a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. (c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. These Chapter 18.38 findings are to be supplemented by findings in PAMC Section 18.80.070, which require the PTC to determine whether the proposed rezoning “would be in accord with the purposes of this title [18] and in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” Draft findings are provided in Attachment A. If the PTC acts favorably, a PC development plan is submitted to the architectural review board (ARB) for review - ‘except in the case of single-family and accessory uses’. Staff do not anticipate that this application will require review by the ARB as it primarily involves a newly proposed single-family use and reconfiguration of the existing accessory use of parking. Proposed Planned Community Amendment and R-1 Rezoning Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 9 The proposed draft rezoning ordinance/zoning map amendment ordinance is provided as Attachment A. Annotations are provided to indicate areas of discussion for the PTC. The existing PC 2343 Ordinance is attached to this report as Attachment B. The applicant’s letter (Attachment J) describes the proposal; the letter, on pages 5 and 6 characterizes a number of project features as possible “public benefits,” which have been required for PCs since 1978. To address the neighbors’ concerns about the street width, the applicants have proposed providing pavers to increase the perceived width of Ellsworth Place. The sketch below is provided to illustrate this: To change the PC, the existing PC boundary and ordinance would be amended to: •Remove the PC designation and restore the R-1 zoning of the 702 Ellsworth Place parcel, thereby removing the guest parking located on 702 Ellsworth Place from the PC; •Provide current code required parking on 2901 Middlefield Road by restriping the asphalt paving to indicate: (1) four uncovered parking spaces, and (2) a delivery truck space; •Enable development of a single-story, single-family home on the 702 Ellsworth parcel, with vehicular access from Ellsworth Place. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9 Preliminary plans3 were shared with Council in the March 13, 2023 prescreening report, showing concept plans for a new home. Staff provided comments to Handa on the plan set relative to R- 1 zone standards in March 2023. Handa proposes that the three-foot tall front yard fence would be created with gaps to assist with visibility at the corner of Middlefield Road and Ellsworth Place. The as-built planting plan (Attachment F) shows where six Western Redbud trees were added to replace canopy removed from the PC via the removal of two oak trees that grew on the 702 Ellsworth Place parcel in 2017-2018. The applicant’s most recent letter (Attachment J) provides some history regarding the tree removal. Staff found no evidence of permits for tree removals in 2017-2018 in the City’s records that would have otherwise been required to document the issue and resolve the change on site. Code Enforcement Response Following the Council prescreening meeting, staff issued a notice of violation for Handa to remove the fence around the parking lot and remove the dirt piles that were temporarily stored on the parcel. Handa removed the fence and dirt piles, so the lot continues to provide parking spaces for guests of 2901-2905 Middlefield Road. Staff also followed up with Urban Forestry (UF) staff regarding the assertion that protected trees were removed with verbal approval from UF staff via a site visit discussion in 2018. The UF staff are no longer employed with the City of Palo Alto. Staff speculates that the tree removal may have been okayed based on the assumption of R1 zoning of 702 Ellsworth as shown in the parcel report; the trees may have been located within the buildable area of an R1 lot impeding a home construction. Tree canopy replacement for the removed trees on 702 Ellsworth has been implemented on Dewey‘s property. As-built landscape plans (Attachment F) submitted May 31, 2023 indicate six Western Redbud trees were planted in recent years. Urban Forestry staff reviewed the plan to ensure canopy replacement has been successful. These site improvements should have gone through an architectural review. Staff is evaluating the landscape plan against architectural review findings as part of this application. 3 Link to preliminary plans from February 2023 showing new home concept: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/2901-Middlefield- Road Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 9 Ellsworth Place Private Street and Easement Neighbors have noted a desire for the City to take ownership of the private street to improve its condition, address drainage problems and maintain the street. Ellsworth Place is neither owned nor maintained by the City. Moreover, it does not appear the adjacent property owners own the private street either. Similar conditions exist at other locations in the City, dating from development that occurred on formerly unincorporated land before annexation. The issue concerning drainage and maintenance of Ellsworth Place is unlikely to be resolved associated with the PC amendment. DISCUSSION Zoning Development Standards Compliance An analysis of the original PC site area and reduced PC site area is provided below. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 9 As noted, the apartment building’s floor area ratio (FAR) based on the approved development plan for PC 2343 was 0.32:1 FAR. The private street area was removed from lot area for the purpose of calculating this FAR. With the proposed removal of Handa’s parcel from the PC site, the FAR increases to 0.39:1 on the reduced-sized PC apartment building site. The unit per acre density increases as well. The draft PC ordinance (Attachment A) notes the result of the PC amendment is to increase the total units within the former PC boundary by one unit (Handa’s single-family residence). The increase in FAR for the apartment site is noted, as is the residential density and relevant Comprehensive Plan policies, in the event the City Council wishes to approve the proposed rezoning. As noted, to address the neighbor concerns regarding the width of Ellsworth Place, Dewey and Handa offered to widen the private street paving and formalize the easement access to the 13 residential properties adjacent to Ellsworth Place. The site plan shows widening as follows: •Dewey offers a pavement extension 2’6” wide by 35 feet (from Middlefield curb) adjacent to Ellsworth Place pavement (see Attachment D). •Handa offers a pavement extension 1’6” wide by 35 feet (from Middlefield curb) adjacent to Ellsworth Place pavement (see Attachment D). These offers would result in a 24-foot-wide private street for the western-most 35 feet of the street (from Middlefield). The City Council could require these property owners to provide an easement across this portion of their properties to improve the Ellsworth Place road safety. Parking for Apartment Building and Delivery Vehicles Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 9 As shown in the site plan, Dewey plans to provide four additional parking spaces on the apartment building site, two of which would be in tandem layout, to ensure the parking spaces provided for the tenants of the apartment building meet the current parking requirements. Guest parking spaces are no longer required for multi-family residential development in the current code, following local amendments that eliminated visitor parking requirements several years ago. As well, Dewey proposes allowing for a delivery vehicle space with dimensions 10’ x 30’ as shown on the apartment building site. Visibility at Corner for Bicyclists/ Traffic Study The applicant obtained a report prepared by a qualified transportation consultant (Attachment E) that studied the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road. The report was uploaded to the City’s online permit system. The report was reviewed by the Office of Transportation (OOT) staff, who noted the analysis provided in the report is satisfactory, and cited a clarification needed about a statement referring to neighbor comments. OOT staff thought the text may be neighbors' feedback about bicycle riding on the sidewalk but clarified that bicycle riding on the sidewalk may not be illegal in this location; it is illegal in the Downtown Business District and California Ave Business District. Setback Requirement for 702 Ellsworth Place Home Handa proposes to set the home back 24 feet from Middlefield to meet the 24-foot special setback at this location on Middlefield Road, and 10 feet from the existing edge of the Ellsworth Place pavement. The municipal code defines corner lots as parcels that are abutting two or more streets (both public and private). As a result, 702 Ellsworth Place would be considered as a standard corner lot and would have a 16-foot street-side setback along the shared property line with 2901 Middlefield Road. However, the proposed setback is 30 feet from the street-side lot line. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The recommendation in this report has no significant fiscal or budgetary impacts. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT In February, prior to the Council prescreening, staff received correspondence from Ellsworth Place neighbors and met onsite with several Ellsworth Place neighbors. Discussion included potential issues and solutions related to delivery truck parking for Ellsworth Place, visibility at the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road, and the status of deeds, easements, and street ownership. Staff and Council also received correspondence from neighbors on Sutter Avenue. The correspondence sent by neighbors prior to the Council prescreening is found via the March 13th Council agenda item 2 (link: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1091). Attachment K is February correspondence from an Ellsworth Place neighbor that includes several photos. Recent correspondence from the community will be provided to the PTC with the packet. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed rezoning is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), because it consists solely of new construction of a single-family residence and reconfiguration of accessory parking uses. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The PTC could alternatively recommend: Alternative 1: Denial of the application, retaining PC2343 zoning on Ellsworth Place. Alternative 2: Amendment of PC 2343 to add single-family residential use to the list of permitted or conditionally permitted uses of the PC zone. The single-family residence would then be added to the “Development Plan” for the PC; future changes to the structure would require Architectural Review, or in the event of a significant change, a zoning amendment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Ordinance to Amend PC 2343 and Rezone 702 Ellsworth to the R1 Zone Attachment B: PC2343 Ordinance Attachment C: Project Location Attachment D: PC Amendment Request Plans Including Site Changes to 2901-2905 Middlefield Attachment E: Traffic Study Attachment F: As Built Planting Plan for 2901-2905 Middlefield Attachment G: Plotted Easement Attachment H: Easement Documents 1939 Attachment I: Applicant Correspondence (prior letter to City Council) Attachment J: Applicant Correspondence (recent) Attachment K: Neighbor correspondence (February/March 2023) AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Not Yet Adopted 1 8 5 7 ORDINANCE NO. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Planned Community Ordinance 2343 (PC-2343) and Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Rezone the Property at 702 Ellsworth from Planned Community to Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. (a) On _____, Dewey Land Company LLC (“Dewey”) and Handa Developer’s Group/RRP (“Handa”) applied to amend Planned Community (“PC”) Ordinance 2343 to apply solely to the property at 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, APN 127-35-194, (“Middlefield Parcel”) and rezone the property at 702 Ellsworth Place, APN 127-35-152, (“Ellsworth Parcel”) from Planned Community to Single Family Residential (R-1). (b) The proposed rezoning would reduce the area of the Planned Community PC 2343 from 26,386 sf to 19,893 square feet to encompass 2901-2905 Middlefield Road, a 12-unit apartment building currently owned by Dewey, and amend the development plan for the PC to: (i) restripe the tenant parking facility to assign four uncovered parking spaces to meet current code requirements for tenant parking spaces, (ii) provide a truck delivery space, (iii) and add a 2’6”-wide swath of asphalt paving alongside a 35-foot length of Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line to increase the drivable width of Ellsworth Place. (c) The proposed rezoning would designate the remaining 6,493 square foot parcel currently owned by Handa at 702 Ellsworth as R-1, for the purpose of constructing a single-story, single-family residence. Handa proposes to add a 1’6”-wide swath of paving/pavers alongside a 35-foot length of Ellsworth Place beginning at the Middlefield Road curb line to increase the drivable width of Ellsworth Place. (d) The City Council at its March 13, 2023 study session considered the prescreening application and indicated the project applicants should proceed with a formal PC rezoning application to the Planning and Transportation Commission for a recommendation. (e) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held June 28, 2023, made the findings set forth below and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended. Item 2 Attachment A Draft PC Ordinance for PTC report     Packet Pg. 18     Not Yet Adopted 1 8 5 7 (f) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds: (i) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining zoning districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; the City's conventional zoning district RM20 would not permit the existing 12 unit structure on the proposed 0.46 acre site (ii) Amendment to the existing Planned Community PC2343 will provide public benefits expected to result from the Project, including an expanded public access easement over the first 35 feet of Ellsworth Place, and the construction of an additional dwelling unit. (iii) The Council further finds that the Project provides public benefits, as described above, that are of sufficient importance to make the Project, as a whole, one with reasonable public benefit. Relevant Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below: Policy L-1.1 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Policy L-1.2 Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Policy L-1.3 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-1.4 Avoid negative impacts of basement construction for single-family homes on adjacent properties, public resources, and the natural environment. Policy L-1.5 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety. Policy L-1.6 Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the front of houses from the street. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended to rezone the certain property known as 2901-2905 Middlefield Road from PC-2343 to " PC-XXXX”, and to rezone the certain property known as 702 Ellsworth Place from PC-2343 to R-1. The subject properties and revised zoning designations are shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Item 2 Attachment A Draft PC Ordinance for PTC report     Packet Pg. 19     Not Yet Adopted 1 8 5 7 SECTION 3. Development Plan Those certain plans entitled … a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property. SECTION 4. Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses within the PC boundary shall be limited to the following: (i) 12-unit apartment building: The existing apartment building shall remain on the 2901-2905 Middlefield site within the PC boundary. Covered and uncovered parking for the tenants shall be provided as per current parking requirements in Chapter 18.52. SECTION 5. Site Development Regulations. (a) Compliance with Development Plan. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan. (i) Any exterior changes to the apartment building or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, Architectural Review approval under Section 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as it is amended from time to time. (b) Tree Protection. The as built landscape plan shows trees planted to replace canopy that was removed in 2018 on the 702 Ellsworth Place property. These trees shall not be removed or destroyed without the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance Chapter 8.10. (c) Parking and Loading Requirements. 12 covered parking spaces for 12 apartment units. The plans indicate striping for four uncovered spaces and a truck delivery space to be provided on the 2901-2905 Middlefield property, accessible from Ellsworth Place. (d) Development Schedule. The parking lot striping on 2901-2905 Middlefield Road shall be immediately implemented upon approval of this ordinance. (e) Minor Variations in Project. Minor changes to the Project may be approved by the Director, according to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(D) for architectural review. “Minor” changes do not include changes in land use. SECTION 6. The City Council finds that this ordinance is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303 (New Item 2 Attachment A Draft PC Ordinance for PTC report     Packet Pg. 20     Not Yet Adopted 1 8 5 7 Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), because it consists solely of new construction of a single-family residence and reconfiguration of accessory parking uses. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Manager ___________________________ Asst. City Attorney __________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 2 Attachment A Draft PC Ordinance for PTC report     Packet Pg. 21     Item 2 Attachment B PC 2343 Ordinance and Plan     Packet Pg. 22     Item 2 Attachment B PC 2343 Ordinance and Plan     Packet Pg. 23     Item 2 Attachment B PC 2343 Ordinance and Plan     Packet Pg. 24     Item 2 Attachment B PC 2343 Ordinance and Plan     Packet Pg. 25     Item 2 Attachment B PC 2343 Ordinance and Plan     Packet Pg. 26     Item 2 Attachment B PC 2343 Ordinance and Plan     Packet Pg. 27     Item 2 Attachment B PC 2343 Ordinance and Plan     Packet Pg. 28     Attachment B: Excerpt of Zoning Map and Survey Map Showing Subject Properties Item 2 Attachment C Project Location Map     Packet Pg. 29     PROPOSED PC AMENDMENT TO HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.2657 SPRING STREETREDWOOD CITY, CA 94063P: 650.365.0600F: 650.365.0670www.thehayesgroup.comPC 2343, DATED 196701 PROJECT ADDRESS:704 ELLSWORTH PLACE 2901-2905PALO ALTO CA 94306MIDDLEFIELD RD.PALO ALTO, CA 94306 ISSUANCE: NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE:PLANNING SUBMITTAL COORDINATION 02.01.202304.25.2023 06.09.2023 01 02 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PROJECT DIRECTORY VICINITY MAP PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEXPROJECT DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED LETTER.CLIENT RLD LAND LLC240 LORTON AVENUE4TH FLOORBURLINGAME, CA 94063650.571.1010 ARCHITECTURALAPN127-35-152 AND 127-35-194 PC-2343 A0.1 T-1 TITLE SHEETZONESPECIAL TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION SHEETEXISTING PC 2343 DEVELOPMENT PLAN. FOR REFERENCEONLY. OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION BUILDING CODE R-2 AND FUTURE R-3 V-B 02 A1.0 A2.0 A3.0 ARCHITECT HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS2657 SPRING STREETREDWOOD CITY, CA 94063650.365.0600 PH650.365.0670 FAXCONTACT: Ken Hayes x:15khayes@thehayesgroup.com PROPOSED SITE PLAN2022 CRC CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE2022 CFC CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE PHOTOS2022 CMC CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2022 CPC CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2022 CEC CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE2022 CGC CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE2022 CBC CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.100 CENTURY CENTER COURT, SUITE 501SAN JOSE, CA 95112408.971.6100 PH408.971.6102 FAX TRAFFICENGINEER PARCEL LOT A PARCEL LOT B 19,893 SF 6,493 SF DRAWING CONTENTLANDSCAPE L5.01 TREE CANOPY STUDY TITLE SHEETCONTACT: GARY BLACKgblack@hextrans.com 02 02 STAMP 02 JOB NUMBER:2202.00SCALE:AS NOTEDDRAWN BY:LBAll drawings and written materials containedherein constitute the original & unpublishedwork of the Architect and the same may notbe duplicated, used or disclosed without thewritten consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc.DRAWING NUMBERA0.1N Item 2 Attachment D Plans     Packet Pg. 30     C i t y o f P a l o A l t oT r e e P r o t e c t i o n - I t ’ s P a r t o f t h e P l a n !M a k e s u r e y o u r c r e w s a n d s u b s d o t h e j o b r i g h t !u n d t r e e s a r e e s s e n t i a l t o p r o t e c t t h e m b y k e e p i n og n tt ha ec t f bo ly i ae gq eu ic pa mn oe pn yt , a mn ad t eb rr i aa nl sc ha inn dg as ct tr iu v ci tt iu er se , c l e a ro n d i t i o n s i n a n i n t a c t a n d n o n - c o m p a c i t ce hd ns ot a st eo ,i l a dn id s ti ud re bn at in f cy ei ni sg pt he re mT i rt et ee d P ar no td e ac tc i t oi vn i t Zi eo s n ae r (e T r Pe sZ t )r i i c HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.2657 SPRING STREETREDWOOD CITY, CA 94063P: 650.365.0600 t r e e p r o t e c t ui on nl e rs se po ot hr et r mw iu s s e t a b p e p ar od v d e e d d. t o t h i s s h e e tf o r m a t i o n o n P a l o w h e n p r o j e c t a c t i v i t y o c c u r s w i t h i n t h e TA l t o ' s r e g u l a t e d t r e e s a n d C p i rt oy t ( eTTc rtT ie o Me n )T dfe uoc r uhi nnn dgi c ada t el vw Me wl ao wnp . umc ia et l yn ot , f rp ea vl oi ea lwt ot . ho er g / t r e e s / .F: 650.365.0670www.thehayesgroup.com For written specifications associated with illustrations below, see Public Works Specifications Section 31Detailed specifications are found in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) (www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/) PROJECT ADDRESS:T R E E D I S C L O S U RP El a Sn i n T A T EC IMT YE NO FT P AHC2 LaA9 Om92 A L T OA 704 ELLSWORTH PLACEPALO ALTO CA 94306 n g D i v i s i o n ,2A5 5 0 i l t o n01 v r e n u eotection Zone (TPZ)ee PrrTshown in gray (radius of TPZ equals 10- times the diameter of the tree or 10-feet, whichever is greater).P a l o ( l t o ,0 4 34 1 echnical Manual Sec 2.15(E).ree T Restricted activity area -- see T6)3 -4 echnical Manual Sec 2.20(C-D), any proposed trench or form work ree T Restricted trenching area -- see Th t t p : / /w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o gorks Operations. Call 650-496-5953. within TPZ of a protected tree requires approval from Public W8 . 1 0 . 0 4v 0 ,r e q u i r e s d i s c l o s uma r ep l e t ed i n a n ddp p r o t e c t i o ne o fs t a t e c e r t a i n t rem eu ss tl occe a t e dm o n pyn t r i v a t e a n d p up b l i cFor all Ordinance Protected and Designatedotectionee Prrype I TTapwporoeds i t e p l a n s .n Ao c o d i s c l or s u r ms ,eo n tr a c o p a ne a l la b u i l d i n g e r m i ttrees, as detailed in the site specifictree preservation report (TPR) prepared by thes project arborist as diagramed on the plans.applicant’ o r r k ,a l l d e m o l i t i o r g r g e m i t _ a p p l i c a t i o n _ o t h e r d v e l o p m c t i v i t y ._R _ O_ _P _E _ R _ T_ Y_ _ A_ D_ _D _ R _ E_ S_ _S _:____________________ n __________________1RWHꢀꢁ2UGLQDQFHꢁ3URWHFWHGꢁꢅꢁ'HVLJQDWHGꢁ7UHHVꢂꢁ,VVXDQFHꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁRIꢁDꢁSHUPLWꢁUHTXLUHVꢁDSSOLFDQWಬVꢁSURMHFWꢁDUERULVWꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁZULWWHQꢁYHULILFDWLRQꢁ7\SHꢁ,ꢁLVꢁLQVWDOOHGꢁFRUUHFWO\ꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁDFFRUGLQJꢁWRꢁWKHꢁSODQVꢁDQGꢁ7UHHꢁ3UHVHUYDWLRQꢁ5HSRUW 1Atr re e te hs e ro en l e r (e P tl ha en st r em e us s? Ro er ga ud l j aa t ce ed n t t o t( hI f eYn po ,rS t . l e pr Noe crO te ye ?d c i r c l e t o S e c t i o 4 ) ISSUANCE:m p t e d b y t h e a p p l i c a n P a s e a n d /o r c h e c k w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e . ]6-foot highchain link fence,typical arning Signs 1-inch W8.5x1one each sideatCb he e sc ku bt h mo i st te e t dh as t h ao p wp il yn . g r t y o v e r 4 ”d i a m e t e r t re e s )arningWTPZ Any inadvertant sidewalk orcurb replacement or trenchingrequires approval O n t e p r o poa ev ree Diametereither 10 x T or 10-feet,e j ac e n t p r o p e r t y e reh a ne g i nm g t he p r o j e c t s i t eo* fs t r i p o r r i g t - o f -w y a s e n t w i t h i n 3 0 ’p r o p e r t y l i ne (S t r whichever is greater e 1 arningWi re s, Spp t eer rce* iet aht l et rpa e tr et oas tc eh c e t di oi nn s tb r yu c at i fo e n n s c. e P d r i eo nr ct lo o rs eu cr ee i v i n g a n y p e r m i t ,y o pVer i f i c a t i o n f o r m b y c a l l i n g P u b l i c W o r k s O p e ry apt ie o I n, sI Ia to r4 9I I3I -5 9 5 3 f o r i t io n o f r e q u i re d tFence distance to outerbranches or TPZing( s a t t aee c h e d D e t a i l #6 0 5 ) . 1 1 Type II Tree ProtectionAret he r e a on ry DP er os ti ( geTCncr thea eete de c k?E w S h e r e a p p i c Oa b l e ) PD re o t e c t e d T rT er ee ( s )( s )s i g a t e n d eOnorovehang i n g t he p r o p e r t y arningWngwi t h i n t he d r i p l i n e ?( ra d i u s 1 0 t i m e s t he Y t u Sn Nd i Oa m e t e r )o f t h e s e t re e s ?2re Tp ra eIr fee dYP erbs ey, s aae rn v Ia St iA o nc e Rr te i pf i oe r dt ar trb of r i s tt aPn da s u b, mS ei t ct te i do nf o 6r . 2s t5 a ) f. f, r e v i ei rwe ( sme e T T M NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE:vide public passage Fencing must proTPZ.while protecting all other land in t T - t h e 1 , :T S o r e e P r o t e c t i o n , i t s P a o h e l n !”p e r S i t e P l a n R e q u e n t s . PLANNING SUBMITTAL COORDINATION 02.01.2023eei t e P l a n Rc oe * qm* up i lr eeYt d eS ?sN O 2-inches of Orange Plastic Fencingerlaid withvo Any proposed trenchin TPZ requires approval2-inch Thickooden SlatsW 1RWHꢀꢁ6WUHHWꢁ7UHHVꢂꢁ,VVXDQFHꢁRIꢁDꢁSHUPLWꢁUHTXLUHVr a n d c a n o p y d v e ld p ms e n td r e q ue ,i rae te h e f od l lo wc lio ns gu :r (1 )Pe l a b n s mo ut s th s hd or i wp t h ee ,mp e a sS u r e d t rTu1 n k S d ee i TTM a 2.2 m0 C-D e t e 04.25.2023 06.09.2023 01 02 for instructions ꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁ3XEOLFꢁ:RUNVꢁ2SHUDWLRQVꢁLQVSHFWLRQꢁDQGꢁVLJQHGꢁ# 6 0 5 - a b o l d a h e l in f n c e e n e aa r a o u t t e l in e r h e e t -a n d D e t a i ꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁDSSURYDOꢁRQꢁWKHꢁ6WUHHWꢁ7UHHꢁ9HULILFDWLRQꢁꢃ679ꢄꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁꢁIRUPꢁSURYLGHGꢂꢁ 2 PLANNING RESUBMITTALww. c i t y o f p a lo a l t o, . S(o Ser ecg te/ it roa eln se os2 /. f1T o 5 Tr mfMo s r . ha t r me t o e f e n c e d )Restricted use fortrees in sidewalk cutoutnt oc e d ,a g r eI eu nt od et rh s et a cn od n t dh iat ti ok nn so wo i f n t g hl yi so r d in se cg l l oi g s e u nr t el y.p r o v i d i n rtree wells only Type III Tree Protectiont h i sc d i s c l ol e s u r e r e q u i r e m e n tc o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e P C o d e S e c t i o nhanadt o c r i m i n a l a n d / o r c i v i l l e a l g a c t i o n .(to be used only with approval of Public Works Operations)____(_P _r __p .__O _w _n _e _r __r P r i n t :n t ) ____D _a _t e_ : _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ______ g_ins._adi_ng o_r co_nst_ruction bee demolition, grected befored and shall be erequiree fencing is rrTooAOgeRevByDate yed bvo:ApprFRSTAFFUSE:ecotrtionee PrTonstructionDuring C 0 DWH 12/14/92Protect iv e F e n c in g e DocktervDaSi se sc ut i ao nn csc e o5 o-m6f pa ml ne uyt se dt d eb vbe ey l o s pt am f fe n t p e r m i t (d e m o l i t i o n ,g r a d i n g o 0r1 bD.Du. i l08/d04/0i4 nD.D. 08/10/06r i f y i n g p e r m i t ) ..PE No02eDat 2006t 5r e. Pe r f oe t ne cc i t ne gd i Ts r i en e ps l ac t i v f ea nr oc iu n n g d i sp r co ot re r cet ce t dl y ai n d p/ loa r c de e s i ge c e .A w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t i s a t t a c h e d v e g t h a t Dwg.No 605do Standaralo AltCity of Penra t ee d Ee S s O. N S NTScale:r e a r e n o p r o t e c t e d t re e s ,c h e c k h e b l i 6c . WS t or er ke st TS rt re ee es t T r ee_ ee_ Ps. ,_ rc o t e c t i o n V e r i f i c a Yt nS o Nr mO i s a t t a c h e d .- o- f - W A R N I N G - - -C i t y o f P a l o A l t oh_e_r_e a_r_e_n_o_s t r e t t re h e c k h e r e______________A P P E N D I X J V e r i f i c a t i o nTreec15 D e pk a r t m ea nt i, to1A L OPdO bT y EC A LI T Ot rol e e s orn n p u bw l ihi ced p r o pea e r tur y ;ep bde )P r o tae e c t ev d t rnh e c e ”s i –n Cd io a a ms t e tL ei rv eo r Ol aa rk gs e or ,r CV oa al ls et y w h i c h a r e 1 1 . 5 P u b l i W2 o5 r sP Ol p eA rl t nC sAS t r e e t T r e Te rP r o et e ec t i o Pn r o t e c t i o n Z o n e e r r l a l g . en r ,-ne m a s r 5 4 ”t r b o e a t u r a l g i rt ay dr tCe ; o au nn dc i lH; ea r ni tda gc )e tTr e Re s E a Er sR d Ee s Ei g nP Sa Rte CI T O N1 I N S T R U C T IP OO NB o x 00c 0 a o o 99 4 3 0 3iaororesnt i l p o r ty e s ,w i h a r e p a o f a n a p p r i o v e d l a n d s c a n .6 /F 4 A9 X6 :- 56 95 50 3/8 5 2 -9 2 8-S E C - T O N 3 - -2 t re e p r o t e t io n @ C i ty o f P a l o A l t o . o r ganuaw(T Ti t M )f c o n t a i n s.i nr sg t rpul ca t io n s f o r a l l r e q ui to i re me eeno n t sec oh n t h s f o ra m ,u al .t , v a i la b l e a t31p-1 G e n e r a l A pD p l ic ao n t I n s t ru c t ieo n s :C o m p l e t e u p p e r p o r t ipo n o f t h ic s f o rr mk .s MT ae i le o r Fa Af f X t h i s f op re mc a l o nd gn w i t h s i g n e d T r e e: / /w w c y o p a l o a l to o /n n i n g -c o m m u nf r y / t r _t t ct n i ce a l -m n ann h t m la.T r e e r o t e , c 1t i) o t no kh ea es pt ht hr ee e f po lr i i a mg ea rc ya fn uo np cy t ia on nd s b r a n c h i n g s t rl i u cc t unr e c l e a risclsureStatmenttoPubcWorksD e t .P u b l i W o r S t w i l l i n s t a n o t i fy a p p l i c a n t .mo c o am b y q us ti p m e m a t e r iii t i a l sns a n d at c t iev i t ie s ;2r )t o p r e s e r vo e r o o t sP a n di s o i l o d i t io n s i n a n i n t a c t a n dnn-c p a c t e d a t e a d 3 )t o d e t i fy he T r e e Pu o t e c t io n Z n e (Ta Z )nA wP hP i cL hI Cn oA sT oI i Ol d Ni s t Du rA b Ta nE c : e i s T h i s f e ne cr l iel annmgobost vh e d w i t h o u tpeisr em i t t e8 d0 a6 n d a c t iv e a r e r s t r i c t e d ,n l e s s o to hf e r w i st ra e pw p r o v e d .A r b o r is t /T r e e P r o t e c t io n I n f o /T r e e D i s c l o s u r e S t a t e m e n t R e v d 0 /A D D R E S S /T L O C A TP I O N OE FC S TE R E E Tbo.i sT ah er e Ts tr r ei ce t eP dr oa tr ee ca t ia or no u Zn od nt eh (e T b Pa sZ e )t h e e e i th a r ae d i u s o f tce nn - t im e sTREESOBERO T T D :b o r i s t a p p r o v a l ( 6 5 0 - 4 9 6 - 5 9 5 3 ) t h e d i a m e t e r f t h e t re e ' s t r u n k o r t e n f e e t ;w h i c h e v e r i s g r e r t e r ,e n c l o s d b y f e n i g .C i t y A rA P P P P L L I C A N T ’S N A M E :3 1 -2 R e f e r e n c e D o c u mu e n t sn–I l la u. s t r aD t ie ot an i lo f6 0s i 5t a t io s d e s c r ib e d b e l oo wg .A I C A N T ’S A D D R E H S S :b .T r e e T e c hc nh i c a hl t tMp :a/ /n wu aw l w( .T(c iTt yMo )f p F a ol or aml t)s o ./ t re e s /TAr e n i n1 g.R eT s Tt r iMc t, i So ne c Zt i oo nn e 2)s . 2(o Tr tTi nMg , PS r eo ct toi co ) on l 6 (. 03 (0 C )A P P L IF C A N T ’U S T E L E P O N ER e m o v a l w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i oDRAWING nCONTEi s NTrbo e r i s t 2 .R e p &A X N M B E R S :Sr i te P l 3a . ni 4s .c RT eT q Mu i ,r eS me ce t ni ot )sn (6 . 3 5 T h i s s e c t i o n t o b e f i l l e d o u t b q o y C i t y T r e e S t a f f SPECIAL TREEPROTECTIONINSTRUCTION SHEET B r o w s e B y T o p i c Tt eT D l o s uT r Te MS t, a tA e p mp ee ) nn t d (i x JSearch:A d v a n c e d s u b j e c t t o a $ 5 0 0 f i n e p e r d a y *c .S t r e e r e e e hVt te pr :i / f/ i wc awt i wo . nc i (t( Sy oT f Vp )a l Fo oa lr t om .o r) g / t r e e s / fo r m sPlanninH go &m Ce o m m u n i t y E n v i r o n m e n t 1 .T hd ed Se t rse ee t T)raer ee s adt t t h e at b oy v eYE S N o O *3 1 -3 E x c u t io n a r s (s a e u ao eelT r e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l T h e f e n a c. e s Th ya lp l e e In cTl or es ee t Ph re o et en tc i t ri eo nT : P Z o f t h e t re e (s )t o bnl e p p r r oo tt ee cc tt ee d d t. h Tr oh u e g ht yo pu te ho ef p r t c t i o n*I f *N OP,gao lt o#2 bAel ol wt o M u n i c i p a l C o d e S e c t i o n 8 . 1 0 . 1 1 0 l i fe o f t ho e c o n s t ryc u ceti if o fn e pn rc oi jn e gc ti . s I l no cs ao t me de o p n a rp ka i vn i gn ga ro er a cs ,o ce rv ee tl e t h a tc wu i sl l e nd o ti s :b e d e m o l i sh e d ,Mt b h e n t h e p s t s m a bW s u p p oO r tpee d bt iyo a ns .a p p r o p r ia t e g r a d e c o n r e t e b a s e ,i f ay p p r v e d b yt h pe Tu T ror c e he a T s e e c h n i c a l a n u a l P u b l i o r k s r a n I n s p e c t e d b :t y o f P a l o CAi l too n TI rn es et rPu rcot titeopcn:t/si/ awr ew l wo c.atcahtit tey/dt. rpeael so/ -t ae lct ho n. ci ac .a ul -s m a n umla l . h tFort r be .e s sT i ty up a e t eI dI wT i rt eh ie n P a r op lt ae nc tt ii no gn : s t r i po ,o n l y te hf ee pn lc a n t igni g s t r ip a n d y a r d s id e o ftiheoTnPZshal l e e n e c l o s e d w i tehe t ho ep r en q uoi rre du cb hl ia i n l in.k p r t e c s t iv i n n o r Dd ea r t te o ko ef e I pn ts h pe es ic dt ei ow na l: k a n dJune,2 0 0 1 F i r s t E d i t s t r t e f p c u s ec.Tr y p we i It Ih I a Tp pr re Toe ov Pa brl eoo ftu e sPceut di b ool innc:l yW o r k O p e r a t io n s .T r e e a s s i tu a t e d i n a STAMPt r eo w e l l o s id e w a l k p lc a hn et se ro fp oi tr , a s nh ga el l pib- nle a swt ir ca pf ep ne cd i nw g i tf rh o2 m t.h e ge r os u n d t oViewbysection:H r o i m e t h ei f i r s t b r ab na crh h a n du v e r la i d w i th 2 - in c h t hee i c ka w o o des t i en nc s lna t s,c bano ou u no dn s e c ul lr ebl y (s l t s h a l l n o t b e a l lsou wa ee dl t o d i g SPECIL INSEPACTIONS N PLNAING DRTPEMANTE2ThSt rae e tr T r e e a t t h ey a b d o v entothreke) .s .DM r ijn g i n s tbas l la t iaoy n o f t h p lu s t icp fa i g c t i s h a e u s e d t o a v o i d d aT m a g i n g a n yoCwtn- ye d T r e e s d d e sraN es d Oea Tq tTableof(C P o D nF t, e8 n7 Kt sBn ( dP DP F u , r 1 p. 0o 5s Me )b a n c t a o r l i m m a l so r q i re l c f e n i g a s ddi i re ci tth e d bxnt y t hp e Co i ty A r b.o r i s t .TREE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS MNTDAORAYrotectedheafeol l o w i n gePio v wa nt- ee l dIy nT rt ee e n s t a B )d .AS il lz et ,r et ey s p te o ab ne dp r ae rs ee ra vt eo d bs eh af l el n b c e e dp .r ta e c t e w s io (p 6 ' )f o t h i g h c hs a i ntn m o d i f ic a t i o n r r e q u i r :GINMROFPER ISST IRBO ARTESIT ECJOPRE RSUEN LALSH ROTACRTNO. CSEE TREDTECTO PR0.1 8CPAMREQUI RETDEREI NSPEIACTON ND SIET ONIMITONG. RPVWROIDE RITT EOMNTNHLY ET ERACTIVIT YREPSO ORT ETP TLHAE NNIPADNGERTMNTA NDSPWL CAEREVEIS TFFABGI ENNI 14 NGYSATDAEFRBUIL DIEINGPRMTI SSUA.NCE rI n te r o Ud su e c- to i (f oP MnD aF ,n 1 u .l i0an l5k fM e nB c) e s .t F e na cs te s2 a- fr e t o b e m oma u n te e d o n t w o - inon c h d i ac mn e t e r g l vi a n z e d i re o s t s ,d r ivo e n i n t o h e g r o u n dl t oAbOorudttheTeeSci Do en -f i1(n.P i 0tD i Fo , n9 s6 a K d B e )p t h o f a l e e ecf t a t n o o r t h a n 1v 0 - foo t sh p a i g .Fr F er n c n g s h a l l x e n d t o t h e u t e r b r a c h i n g ,u n e s sinanceIndicateohowtherequi r e dProtSe ce tci to i no no- f2 T. r0 e e s D un (r Pi nD gF , C2 o5 n9 Ks tB r )u st pi eo c in f i c l ly a p p r o e d t e Sa T V o mi .m o d i f ic a t i n s w e r e c o m m u n i c a t e dTitle8.1 0 .A w a rg n i ns gh s irg en . sh ‘a lWl b a e r nw i en a gt ’h es ri g p nr so oee f n1a d1l l p oc m n e n t ldycv d i sad pr la l a y e dt o n e a c h f e nc c e a t 2 0 - fo o tRemoS ve ac l t , i oR ne - p3 l. a0 cSSr ee ec t Mi o a ni - n 5 t . e 0 nS e m e t ( &P DP lF a, 1n 1t i 7 n K g B )o T e e s t o t h e a p p l i c a n t .i n t e rR v a l s .T h ee s is n at l l b e m i n io mnS u m 8 .5 - ine1 c hc. s x - in h e s a n le e y s ta e i n h a l ft i na h t ae l la l e t toe r s :necH t ai oz na- r4 d. (o0 P u D s F T, r1 e0 5e Ks B )H er ati e g r Tee s “W A N I N G -T r e e P r o e c t ioA n Z e -T h i s f.n s h n o t b e r e m o n d i s s u b j e c t o f in c c r d i g t o ILDBU _ _____________________: EAD TITPER GMIN EOF 1DATST: ___ _______ ____________ ___________ T a n ( cP eD FG , u1 i 1 d 0 eK l iB n)F o r m h s P M C e c t io n 8 0 1 1 0 .”e cn t Ti or en -e 6 R(. P0e D p F o, r8 t 4 s K B )S u b sn e q u e n t I n s p e c t i o n.T rn e e f .fe n Dc iu n r ga tsoi hon a;nl lg br ae d ei rn e g c toe r d c bo en f s ot r eu cd t ei om n o lb i et i g i n s a n dw re e m a i n i n REPOITVIEE ACRRTTY T _T r e e T e c n i c a l M a u a l p l a c e u n t i l f i n ah le i n s p e cro t io o f t ha e p r o j ea cl t ,bb e x c e p tr foo o re wt o r k s p e c i f irc ai tl ly a l lo d i t h e T P Z .W o r k o r s o i l Y E S N l O *S t re et t t r e e s a t a b o ve e a dr d r e s s wd e r e f o u n dViewALLsections:dFAQs i s tu r b a n ce e i n t T P Z e q u i rwe sh p p r oe v y t h eg p j cw ay r br o r i s t oe C y A r bW o r i s t ( i nr t h e c a s e o f w o r k a r o u n dobeadequatlypotecte:__ _____________________AFF: ____ STCITYSt re e t T r e s ) .E x c a v a t i n s i t i n r v t h p u l ic r i h t f a e q u i r a S t re e t o r k P e m i t * f I rf o Nm O P, ui nb dl ii cc a Wt e o i r n k s“ .N o t e s ”b e o w t h e d i s p o s i t io n o f c a s e .C R o e n t a c t U sTre e T e c h n i c ( a P Fl-D Mu F l ,al 1 n . u8 4a lM B )I n p s e f c I t e d b y :REPIOG NRTDEITALS OF E THONTMHLY TERE IAITCVTY REPORT SAHLL CONFORMTO SEHET T1 -AFORMT,VERIFYT HA TATLL REE TPECTROION EMASURESA REI PEMLNTIWEMAD ND IILLNCLUDEA LCONTLRACTORACTVIIYT, SECHED DULOR UNSCHEDULED, WITN IHA TREE PROTEITCON T ROOEZ.ON PN-COMLINOANCEIS BESJCTU TO VAIITOOLN OF PAC M 8.10.080. ECEEF:ERN R PALO AO LT TREE NITECACHL AMNUAL,SIE.TON C00 2AADNDDE NDUM11. s o u r c e s g .D u i n g c o n s t r u c t io n D a t e o n s p e c t i o n :JOB NUMBER:2202.00 Ap Pa P E N D I C E St A l lp nl ir e ia gn h b osr s ' t r e e s ts hoat o e r 1h . a n g t h e p r o j e c to s i te s ha ac l les b e p t r t opo tl euS c t e d f ran ol tm i m p a c t o f al in yltyt k ion d .A l t o M u n i c i l CgTCueSr our d e C h a p e r 8 .1 T 0 h ,e T r e e P r e e r v a et i n &M a n a g e m e n tapctshagl le b e r p o n s ieb l 2e . f o r t h ecC ro e p a i r r r en p,l mu e nn t s pc e no yL os f a0 n7 y0 po u bh c y w ns e db t r e e sy RB e:l a t i o n s t h a t a e d a m a d d u r in g t h c o u r s e o f n s t ru c t io p u r a e t i 8 .0 4t .f t e P a l oe Ae l toiC Ni t oy t se t sr e:et t re s p e c i ee sc ,t i SCALE:e e U-C Si t Ay Mp ue n i c i pa a l o d e .a s i t e ,c o n d i t io n a no d p o f t re e p r o t o n AS NOTEDS:I H A aa dzvr E a al i uotn roF m T h eo f o l lo w i n g t ree e r s 3 e . r v t io n mh e s u r e s a p p l y t oe a l l t r e e s t o b e r e t ad i n e d :. A l s i n se t a l l e n o e i f pei c ti fu rn e s we e r eofInherEe:nI tS FA a i l r e P a t t e r n s f o r S e l e c t eN do s tS pr aehg ce ig oref sm(a tR r ieaf l ,e tr oep s ao .i l ,ba . r c eo vut sene odd i uc lhreecs eo r)e q u i p m na t s h a l l ba e p e r mb i t te d wb i th i n t h e Th Pe Z .t Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2 t k n .U s e a c k o f s e c s s a r y .DRAWN BY:LB T r e P r u nS(i Pn Dg F G, 1 u . i 8 d 5 e M l i B n )e s T e o u n de u n d e r a n d t t raee ed c an nd o pm y r ea a s h a l ls n o t es aa l tre r e d .F :T r e e P Cn ag rP ee a f e t y t1 a 9 n 9 d 4 a ( r Rd- es f, eA r Ne TSn r Ice eeZs s1t oo3b ue3 r.r ec1t ea i )n d s h a l l b e i r rc i. g a ,a e r t a a i n t i n e d a n e c e s y t o e n s u r e s u r v i v a l .G :P r l u n i f o r m a ni l c 1e 9 S 9t 5a n( Rd - ea fr ed rs e, nA c NHe S:s I o Au 3r c0 e0 )All drawings and written materials containedherein constitute the original & unpublishedwork of the Architect and the same may notbe duplicated, used or disclosed without thewritten consent of the Architect. T r e eI lT ar ne te i nDa gi Dc eo t a s ,D i aa g r ame mec 5 0 4 &5 0 5 E N c Dat i Oi F S E C T I O NReturne ai f ip pa r o v e d s h e e t t o A p p l ic a n t f o r d e m o l i t i o n o r b u i l d i n g p e r m i t i s s u a n c e .:A s la s u r e Se t t e ni t Cn i tIyt r o f P a l o A l toeo 2 0c 0 4t i S t a n d a rr do D r w n gP s a nE d S p c c t i8o/n s6 Use addtional “T” sheets as neededSesettTruec e Vi r i f in a o n o f P t e o n ,W ,S Re ce tvi io s ne d3 01 0 S :P W D /O P S /T r e e /D S /S t .T r e e P r o t e c t 5 /1 7 0 6J:P a o l t o S t n d r d T r e P r o t t o n r t s © Hayes Group Architects, Inc.DRAWING NUMBERT - 1 S p e c i a l T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n s t r u Tc t -i o t e d r e p o r t s s h a l l b e a d d e d t o t h e s p a c e p r o v i d e d o n t h i s s h e e t ( a d d i n g a s n e e d e d )d e t h i s s h e e t ( s ) o n P r o j e c t S h e e t I n d e x o r L e g e n d P a g e .c o p y o f T - 1 c a n b e d o w n l o a d e d a tg/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460.cityofpaloalto.orhttp://www T-1C i t y o f P a l o A l t oA Item 2 Attachment D Plans     Packet Pg. 31     PL HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.2657 SPRING STREETREDWOOD CITY, CA 94063P: 650.365.0600 500 sq ft 484.4 sq ft 505.2 sq ft 490 sq ft F: 650.365.0670www.thehayesgroup.com PROJECT ADDRESS:494.8 sq ft 607.7 sq ft 620.7 sq ft 704 ELLSWORTH PLACE 2901-2905PALO ALTO CA 94306MIDDLEFIELD RD.PALO ALTO, CA 94306105.3 sq ft 132.9 sq ft 134.3 sq ft ISSUANCE: NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE:PLANNING SUBMITTAL COORDINATION 02.01.202304.25.2023 06.09.2023 01 02 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL PALO ALTO 2ND FLOOR PLAN 4SCALE: 1/ 16" = 1'-0" PL DRAWING CONTENTEXISTING PC 2343DEVELOPMENT PLAN.FOR REFERENCE ONLY.509.3 sq ft 159.9 sq ft 630.3 sq ft 206.2 sq ft 630.1 sq ft STAMP EXISTING REFERENCE PLANS207.3 sq ft 02 (E) SITE AREA(E) BUILDING AREA (APPROX.)(E) FAR (APPROX.) 26,3867,7750.29 JOB NUMBER:2202.00(E) UNITS (4) 2 BEDROOM(4) 1 BEDROOM SCALE:AS NOTED(4)STUDIO DRAWN BY:LB12 UNITS TOTAL All drawings and written materials containedherein constitute the original & unpublishedwork of the Architect and the same may notbe duplicated, used or disclosed without thewritten consent of the Architect. (E) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (APPROX.) (E) PARKING 2,86112 COVERED8 UNCOVERED20 STALLS TOTAL (MIDDLEFIELD)(ELLSWORTH) © Hayes Group Architects, Inc.DRAWING NUMBERA1.0 (E) BIKE PARKING PROVIDED WITHIN UNITSSITE DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONSPALO ALTO SITE 3 1SCALE: 1/ 16" = 1'-0" Item 2 Attachment D Plans     Packet Pg. 32     20'-0"20'-0"17'-6"17'-6"(N)02PARKINGSPACE TYP. (E)TRASHAREA HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.2657 SPRING STREETREDWOOD CITY, CA 94063P: 650.365.0600F: 650.365.0670www.thehayesgroup.com 15 169'-6"LOT A127-35-194 TANDEM PAVERS,TYP. 02 PROJECT ADDRESS:704 ELLSWORTH PLACE 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVE. 2901-2905PALO ALTO CA 94306MIDDLEFIELD RD.PALO ALTO, CA 9430610' X 30'SU-30 (E) ACPAVINGDELIVERYSPACE(E)4 COVEREDPARKINGSPACES LOT B127-35-152 ISSUANCE: 702 ELLSWORTH BLDG.NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE:PLANNING SUBMITTAL COORDINATION 02.01.202304.25.2023 06.09.2023 01 02 2'-6"PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 20'-0"EASEMENTEXISTINGLANDSCAPING 3' TALL FENCE WITH3" HORIZONTAL GAPBETWEEN BOARDSSIGHT TRIANGLE 35'-0" SIGHT TRIANGLE 35'-0"MIDDLE FIELD AVENUE 02 DRAWING CONTENT* REFER TO L5.01 FOR TREE CANOPY STUDY PROPOSED SITE PLAN02 PROPOSED PLAN 2SCALE 3/32" = 1'-0"EXISTINGPC 2343 AMENDMENT TO PC 1810 STAMP LOT-A LOT-B127-35-194 127-35-1522901 + 2905 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 702 ELLSWORTH PLACE (E) SITE AREA(E) BUILDING AREA (APPROX.)(E) FAR (APPROX.) 19,8937,775.39 REQUIRED PARKING4-2BR UNITS4-1BR UNITS (E) SITE AREA (INCLUDE EASEMENT) VACANT 6493 JOB NUMBER:2202.00844 SCALE:AS NOTED4-STUDIO UNITS DRAWN BY:LB(E) UNITS (NO CHANGE)(4) 2 BEDROOM(4) 1 BEDROOMSTUDIO12 UNITS TOTAL SEE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEON REFERENCE SHEETS RF-1 TO RF-4 TOTAL REQUIREDTOTAL PROVIDED 1616 All drawings and written materials containedherein constitute the original & unpublishedwork of the Architect and the same may notbe duplicated, used or disclosed without thewritten consent of the Architect. (4) © Hayes Group Architects, Inc.(E) PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (NO CHANGE) (E) BIKE PARKING (NO CHANGE) 2861 DRAWING NUMBER INSIDE UNITS A2.0PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT CALCULATION 1 Item 2 Attachment D Plans     Packet Pg. 33     HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.2657 SPRING STREETREDWOOD CITY, CA 94063P: 650.365.0600F: 650.365.0670www.thehayesgroup.comPROJECT ADDRESS:704 ELLSWORTH PLACE 2901-2905PALO ALTO CA 94306MIDDLEFIELD RD.PALO ALTO, CA 94306 ISSUANCE: NO. DESCRIPTION: DATE:PLANNING SUBMITTAL COORDINATION 02.01.202304.25.2023 06.09.2023 01 02 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL DRAWING CONTENTPHOTOS V IEW OF EX IST ING 700 ELLSWORTH V IEW FROM SUTTER AVE.V IEW OF SUTTER A PA RTMENT FROM ELLSWORTH PLACE64 2SCALE:SCALE:SCALE: STAMP JOB NUMBER:2202.00SCALE:NAOSTNTOOTESDCALE DRAWN BY:LBAll drawings and written materials containedherein constitute the original & unpublishedwork of the Architect and the same may notbe duplicated, used or disclosed without thewritten consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc.DRAWING NUMBERA3.0V IEW OF INTERIOR PA RKING V IEW FROM MIDDLEFIELD RD.5 1SCALE:SCALE: Item 2 Attachment D Plans     Packet Pg. 34     LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + DESIGNPLA 3335 · 2 Theatre Square #218 · Orinda CA · 94563925.254.5422 · www.jett.land B 3335Exp: 05/31/24Date: 6/09/23 #DATE ISSUE05.23.202306.07.2023 FORREFERENCEONLY SHEET TITLECANOPY STUDY JOB NO.SCALE AS SHOWNDRAWN BYSHEET NO.L5.01 Item 2 Attachment D Plans     Packet Pg. 35     Item 2 Attachment E part 1 Transportation Study Cover Letter     Packet Pg. 36     Memorandum Date: April 14, 2023 To: Richard Dewey, RLD Land LLC From: Gary Black Nivedha Baskarapandian Subject: Transportation Review for the Residential Single-Family Home at 702 Ellsworth Place in Palo Alto, California Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a transportation review for the proposed residential single-family home at 702 Ellsworth Place in Palo Alto, California. The project site is located on the east side of Ellsworth Place adjacent to Middlefield Road. (see Figure 1.) The project would eliminate the existing eight parking spaces on the site and build a single home (see Figure 2). In a related project application, four tenant parking spaces together with a short-term delivery space would be added to the existing apartment building at 2901 Middlefield Road. Access Analysis The site access and on-site circulation evaluation is based on the site plan prepared by Todd Kalbfeld Landscape Design dated March 4, 2023 (see Figure 2). Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the residential home driveway with regard to geometric design and stopping sight distance. Backing out of the project home driveway would be equivalent to backing out of the other homes on Ellsworth Place. It should be noted that the number of backing maneuvers from 702 Ellsworth would be reduced since the number of parking spaces on site would be reduced from eight to two. One of the additional parking spaces added to the existing apartment building would exit onto Ellsworth Place if vehicles are parked in both tandem spaces . The garage for the new home would be located at the north end of the site, and the stopping sight distance from Middlefield Road to the driveway would be adequate. Ellsworth Place Ellsworth Place is a 530 feet long private street with no turnaround area. The private street width of Ellsworth Place is 20 feet. The street has been privately maintained with the last paving performed in approximately 2003 per a neighbor. Based on a visual inspection, Ellsworth has several potholes and is not in good repair. Given the 20 feet width, the residents have an informal “no parking” agreement along the street. According to typical fire access requirements, this is wide enough to safely accommodate two-way traffic and emergency vehicles. Item 2 Attachment E part 2 Transportation Study     Packet Pg. 37     Mid d l e f i e l d R d Ros s R d Colo r a d o A v e Sut t e r A v e Tow l e W a y We l l s b u r y W a y el D o rad o A v e Ells wo r t h P l Lom a V e r d e A v e = Site Location LEGEND 702 Ellsworth Place (Palo Alto) TransportaƟon Review Figure 1 Project Site Location Item 2 Attachment E part 2 Transportation Study     Packet Pg. 38     702 Ellsworth Place (Palo Alto) TransportaƟon Review Figure 2 Site Plan MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D ELLSWORTH PLACE PROPOSED GARAGE 231 SF PROPOSED SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE 1,695 SF Item 2 Attachment E part 2 Transportation Study     Packet Pg. 39     702 Ellsworth Place (Palo Alto) Transportation Review April 14, 2023 P a g e | 4 Ellsworth Place is accessed by a 20-foot-wide dustpan style driveway. There is an existing stop sign on Ellsworth Place exiting onto Middlefield Road. Residents on Ellsworth Place have asked for a wider entrance to Ellsworth Place and a replacement of the dustpan style driveway with a curb radius design. According to Table 5 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.54.070, 20 feet is the minimum width to serve residential developments1. There are trade-offs involved in driveway design. Wider driveways are easier to turn in and out of, but that means turning speeds are higher. Also, wider driveways are less safe for pedestrians to cross. The current 20-foot dustpan style driveway on Ellsworth Place at Middlefield Road requires vehicles to almost come to a stop to turn into the street. A wider driveway or elimination of the dustpan design would allow cars to make the turn onto Ellsworth Place at higher speeds, which would be detrimental to safety. Sight Distance at Middlefield Sight distance was checked for the project home driveway and at Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road. Sight distance recommendations vary depending on the roadway speeds. The posted speed limit on the section of Middlefield Road near Ellsworth Place is 25 miles per hour (mph). There is a private school located across the project site, and during school hours the posted speed limit is 20 mph. The recommended stopping sight distance for the intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road is 200 feet (based on a design speed of 30 mph). There is adequate sight distance at the intersection as Middlefield Road is straight and does not allow for street parking (see Figure 3). Bicyclists share the street with vehicles as there are no bike lanes on this segment of Middlefield Road. A sight triangle as shown in Figure 4 should be established at both corners of the intersection so that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and bicycles and motor vehicles in the street. Any vegetation taller than three feet should be removed within the sight distance triangle, and the project’s fence should not be taller than three feet within the sight triangle area per Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.24.040. Some neighbors have noted that bicyclists occasionally ride illegally on the sidewalk which is beyond the purview of this project. However, the City may want to address it since it is in conjunction with the private school across the street. Proposed Reduced Parking With the proposed residential home project, eight parking spaces would be removed. The parking spaces were previously designated as “guest only” parking for the adjacent parking complex but were rarely used given that Sutter Avenue has plenty of street parking The project would remove these spaces but would develop four additional parking spaces on the apartment complex site to comply with the current City of Palo Alto parking requirements (see Figure 5). This would allow the apartment complex to satisfy today’s parking requirement on-site. The elimination of the eight guest parking spaces on the home site and moving four of these parking spaces to the apartment complex increases the safety for the apartment residents, as they no longer have to walk across Ellsworth Place. Therefore, the removal of the parking spaces at the single-family home site would not impact the apartment complex parking. 1 The intersection of Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road has historically been accessed by a 20-foot driveway located on 702 Middlefield Road. To be conservative, this report treats the driveway approach as equivalent to an urban driveway serving over 11 multi-family units. Item 2 Attachment E part 2 Transportation Study     Packet Pg. 40     702 Ellsworth Place (Palo Alto) TransportaƟon Review Figure 3 Middlefield Road Sight Distance Looking Left Looking Right Item 2 Attachment E part 2 Transportation Study     Packet Pg. 41     MID D L E F I E L D R O A D ELL S W O R T H P L A C E PR O P O S E D GA R A G E 231 S F PR O P O S E D SIN G L E - S T O R Y RES I D E N C E 1,6 9 5 S F Mid d l e f i e l d R d 35’35’ 35’35’ 35’35’ 35’35’ Ells w o r t h P l 702 Ellsworth Place (Palo Alto) TransportaƟon Review Figure 4 Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road Sight Triangle Item 2 Attachment E part 2 Transportation Study     Packet Pg. 42     702 Ellsworth Place (Palo Alto) Transportation Review April 14, 2023 P a g e | 7 Loading Vehicle Access Hexagon understands that delivery trucks occasionally use the eight-space parking area for parking and turnaround because there is no parking on Middlefield Road and Ellsworth Place is too narrow for trucks to turn around. It should be noted that the current parking lot is private, and Hexagon expresses no opinion on whether this use is permitted by the current property owner. To assist with overall circulation, the project proposes to provide a delivery truck parking space across from the project site adjacent to the apartment complex (see Figure 5). Conclusions The results of the transportation review for the 702 Ellsworth Place single-family home project are summarized below. • The proposed home design shows adequate space to back out of the garage and adequate spacing from Middlefield Road for sight distance. • The existing 20 feet width of Ellsworth Place is adequate for two-way traffic and emergency vehicles access. • The existing intersection of Ellsworth Place with Middlefield Road has adequate width. An adequate 35 feet sight distance triangle (per Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.24.040) should be created and maintained for exiting vehicles. Trees and fences within the sight triangle should be reduced to three feet. • A space for delivery vehicles would be created across from the new home at the apartment complex which will improve circulation in the area. • On-site parking spaces would be added to the apartment complex to comply with the current City of Palo Alto parking requirements for multi-family residential. Item 2 Attachment E part 2 Transportation Study     Packet Pg. 43     702 Ellsworth Place (Palo Alto) TransportaƟon Review Figure 5 Apartment Complex Site Plan PP N4 9 ° 2 0 ' 0 0 " E 8 6 . 0 8 ' N52°00'00"W 229.20'(T) N52°00'00"W 130.67' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 0 .00' S4 7 ° 1 2 ' 0 0 " W 1 0 1 . 3 0 ' S52°00'00"E 117.11'(T) 50.00'78.28'44.50' S3 8 ° 00'0 0"W 1 0 9 .87 ' S3 8 °00'0 0"W 1 0 9 . 8 7 ' 80.67'50.00' 10 0 .00' 44.50' S3 8 ° 0 0 ' 00 " W 1 0 0 . 0 0 ' 56.42' 72.61' 20'-0" EASEMENT 10 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " 9'-6" 20'-0"20'-0" 23'-0" REQUIRED17'-6"17'-6" 21'-7 1/8" SU T T E R A V E N U E MIDDLE FIELD AVENUE LOT A 127-35-194 2901-2905 MIDDLEFIELD AVE. LOT B 127-35-152 702 ELLSWORTH FR O NT Y AR D RE A R Y A RD (E) 4 COVERED PARKING SPACES (E) 8 COVERED PARKING SPACES 13 14 15 EL L S W O R T H P L A C E M A T A D ER O C A N A L BL D G . BLDG. BLDG. (E) TRASH AREA 10' X 30' SU-30 DELIVERY SPACE 16 1450.00'13 BLDG. BLDG.BLDG. (E) 8 COVERED PAPPRKING SPAPPCES Item 2 Attachment E part 2 Transportation Study     Packet Pg. 44     PLA 3 3 3 5 · 2 T h e a t r e S q u a r e # 2 1 8 · O r i n d a C A · 9 4 5 6 3 925 . 2 5 4 . 5 4 2 2 · w w w . j e t t . l a n d LAN D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E + D E S I G N DA T E ISS U E JOB N O . SC A L E DR A W N B Y SH E E T N O . #SH E E T T I T L E AS S H O W N 05. 2 3 . 2 0 2 3 Ex p : 0 5 / 3 1 / 2 4 EATTS AI NROF FO LAC TCETIH 33 3 5 DE ETSI GER R EPACSDNAL RAC I BRUCE B. JETT Da t e : 5 / 2 3 / 2 3 L4. 0 1 PL A N T I N G P L A N Item 2 Attachment F As Built Landscape Plan 2901 Middlefield     Packet Pg. 45     File No.: 1167731Location: Santa Clara County, CA This map may or may not be an accurate description or identification of the land and is not intended nor may be it relied upon as a survey of the land depicted hereon. This map is solely intended to provide orientation as to the general location of the parcel or parcels depicted herein. First American Title Company, itssubsidiaries and affiliates, expressly disclaim any and all liability forall loss or damage which may result from reliance or use of this map. Legend PIQ 11/26/1917 Bk460 Pg467 (Water Supply System - Not Plottable) 12/17/1937 Bk852 Pg350 (Maintain Pipes) 07/11/1938 Bk881 Pg570 (Right Of Way) 07/24/1939 Bk944 Pg165 (Ingress And Egress) Item 2 Attachment G Plotted Easements     Packet Pg. 46     Item 2 Attachment H 1939 Easement Document     Packet Pg. 47     Item 2 Attachment H 1939 Easement Document     Packet Pg. 48     Item 2 Attachment H 1939 Easement Document     Packet Pg. 49     Hello City Council Members, City Of Palo Alto We are writing to you regarding the property at 700 Ellsworth pl Palo Alto. We are the current owners of this property which we purchased in Nov 2022. Some background info of this property is given below - Before buying this lot, we checked with city of palo alto planning if this lot is buildable and we were clearly told that it is zoned R1 and is buildable. We even discussed few building options with Emily Foley in Planning Department. Ken Hayes (from Hayes Architectural) also did some conceptual plans and exchanged e mails with the city planning who confirmed to him that this lot is buildable. See attached the e mails exchanged by Ken Hayes with city planning. In short, the city has on multiple occasions confirmed to us that this lot is buildable. However, when we recently submitted all the plans for new construction project, we were told this property is assigned as a guest parking to apartments at 2901 Middlefield rd. As per the city officials, the zoning of R1 in their records for this lot was incorrect and the correct zoning should have been PC. - Also, our attorney told us that there should have been some covenants and restrictions recorded in county records stating there is some parking restrictions on this lot. But none was recorded. So our title was also clean We request the city council to pls approve this lot as R1 and let us build our new home here. The plans for the new home are attached. All other lots on this street have got a single family home. This seems to be an obvious candidate for a new single family home to match the neighborhood. This not only improves the neighborhood, but also ensures our investment of $1.1 Million so far does not go down the drain. Also, it does not look like anyone from the apartments is really parking on this lot. A property fence was installed by National construction around this property boundary for us on Dec 12th 2022. Since then, no one has ever called us saying they are missing the parking. Also, given what all happened and it was none of our fault, is there a way city can help me expedite this process of zoning change? We understand resources are tight, but we are paying about 9K interest cost every month and about 1K property tax. We have already spent about 50K to get all plans done. (they were submitted, but got rejected). This is a very unique situation and huge amount of my money is at stake. We have also CCed our Attorney, Harry price, in this e mail. Also, CCed is Jeff Guinta who is the architect for this project. Thanks and Regards Nitin Handa Priyanka Handa Item 2 Attachment I Applicant Correspondence to City Council     Packet Pg. 50     12 7-35-152 127-35-152 This m ap is a pr odu ctof theCity o f Palo Alto GIS Can't ass ess due to creek, flag lot , or ROW e aseme nt configuration.R-1 SF X 0017Hnone0 none no no 0 Yes , may require SCVWD rev iew. Yes, s ee zoning co de fo r possible re quire ments. no Se e Mu ni Co de 18.4 2.0 40 Can't assess due to creek, flag lot , or ROW easement configuration. Yes, s ee PW: PUE none Can't assess due to creek, flag lot , or ROW easement configuration. Can't asses s due to cre ek, flag lot , or ROW eas ement configuration. 24' along M id dlefield R d Minimum Setbacks: If n o s pecial set bac k, 2 0', or,if av g. c ontextual set bac k > 30', the avg . conte xt ual s etb ac k. 20 ' 6' If n o specia l set back, 16' none * So ur ce o f ye ar bu i lt d ata is th e Sa nt a C lar a C o un ty Asse sso rClick bel ow lin k for d ata d etai ls o r navigat e tohttps://www.ci ty ofpalo al to.org/gov/d epts/pl n/cur rent/p ar cel_repor ts.asp 0 40Feet Net Lo t Siz e: Zone Di st: Com p Plan Des: Floo d Zon e: FEM A Map Panel: SCC A* YR Built: Pa rkin g Di strict: Histor ic Sta tus: LOMA: HMP R eq uest: SCC A* Eff. YR Bui lt: 127-35-1 52 Flag Lo t: Ea sem ents: Substand ar d: Tr affic Im p. Dist: Nea r Cr eek: ADU /JADU : FAR: Max Bui ldi ng Hei ght: Max L ot Co ver ag e: Speci al Setbacks: Com ments: Street Side: Inter ior Side (s): Rear: Front: Parcel Report for A PN : Item 2 Attachment I Applicant Correspondence to City Council     Packet Pg. 51     1 Nitin Handa From:Josh Rubin <josh@joshuarubin.com> Sent:Monday, October 3, 2022 8:42 PM To:Nitin Handa Subject:Ellsworth Attachments:PO-Natural Hazard Disclosure JCP Report (2).pdf; color map (2).pdf; 366bb270fba444fd8802f86e951a9383 (2).pdf; MIDDLEFIELD-TOPO-24X36-SIGNED (3).pdf; Preliminary Report - CA (1) (2).PDF; FILE_9207 (2).pdf Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 9:07 AM To: Hayes, Ken <khayes@thehayesgroup.com> Cc: PlannerOnDuty <planner@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: FW: Middlefield parcel Hello Ken, Thanks for reaching out. Interesting/surprising to find a vacant residential parcel in Palo Alto. One less thing to res Yes, for this corner lot the front property line (shortest of the two street fronting lines) is Middlefield, and development report. If there is no variance request, and it is one story above grade observing height limit and setbacks, there is no discretiona the planner on duty to help further on this as needed. I am not aware of rules for substandard residential lots restricting basements for SFR use, just height and number of stories Note that last night, the Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance following SB9 for R1 and RE zoned properties. From: Ken Hayes <khayes@thehayesgroup.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 7:48 AM To: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Middlefield parcel CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Amy, We are about to start design a single family home on this parcel. Item 2 Attachment I Applicant Correspondence to City Council     Packet Pg. 52     2 Given the dimension and area of the parcel, in accordance with PAMC 18.12.040C(1)(A), it is considered a non-conforming parcel in this district. lot size are considered non-conforming. The subject parcel is less than 50’ wide (it appears the average width is 45.5’) and approximately 4,585 SF (less than 83% of Non-conforming parcels are permitted single-story development only, (basements excepted?) with a maximum roof peak height of 17’. width, the street-side setback is only 10’. A single-family use requires two off-street parking spaces, one of which must be covered. Can this project have a basement? Matadero creek is bordering the long side of the property. Also, does this require any special p one story, and maybe a basement if permitted. Thanks, Ken Hayes, AIA President Begin forwarded message: From: "Foley, Emily" <Emily.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Middlefield parcel Date: December 7, 2021 at 10:18:59 AM PST To: "French, Amy" <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Hayes, Ken" <khayes@thehayesgroup.com> Hi Ken, I am the Planner on Duty this morning. This parcel is not in a flood zone, so it is allowed to have a baseme the height to one story and 17ft. A house that does not require a variance or HIE will require only a building permit. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Item 2 Attachment I Applicant Correspondence to City Council     Packet Pg. 53     3 Thanks, Emily Emily Foley, AICP Associate Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org -- Josh Rubin 650-575-5981 www.joshandlaurenhomes.com #01995038 Item 2 Attachment I Applicant Correspondence to City Council     Packet Pg. 54     WILLIAM L. Mc CLURE JO HN L. FLEG EL DAN K. SIEGE L JE NNIFER H. FRIE DMAN MINDIE S. ROMANOWS KY DAVID L. ACH GRE GORY K. KLINGSPORN NICOLAS A. FLEGEL KRIS TINA A. FE NTON CARA E . SILV ER KI MBERLY J . BRUMME R CAMAS J. STEINMETZ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BRITTNEY L. STANDLE Y CHRISTIAN D. PETRANGE LO JOSEP H H. FELDMAN JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11 00 ALMA STREE T, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 940 25 -3392 (65 0) 32 4-93 00 FACSIMI LE (6 50) 324-02 27 ww w. js mf. com June 8, 2023 OF COUNSEL KE NT MITCHELL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RETIRE D JOHN D. JORGENSON MARGARET A. SLOAN DIANE S . GRE ENBERG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DECEAS ED MARVI N S . SI EG EL (19 36 - 20 12) JOHN R.COSGROV E (19 32 - 20 17) Honorable Chair, Planning Commissioners and Staff City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 2901-2905 Middlefield (APN 127-35-194) and 702 Ellsworth Place (APN 127- 35-152) Palo Alto, CA Dear Honorable Chair, Planning Commissioners and Staff: The purpose of this application is (1) to rectify a recently discovered zoning map error, (2) to consolidate required resident parking onto a single site at 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and (3) to rezone an under-utilized asphalt and dirt parking lot at 702 Ellsworth from Planned Community (PC) Zoning to R-1 zoning consistent with the other lots on Ellsworth Place. 2901-2905 Middlefield Road and 702 Ellsworth Place are now owned by separate owners, both of whom have consented to this application. The net result of this application will be to reconfigure the parking for the existing apartment building in conformance with existing parking standards (which no longer require guest spaces) and to permit the construction of a modest one-story house at 702 Ellsworth. The public benefits of this application, suggested by City staff, will clean up a recently discovered zoning error on the City’s published Zoning map, increase pedestrian and bicycle safety at Ellsworth and Middlefield and allow for better delivery truck circulation on the existing private street. EXISTING DESCRIPTION The two properties comprise 26,386 SF: the Middlefield property is 19,893 SF and owned by RLD Land LLC whose principal is Richard Dewey, Jr. (“Dewey Parcel”) and the Ellsworth property is 6,493 SF, including a private road easement bisecting the property, and owned by RRP Homes LLC whose principal is Nitin Handa (“Handa Parcel”). The private road easement provides access from Middlefield Road to the single-family homes along the cul-de-sac, Ellsworth Place. Without this private road easement, these Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 55     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 2 properties on the cul-de-sac would be landlocked. The development plan for PC 2343 was approved in 1967 and included twelve multi- family apartments: 4 studio units, 4 one-bedroom units and 4 two-bedroom units. Twenty parking spaces, including twelve covered spaces, one per unit, were provided for residents and guests. The apartment building and twelve covered parking spaces reside entirely on the 2901-2905 property. Bicycle parking is also provided inside each unit and is used frequently by the tenants since conveniences are in the neighborhood including Safeway, CVS, miscellaneous shops, restaurants and professional services just steps away. There is a high frequency VTA Bus line on Middlefield, with a bus stop less than 100’ from the apartment building. On the vacant 702 Ellsworth property, across the private road easement, is the balance of eight uncovered parking spaces. Currently 702 Ellsworth consists of unsightly asphalt and wheel stops on the otherwise parcel of dirt and weeds. This parking, which has been designated as guest parking for the apartment complex, is rarely used by guests of 2901 Middlefield, as there is ample and more convenient street parking on Sutter. Currently, though not authorized, other Ellsworth Place residents, their guests and delivery trucks occasionally use the Handa Parcel for parking. The existing multi-family apartment building is substantially the same as when it was approved in 1967 and has been well maintained. The current owner purchased the properties in 2017. The owner recently conveyed 702 Ellsworth to RRP Homes LLC, but intends to hold and continue to operate 2901-2905 Middlefield. At one time there was a single-family home on 702 Ellsworth Place, but the structure has since been demolished. The new owner is currently seeking to build a one-story home at the entrance to Ellsworth Place. APPLICANT’S REQUEST The current version of the Zoning Map designates 2901-2905 Middlefield Road as RM- 20 and 702 Ellsworth as R-1. In 2017, when RLD Land LLC acquired both lots, the Zoning Map and GIS Parcel Report showed the zoning as RM-15 (which the City subsequently upzoned to RM-20 on April 1, 2019) and R-1, respectively. In late 2022, when RLD Land LLC sold 702 Ellsworth to RRP Homes LLC, the Zoning Map and Palo Alto GIS Parcel Report showed 702 Ellsworth as R-1. Further, in 2021-2022, when architect Ken Hayes was developing concept plans for the sale of the Handa Parcel, City staff repeatedly confirmed the R-1 zone as depicted in the Parcel Report and the ability to add a single- family home to the Handa Parcel. It was not until RRP Homes LLC went to file a building permit application, that he was informed that 702 Ellsworth was purportedly zoned PC. The parties were subsequently told by the City that the adjoining property at 2901-2905 was also zoned PC, rather than RM-20. Unbeknownst to both the City and the owners of 2901 Middlefield and 702 Ellsworth, it appears an uncodified and unrecorded PC ordinance was adopted in 1967 without a concurrent zoning map amendment. Thus, the Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 56     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 3 City’s internal records describe the lots as governed by PC-2343 while the published zoning map shows the parcels as RM-20 and R-1. Shortly after discovering this inconsistency, City staff updated the GIS Parcel Report for the properties to reflect the PC designation. However, the Zoning Map (excerpt below) continues to show 2901-2905 Middlefield as RM 20 and 702 Ellsworth as R-1: Planned community districts are separate zoning districts which are required to be codified in the Zoning Map itself. See Section 18.38.050 (“All PC districts shall be identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "PC" followed by a specific reference number identifying each separate district.”) The Zoning Ordinance also requires any specific use regulations or development plans be identified by reference to the corresponding designation of each specific PC district on the zoning map. Had the City followed these two requirements when adopting the subject PC, the parties would not be in this predicament.To compound matters, every time the City re-published the Zoning Map, it re-adopted the Zoning error. The applicant reasonably relied on the publicly available Zoning Map and property profile when performing its due diligence when purchasing the lots in 2017. Because the City Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 57     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 4 never updated its Zoning Map nor recorded the PC permit, the applicant simply had no actual or constructive notice of the PC. This reliance was clearly reasonable as even the planning staff who reviewed early concept plans submitted by Ken Hayes, believed the parcel was zoned R-1. Despite the fact that neither applicant had any involvement in this zoning map error made over 50 years ago, at the suggestion of City staff, the two property owners agreed to file this request for a zoning code amendment to correct the City’s records with respect to both parcels. CITY COUNCIL PRE-SCREENING On March 13, 2023, the City Council conducted a pre-screening. Most of the public comments focused on neighborhood safety issues relating to bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Ellsworth Place and Middlefield Road. In addition, commenters requested the City to take over the ownership of the private street and expressed concerns about delivery trucks, private streets, parking, tree removal, density, and the precedential impact of removing a lot from a PC zone. Council comments recognized the importance of addressing safety issues but also acknowledged there should be a way to solve the neighborhood concerns. NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES Following the City Council meeting, Rich Dewey met with the key neighborhood stakeholders to further flesh out their concerns. The residents’ primary concerns related to pedestrian/bicycle safety. To address these concerns the applicant retained a transportation consultant1 to analyze the specific intersection and make recommendations for safety improvements. The consultant’s findings as well as the other issues raised at the Council pre-screening are discussed in more detail below. Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety The residents expressed several safety concerns, including site access, the narrowness of Ellsworth Place, the sight distance at Middlefield, the reduced parking at Ellsworth and the lack of loading vehicle access. It should be noted that most of these safety concerns presently exist, irrespective of the proposed rezoning2, and that many of the problems 1 Residents were concerned that the consultant would be biased since he was retained by the applicants. Accordingly, the applicants retained Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. who works for public entities and has prepared most of the city’s transportation analysis. Further, the transportation study was peer reviewed by the City’s transportation team. In addition, the applicants reached out to residents several times to discuss the report’s findings and to collaborate on safety solutions. Since release of the report, the residents have declined to meet. (See Attachment A, summary of meeting requests.) 2 Publicly available information about traffic collisions may be found at https://data.cityofpaloalto.org/. According to this data set (only available from 2016--2021), only Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 58     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 5 arise from the non-authorized use of the existing Ellsworth parking lot by delivery trucks and others. Also, the City decided a number of years ago not to install a bicycle lane on Middlefield Road and thus some bicyclists illegally use the sidewalks. Nevertheless, the transportation study examined whether the project would negatively or positively impact these issues and whether there was anything that could be done to improve the overall safety of the area. Ellsworth Place is a 530 feet long private street with no turnaround area. The private street is 20 feet wide3 and thus does not meet public street standards. This width is sufficient, however, to accommodate two-way traffic as well as emergency access. Ellsworth is accessed by a 20’ dustpan style driveway. There is an existing stop sign on Ellsworth Place existing onto Middlefield Road. Residents have requested a wider access driveway onto Ellsworth Place. First the study noted that a 20’ driveway width complies with the City’s Code. The study also concluded that there are tradeoffs with a wider driveway design in that wider driveways are easier to turn in and out of but that means turning speeds are higher. A narrow entrance thus has the benefit of forcing cars to slow down when accessing Ellsworth Place. Further, wider driveways are less safe for pedestrians to cross. Taking these considerations into account the study recommended creating a 35 feet sight distance triangle on both the Dewey Parcel and the Handa Parcel to assist exiting vehicles. Trees and fences within the sight triangle should be reduced to three feet. After reviewing the study and hearing the Council and neighborhood comments, the applicants have elected to make the following modifications to their application. These modifications, which do not have a nexus to project impacts, can be viewed as public benefits: 702 Ellsworth/Handa Parcel  Agreed to a 35 feet sight triangle on corner of lot at Ellsworth/Middlefield.  Agreed to decrease the front lawn between the driveway and walkway and instead install 4 feet of pavers. This will give the lot more space for parking/turnaround.  Agreed to widen driveway.  Agreed to cut the bushes facing Middlefield. This has been completed. one reported traffic collision occurred at the intersection of Ellsworth & Middlefield: in that data set. That accident occurred on June 8, 2016 at 1:02 PM and involved no injuries: Reported Date Occur Date Occur Time #Inj #Killed Hit/Run Location At/Or # Feet/ Miles Cross Street 06/08/2016 06/08/2016 13:02 Y 700BLK ELLSWORTH PL OR 390 FEET MIDDLEFIELD RD 3 Under Palo Alto Municipal Code comparable private streets created after 2009 must be 32’. Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 59     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 6  Agreed not to construct a basement.  Agreed to a 3 foot tall fence on Middlefield and Ellsworth to avoid any line of sight issues.  Agreed to install 1’6” width of pavers on Ellsworth side of property to increase the effective width of the Ellsworth driveway. Use same pavers as 2901 Middlefield to add to visual width.  Agreed to give City the right to the 20 foot easement on Ellsworth to settle any debate on who has right to access that part of the street.  Removed temporary construction fencing and dirt while application pending. This has been completed. 2901 Middlefield/Dewey Parcel  Agreed to a 35 feet sight triangle on corner of lot at Ellsworth/Middlefield.  Move trash pickup from Ellsworth to Sutter to relieve pressure on Ellsworth. This has been completed.  Agreed to install 2’6’ width of pavers on Ellsworth side of property to increase the effective width of the Ellsworth driveway. Use same pavers as Handa development to add to visual width.  Agreed to create temporary loading zone for delivery trucks at 2901 Middlefield.  Create parking plan that would facilitate less use of Ellsworth  Relocate GreenWaste garbage enclosure and pick up area off of Ellsworth. This has been completed. Delivery Trucks Accommodating delivery trucks in single family neighborhoods which do not have designated delivery/loading zones is a problem throughout the city. Most delivery trucks simply double park in the street, which is neither safe nor permitted. While Ellsworth Place has the ability to accommodate double parking (which admittedly is not ideal), the lack of turnaround space at the end of the street makes this option impractical. Delivery trucks serving the Dewey Parcel are able to park on Sutter. Other Ellsworth residents have indicated that delivery trucks are using the private property at 702 Ellsworth to park and/or turn around their vehicles. Regardless of how the Planning Commission acts on this application, use of 702 Ellsworth as a loading/delivery zone is not currently authorized and thus not a viable long term solution. In an effort to solve the delivery truck problem, the owners of 2901 Middlefield and 702 Ellsworth have worked with city staff to locate a temporary loading space on 2901 Middlefield that could be used for deliveries on Ellsworth and to create an additional paved area on 702 Ellsworth that would permit these trucks to turnaround to exit Ellsworth. In addition, at the request of residents, 2901 Middlefield has been working with GreenWaste to relocate its trash pickup from Ellsworth to Sutter Avenue. This has eased some of the pressure on Ellsworth. Further, as mentioned above, the project now includes a larger Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 60     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 7 effective driveway opening on Ellsworth by paving an additional 4 feet of space combined on either side of Ellsworth. (See updated Plans p. A2.0.) Private Street Palo Alto has a series of narrow, sub-standard streets throughout different neighborhoods which are not publicly owned. Some of these streets were designed as private streets (so that they did not need to conform to the stricter public street requirements). Others were offered for dedication by the original developer, but never accepted by the County (and/or City) due to their substandard specifications. The residents have long wanted the City to take over ownership of Ellsworth Place, though it is unlikely the City will do so. Again, there are many substandard streets throughout the city and if anything this project creates many circulation improvements. Parking Requirements Since the 1967 development plan was approved, the City has reduced the parking requirements for multi-family projects to encourage more use of public transit and bicycles and to facilitate multi-family housing projects. The current parking requirements for the twelve apartments is sixteen spaces: 2 spaces for each two-bedroom unit and one space for each of the one bedroom and studio units.4 Guest parking is no longer required. Given there are twelve covered spaces at 2901-2905 Middlefield, we propose creating 4 additional uncovered parking spaces on site for a total of 16 required parking spaces for the apartments on the 2901-2905 Middlefield property. The new parking spaces are in existing paved areas, in both the side yard and rear yard of the property. Please reference drawing A2.0 for the location of these new spaces on the site plan. 2901 Middlefield has always had ample parking for its tenants. In addition, there is ample street parking on Sutter which serves as the side entrance to the apartment building. We recognize that the narrow width of Ellsworth Place reduces the parking opportunities for the Ellsworth residents and are committed to accommodating all required parking on site. Consolidating the parking on-site has several additional benefits. First, it reduces the number of backing maneuvers from 8 to 2 on the Handa Parcel. (Hexagon report, p. 1.). Also, it increases pedestrian safety by eliminating the need for residents and guests to walk across Ellsworth to access the apartment building. Easement over 702 Ellsworth Ellsworth Place serves approximately 7 properties on each side and does not have sidewalks. While the residents fronting on Ellsworth have traditionally used a portion of 702 Ellsworth to access Middlefield Road, questions have been raised as to whether all properties enjoy a recorded right of way easement against 702 Ellsworth. This application will clear up this longstanding ambiguity by recording a public ingress/egress easement for the entire neighborhood and at the City’s request 702 Ellsworth will also designate the 4 Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52.040, Table 1. Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 61     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 8 City as an additional benefitted party to the easement. Tree removal At the City Council pre-screening some residents complained about tree removals which occurred nearly 5 years ago. In 2018, some palm trees and two oak trees were removed. The City records show that several neighbors called in complaints during the tree removal process. According to the property manager at 2901 Middlefield, the City arborist came down to the site that day and confirmed neither oak tree was covered by the heritage tree ordinance. The fact that there are no citations in the City file tends to confirm this account. In any event, the trees were clearly blocking sight lines and it is somewhat disingenuous to raise a five year old complaint about tree removal, on the one hand, while also asserting that the sight triangle should be structure-free. In any event, the owner has replaced the removed canopy with six Cercis Occidentalis trees elsewhere on the Dewey Parcel. The replacement trees are drought tolerant and more in keeping with the city’s current landscaping requirements. Density The 702 Ellsworth Place property will be developed with a new single-family, one-story home with onsite parking in accordance with the R1 zoning site development regulations. This one-story home is compatible with R-1 and R-2 development on Ellsworth. Per request of the neighbors, the plans do not include a basement. The applicant has also been working with the neighbors to address other site planning issues. Once the Ellsworth parcel is removed from the PC, the density of the apartment building will be slightly more than the density permitted by RM-20. However, as the proposed Housing Element contemplates upzoning many RM-20 units to RM-30, the resulting density will be in line with the new RM-30 zoning. Further the bulk and massing of the apartment is not changing. The existing building has been in place since 1969 and its mid-century low profile is compatible with the eclectic mix of medium density buildings on Middlefield Road and barely visible from Ellsworth. * * * RLD Land LLC respectfully requests the Planning Commission support amending the development plan of the governing PC ordinance to right size the parking requirements and allow for the addition of a modest single-family home on the currently vacant lot. This Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 62     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 9 action will not only add one additional housing unit to the City’s housing stock, but also preserve the continued viability of the existing well-maintained apartment building. Sincerely, JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP By: ____________ Cara E. Silver Cc: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 63     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 10 Attachment A Summary of RLD Land LLC’s (Rich Dewey) Efforts to Meet with Neighbors regarding 2901 Middlefield and 702 Ellsworth* Feb 22: Amy French of the City of PA organized a development call w/ various departments at City of PA to discuss the proposed new home for Nitin Handa. Rich Dewey and Kevin Guibara, property manager for 2901 apartments, attended the zoom meeting call. City communicated some of the neighborhood concerns and requested project modifications. Plans modified. Feb 24: Kevin Guibara, property manager for 2901 apartments, attended an on-site meeting with Amy French, Nitin Handa and 2 neighbors to discuss the proposed new home by Nitin Handa. Plans further modified to address resident comments. March 13: City Council study session. Rich Dewey and Kevin Guibara, property manager for 2901 apartments, Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects, and Cara Silver, attorney, attended. Plans further modified to address resident and Council comments. March 20: Rich emailed Kristen Van Fleet to request a meeting to discuss the situation. She replied on March 22, and we found a date: SAT March 25 to meet. March 25: meeting with neighbors at Susan Light’s home (705 Ellsworth). Attending were Kristen Van Fleet, Bhangra Iyer; Susan Light and Annette Glanckopf and Rich Dewey. Meeting was to discuss how we got here (City document errors and direction), and solutions. Rich Dewey informed residents he was conducting safety study and would share with them when complete. Meeting went for approx. 2 hrs., and then Rich and Kristen spent another 45 mins or so after the meeting walking the Ellsworth Place dead end street and discussing ideas. Residents and Dewey discussed the benefit of meeting again once study completed. Plans further modifed to address comments. April 3: Email from Kristen thanking for me the time and meetings. She is advising that a second meeting is too hard to organize and to send all information to her. April 18: Rich sent a note to Kristen to ask her to meet to discuss the traffic and safety study that was discussed at the March 25 meeting at Susan Light’s home. The City only allows for public library room bookings a week in advance, so Rich suggested April 25 Tues at 6pm at Mitchell Library to be most convenient for all. Rich advised Kristen that he would have Gary Black, president of Hexagon Transportation Consultants, and ________________________ * RRP Homes LLC (Nitin Handa) also had several meetings with Kristen Van Fleet. These additional meetings, though not included here, also resulted in many design modifications. Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 64     City of Palo Alto Planning Commission June 8, 2023 Page 11 Ken Hayes, president of Hayes Group Architects, along w/ homeowner Nitin Handa. Rich asked her to invite the neighbors (per Kristen’s representation she speaks for the neighbors). No response. April 24: Rich Dewey emailed Kristen again to remind her of the meeting for safety and traffic on April 25 at 6pm at Mitchell Library. No response. April 24: Rich Dewey asked Kevin Guibara, property manager for 2901 apartments, to hand deliver a letter to each of the neighbors on Ellsworth to invite them to the meeting to discuss the issues of traffic and safety on April 25 at 6pm at Mitchell Library. He did so personally,and spoke w those residents who answered their doors (and left the letter for those who did not answer). April 25: (afternoon of April 25) Kristen replied to Rich’s April 24 email saying she wanted the traffic and safety study sent to her. Rich replied that he wanted to have the consultants present the report and then do a question / answer, and then discuss next steps. April 25: Had the meeting at Mitchell Library at 6pm. In attendance were Ken Hayes, president of the Hayes Architectural Group; Gary Black, president of Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Nitin Handa (homeowner) and me. Consultants stayed until 7pm. No one else attended the meeting. May 2: Rich sent Kristen a note to confirm we had the meeting on April 25 at the Mitchell Library, and that the consultants were all there. Rich also sent her the Hexagon Transportation study in the May 2 email. May 2: Kristen replied to acknowledge the report was received and that she would forward it to the Ellsworth Place neighbors. May 4: Rich asked Kristen if she had time to get together to discuss the report, and suggested May 5 in the afternoon. No response as of today (June 8). Item 2 Attachment J Applicant Letter dated June 8 2023     Packet Pg. 65     ELLSWORTH PLACE - SINCE 1937 ••••••••••••••••••••• Mayfield, Unincorporated Santa Clara County ••••••••••••••••••••• Annexed by the City of Palo Alto on May 2, 1947 REGARDING: Applications: 23PLN-27, (23PLN-00027, 23PLN-00025) In c. 1937, a couple from San Francisco retired to Mayfield and a portion of lot 71 of G.M. Wooster Subdivision of the Clarke Ranch. Katherine Emerson (McLaughlin) b. 10 Dec 1869, d. 17 Feb 1956 Eugene G Emerson b. abt. 1879, d. 9 Dec 1939 ELLSWORTH PLACE is named for Ellsworth, Maine, the hometown of Eugene G. Emerson, which is named for United States Founding Father Oliver Ellsworth. The Ellsworth Place road follows the Mayfield Sewer Outlet, which is mapped on the 1912 C.M. Wooster Company’s Subdivision of the Clarke Ranch Map. 1 of 8 - March 8, 2023 Item 2 Attachment K part 1 Van Fleet Correspondence ELLSWORTH PLACE - OUR HISTORY - SINCE 1937     Packet Pg. 66     The first house built becomes 702 & 704 Ellsworth Place, and it is referenced on the hand-drawn map shown on page four of the Grant of Easement For Utility Facilities to the City of Palo Alto, dated October 12, 1937. The boundaries of the parcel of land extending to both the centers of Matadero Creek and Middlefield Road. 2 of 8 - March 8, 2023 Item 2 Attachment K part 1 Van Fleet Correspondence ELLSWORTH PLACE - OUR HISTORY - SINCE 1937     Packet Pg. 67     The first homes of Ellsworth Place mini-subdivision were built in 1938 and include house numbers 701, 705, and 706. They are actual modest homes of less than 900 sq ft in size. After Eugene G. Emerson’s death in 1939, according to voter registrations, the 1950s Census Report, Polk’s Palo Alto City Directory, and The Daily Palo Alto Times, Katherine Emerson maintains several rental properties on Ellsworth Place, and lives between 701, 702 Ellsworth Place and another property located at 2795 Middlefield Road. She rents these properties along with the 3-Rm apartment of address 704 up until about 1955. 3 of 8 - March 8, 2023 Item 2 Attachment K part 1 Van Fleet Correspondence ELLSWORTH PLACE - OUR HISTORY - SINCE 1937     Packet Pg. 68     Ellsworth Place is located in an industrial area known as “East of South Palo Alto”. In 1937, the Emersons give “Right-of-Way” over their portion of Middlefield Road to the City of Palo Alto in preparation for improvements in 1938. They later deed it to The City of Palo Alto in 1949. 4 of 8 - March 8, 2023 Item 2 Attachment K part 1 Van Fleet Correspondence ELLSWORTH PLACE - OUR HISTORY - SINCE 1937     Packet Pg. 69     The view from Ellsworth Place across Matadero Creek is of the Heinz Warehouse Buildings. These buildings were integral for training during WWII. Flooding was common at the crossing of Middlefield Road and Colorado Ave. 5 of 8 - March 8, 2023 Item 2 Attachment K part 1 Van Fleet Correspondence ELLSWORTH PLACE - OUR HISTORY - SINCE 1937     Packet Pg. 70     In 1940, a factory for airplane parts opened up where the Safeway in Midtown is located now. This location is a block from Ellsworth Place. Bergmann’s Department Store opened in 1956, two blocks from Ellsworth Place. 6 of 8 - March 8, 2023 Item 2 Attachment K part 1 Van Fleet Correspondence ELLSWORTH PLACE - OUR HISTORY - SINCE 1937     Packet Pg. 71     In 1957, each of the Matadero Creekside homes deeds 30’ off the back of their properties to the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, so flood prevention can be put in place. While the taking of this land is for the greater good of the area, the parcels of land that are not already considered “substandard” became so. And the City of Palo Alto building codes setbacks for substandard lots do not work well on these odd-shaped parcels. In conclusion, Ellsworth Place has very humble roots. It was originally squeezed in on a lot located between a creek with warehouses and a gas station, in an area of town that flooded often, and had a road that followed the sewer outlet. It was a place for low-rent homes, which were small at around 800 - 1,000 sq ft., and several of these homes still house families of 4-5 to this day. Today, our single-family, 1940s cottages average 1,114 sq ft in size and sit on substandard lots averaging 4,049 sq ft. All neighbors know one another and help to look out for one another. We do not allow parking on our street to keep it open in case of emergency. We want the driveway onto Middlefield Road widened, as it never happened, but was in the original plan of Ordinance PC-1810. With the increase in delivery vehicles and traffic on Middlefield Road, the parking lot, which was once 702 & 704 Ellsworth, has become integral to the circulation and safety of our street for both the apartments and houses alike. The apartments have a carport and parking spots on their Ellsworth Place side and would not be able to access those spaces without the use of Ellsworth Place. 7 of 8 - March 8, 2023 Item 2 Attachment K part 1 Van Fleet Correspondence ELLSWORTH PLACE - OUR HISTORY - SINCE 1937     Packet Pg. 72     Ellsworth Place Residents Are Against Amending PC-2343 February 23, 2023 File Number: 23PLN-00025 Attention City Planning, City Council, et. all. The homeowners and tenants of Ellsworth Place vehemently oppose a change to the PC-2343, as written in 1967, which permitted the building of the apartment complex, now known as 2901 Middlefield Road. On April 3, 1967, Lindsay Properties asked for an amendment of Ordinance 1810, titled Ordinance 2343, which included four parcels of land located at 2901 - 2905 Middlefield Road, and 701 - 702 Ellsworth Place. The creation of Ordinance 2343, what is now PC-2343, allowed for the building of the apartments we now refer to as “2901 Middlefield Road”. The current amendment sought by the owner of 702 Ellsworth Place (a.k.a. 700 Ellsworth Place), to remove their parcel from the PC would create a non-compliant zoning situation in our neighborhood, significantly increasing density above what the City allows, even if parking and other concerns are addressed. The zoning for 2901 Middlefield Road was at one point classified as RM-15, and the City Council had to approve the combining of four parcels of property into what became PC-2343, which included a PC laid over the R-1 lot formerly known as 702 Ellsworth Place, which became “the parking lot”. The combination of these parcels created sufficient lot size to allow for having 12 units in the apartment complex, while meeting parking needs, and allowing the combined lot to conform with other development standards. Progressing with the times, the density for lot 2901 Middlefield Road has been increased to RM-20 status. However, by cutting off the R-1 lot formerly known as 702 Ellsworth Place from the PC-2343 agreement with the City of Palo Alto, the apartments have incurred a zoning issue with their density. The single parcel APN: 127-35-194 is a total of 19,893 square feet, per the city’s online parcel system, which is 45.7% of an acre (an acre being 43,560 sq ft). Under RM-20 zoning rules, they would only be allowed to have 9 apartment units on the 2901 Middlefield Road parcel. But they have 12 units per the PC-2343 agreement. It is therefore required that the apartments keep all parcels of land together as agreed upon by the PC-2343 ordinance they have with the City of Palo Alto. No other apartment lots on the Sutter Ave block are rated higher than an RM-20. Removing 702 Ellsworth Place from the PC-2343 agreement creates a non-compliant situation for the existing apartments, making them too dense for their parcel. Finding places to create parking spaces within the property does not change the other non-compliance issues that are now occurring since 702 Ellsworth Place was sold on November 7, 2022. The City’s job is to enforce city laws, and the developers and property owners of Haze Architects, Dewey Land Development, and Handa Developers Group are flagrantly violating our 1 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 73     city laws. If there is an ordinance governing a parcel of land, as approved by the City Council, that ordinance stands. Rezoning to make things less compliant sets the wrong precedent. There are city rules and regulations in place to handle odd situations, such as allowing older, non-compliant things to remain as they are, and variances to help amend the more unusually shaped lots, but these situations do not apply to 2901 Middlefield. Plus, the current RM-20 assigned to the lots comprising 2901 Middlefield Road was once an RM-15, so the parcels creating the PC-2343 ordinance are already getting a 33% increase in the allowable number of units they can contain -- and yet they still would NOT be compliant. What precedent would be created if the city were to choose to allow these property owners and developers to break their laws? Would every apartment complex, grocery store, and local business think they too can sell off their parking lots to squeeze in homes? We know that the proposed R-1 house for the 702 Ellsworth Place lot is not a part of the latest City Housing Element. Furthermore, as Palo Alto homeowners and tenants, we do not wish to be steamrolled by greedy property developers looking to break peaceful neighborhoods so they can impose their egregious solutions. The proposed “solutions” are not right for the residents of Ellsworth Place, and they are certainly not right for Palo Alto as a city. Another issue is the apartment owners created the blight on the property when they cut down all the trees on October 8, 2018, including two oak trees, and yet their plan on page two of their proposal reads, “Tree Protection - It’s Part of the Plan!” We have photos of what the parking lot looked like prior to October 8, 2018, when they claimed to be doing “land maintenance” to the City Arborist. The canopies of those raised trees are drawn on the property layout, as shown on page 6 of their proposal presentation. The first two photos below are from Google Wayback, and were taken on November 2017. 2 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 74     3 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 75     PHOTO BELOW - Taken on October 8, 2018, was taken during their “landscape maintenance” A CURRENT PHOTO (below) of the parking lot was taken on February 5, 2023 4 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 76     Additionally, the proposed house is out of scale for Ellsworth Place, as the average house size on the even-numbered side of the street is 1,114 sq ft in size on an average lot size of 4,049 sq ft. The proposed house is 1,695 sq ft and would be set too close to the narrow, 20’ wide road , which does not have sidewalks, thereby creating safety hazards and making it difficult and dangerous for delivery trucks and residents alike to enter and exit the narrow, slightly sloped driveway that creates the unusual entrance to Ellsworth Place. The proposed house uses corner set-back rules designed for 30’ wide streets with sidewalks, and it is not appropriate for the cramped conditions of Ellsworth Place. The proposed amendment to the PC potentially creates a significant public safety problem, as another issue we have been having ever since the fence went up around the parking lot is the safety of delivery trucks entering and exiting our narrow street. The residents of Ellsworth Place and the apartments have always shared delivery schedules with all the shipping companies and USPS, and our delivery drivers are now struggling to reach us. The UPS driver has resorted to using the bus turn-out on Middlefield Road to access both the apartments and the residents of Ellsworth Place. He shared with Midtown Residence Association that he used to use the parking lot to safely turn around to exit the street, but he is now forced to park in the bus pull-out to reach Ellsworth Place. Other delivery trucks are choosing to maneuver through multiple back-and-forths to turn around so they can safely exit Ellsworth Place, while some are opting to back directly out onto Middlefield Road into traffic that flows 40 - 50 mph. We have many photos and videos showing how dangerous this has become, and attached below are a few of them. The photos below show a Fed-Ex truck backing into their proposed parking space #15, (there is a video available of this and others doing a similar maneuver), a UPS truck is shown parked in the bus turnout on Matadero Creek, a DHL driver parked alongside the fence after backing into the street, and the USPS truck now parks next to the carports. 5 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 77     6 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 78     7 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 79     8 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 80     And now we get to the issue of parking. Since the apartments are not fully rented currently, while they are being renovated, not all parking spaces are being used at this time. However, when the apartments were fully rented, every one of the parking spots in the parking lot was filled almost every night, and often on weekends. With conditions as they are now, is common to have cars parked alongside the chain-link fence and in front of house #706. For safety reasons, Ellsworth Place doesn’t allow parking on the street due to it being only 20 feet wide, without sidewalks, and a dead-end street, (there is not a cul-de-sac at the end, but simply a hard stop of the 20-foot wide road against the fence). Our residents include nine children, and we range in age from 14 months old to age 85; with a representation of every age group in between. Keeping the street clear is imperative for everyone’s safety, as emergency services have only one way in and out of the end of the narrow 550’ long road, and the only fire hydrant close by is placed on Middlefield Road, in front of the parking lot! 9 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 81     10 of 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 82     Item 2 Attachment K part 2 Van Fleet Correspondence Signed     Packet Pg. 83     ELLSWORTH PLACE - SINCE 1937 ••••••••••••••••••••• KEEP THE PARKING LOT A PART OF PC-2343 ••••••••••••••••••••• OUR SAFETY AND CIRCULATION DEPEND ON IT REGARDING: Applications: 23PLN-27, (23PLN-00027, 23PLN-00025) March 13, 2023 Ellsworth Place has very humble beginnings and was originally shaped by a combination of necessity and affordability. This small subdivided parcel started as the retirement property of a hard-working couple from San Francisco, Eugene G., and Katherine Emerson, who purchased the larger portion of parcel 71 of the C.M. Wooster Company’s Subdivision of the Clarke Ranch around 1937. This area was still a part of the unincorporated Santa Clara County area of Mayfield, California. The ambiguity of right of way on Ellsworth Place begins after the widow Katherine Emerson’s death in 1956. According to the minutes of the Palo Alto City Council meeting on March 1, 1967, this issue was resolved back then. However, ingress/egress rights of way are not the only issue being reopened from 56 years ago, as the issues of whether or not a house should be built on the 702 lot, and the circulation of vehicles in/out of Ellsworth Place onto Middlefield Road are also mentioned. The residents of Ellsworth Place have been experiencing intrusion into the flow of our lives ever since the parking lot was sold on November 7, 2022, and the chain link fence went up around the parking lot shortly thereafter. The Ellsworth Place Neighbors are against the lifting of PC-2343 from the parking lot R1 parcel, which was once known as 702 Ellsworth Place prior to the building of the apartments at 2901 Middlefield Road. The parking lot is integral to the circulation of both the Ellsworth Place homes and the Sutter-Arms Apartments, which both depend on the narrow 20’ road of Ellsworth Place to exist. Ellsworth Place intersects Middlefield Road with a narrow driveway approach, and we have been having safety issues ever since the chain link fence was installed. We look forward to all of the issues being brought forth again over circulation and right-of-way being resolved in a way that is both safe for our community and also puts the issues to rest for good. The recent hostility coming from the apartment owners and developers has strengthened the community of neighbors and homeowners on our private street. Given we are some of the most purchasable “affordable housing” to be found in Palo Alto (other than condominiums), we realize this makes us an easy target for developers, many of whom do not care to know anything about the properties they affect. Instead, they care only about the millions of dollars from their developments, squeezing the largest homes they can onto a property, whether the space allows for it or not. We strongly disagree with allowing a home to be built on the parking lot, and we do not wish to fall victim to these predatory tactics. 1 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 84     The parking lot is a part of the needed circulation for our street. Back in 1967, it was designed to function as an integral part of the apartment plan, in harmony with the Ellsworth Place community. In the City Council Minutes of March 1, 1967, Ray T. Lindsay is noted as saying, “...development of the 12 units proposed would be in keeping with the General Plan for that area, that the design would complement the area and be for the good of the community and the City.” This says to the residents of Ellsworth Place that the design of the 2901 Middlefield Road apartments was also taking Ellsworth Place the street into consideration as well, which depends on Ellsworth Place to access carports and their non-carport parking spaces. And this design had served the neighborhood well for over 53 years, up until the fence went up on the parking lot in December 2022. The parking lot provided enough circulation room for the flow of vehicles between the apartments and Ellsworth Place residents and provided a transition into the traffic on Middlefield Road. By day, when there are fewer cars parked in the eight spaces, it provides a safe place for trucks to both temporarily park and also turn around before exiting Ellsworth Place onto a very busy stretch of Middlefield Road, situated directly across the street from Keys School. At night, it provides parking for the apartments, and is full almost every night when the apartments are fully rented. For safety reasons, there is no parking on Ellsworth Place, as cars parking on Ellsworth will block the ability of cars to pass, including emergency service vehicles. Furthermore, relying on Sutter Avenue for overflow parking is not sustainable as it becomes full every night when all of the apartments on Sutter Ave. are fully rented, plus it too is the overflow parking area for the homes on Ellsworth Place. The parking lot fence is dangerous and violates the PC-2343 agreement, making it illegal per City Ordinances. It is currently placed approximately 4’ in from the actual property line, not including the road, and it has been hit more than once by vehicles, which has pushing it back another approximately 2’ in the center, as can be seen in how the fence has been pushed back from the line drawn on the asphalt that the fence was placed upon. This fence creates a disruption to the circulation of vehicular traffic on Ellsworth Place and has been a safety hazard since it went up in December 2022. It is in violation of City Ordinance PC-2343. For safety reasons, we want the fence removed. 2 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 85     3 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 86     The fence is set back 4-feet from the parcel property line OR-1810 The original PC-1810 ordinance talks about widening the Middlefield driveway approach to Ellsworth Place. It also talks about widening Ellsworth Place in general, but that would further deteriorate the parking situation on our street, and was likely a statement made prior to most of the existing homes already solving their own parking needs by creating parking spaces on their individual lots with suitable pavers, which form front yards in place of landscape, or houses have driveways large enough to hold multiple cars to accommodate house guests. Some of us also allow our neighbors to use our on-property parking for special occasions like a party, and our overflow parking is also on Sutter Ave. 4 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 87     The photo above and below show the pavers installed on the private parcels of Ellsworth Place. The photo above shows the pavers being used by a homeowner to park their car off of Ellsworth Place, thereby keeping the roadway clear. These pavers along with wide, long or multiple driveways have been built onto private property to solve for personal parking issues. 5 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 88     Ordinance 1810 of 1958, from which section 2 was amended to create the existing PC-2343 in 1967, was printed in the Daily Palo Alto Times and Palo Alto News and Palo Alto Shopping Review on Saturday, May 31, 1958. A map of the affected parcels of land is included. The developer is asking to change the existing zoning of these already developed parcels of land from R-3-G (Garden Apartments District Regulation) to P-C (Planned Community), with the intention of developing professional buildings on these locations. Ordinance 1810 was discussed by Palo Alto City Council on September 8, 1958, and includes the existing developments located at 3865 - 2875 Middlefield Road, 2901 - 2905 Middlefield Road, and 701 - 702 Ellsworth Place. 6 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 89     7 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 90     8 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 91     The following was taken from the recorded minutes of that City Council meeting, which are posted just below. Notice it says,“...be approved subject to modifying the driveway to Middlefield Road…” The widening of the Ellsworth Place driveway at Middlefield Road never occurred,even though the apartments were allowed to be built at a higher density that would have been allowed without the amended Ordinance PC-2343, as approved on April 3, 1967. The current Ellsworth Place residents have complained for years about how narrow the entrance to our street is and how it affects the circulation and safety of our street and the neighborhood by making the entering and exiting of Ellsworth Place dangerous to vehicles and pedestrians alike. The driveway approach is often disregarded by other vehicles as being only a parking lot, and it is too narrow to pass two cars at the same time. The widening of Middlefield Road driveway approach where it intersects with Ellsworth Place is wanted by the Ellsworth Place neighbors, and we would like the entrance to our street to be more visible, to look like it is an actual street with curbs instead of a narrow driveway that many people drive right past without noticing. Our street entrance is also in close proximity to the exit driveway for Winterlodge, and the driveway for Keys School is directly across Middlefield Road from our street entrance. This is in a section of Middlefield that narrows at the Matadero Creek overpass with the sidewalk curving to follow, thereby creating a blind spot for pedestrians to be seen by vehicles exiting Ellsworth Place onto Middlefield Road. Additionally, Ellsworth place has an incline to reach Middlefield Road, and Middlefield has a decline created by its overpass. This section of sidewalk is also used by bicycles because there is not a bike lane on Middlefield Road in this area. 9 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 92     (The photos above and below are from Google Maps, February 2022) And while these sections of road look fairly flat in photos, the overpass at Matadero Creek creates enough incline to launch a speeding car all the way to the Safeway parking lot, as happened in 2005 when a high school kid drove his car too fast down this section of Middlefield Road, launching off of the Matadero Creek overpass and crashing into the Safeway parking lot. The following is quoted from Palo Alto Online, May 17, 2005. “ Driving at an estimated 100 mph northbound on Middlefield Road, the Volkswagen Passat driven by Jenkins went airborne as it hit the hump of the Matadero Creek bridge, Ryan said. “It ... didn’t touch down for 100 feet down the road -– that’s 150 feet per second, 400 feet from the south.” So the overpass of Matadero Creek has a greater incline and decline than it shows in the photos. To really understand what Middlefield Road does here, and how the Middlefield Road driveway approach to Ellsworth Place is situated with a sidewalk blind spot and other driveway obstacles of neighboring businesses and schools, one has to make a site visit! 10 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 93     (The photo above is from Google Maps, January 2023) (The photo below is from Google Maps, February 2022) 11 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 94     (The photo above is from Google Maps, March 2023) The Ellsworth Place street entrance has a driveway approach and is located where Middlefield Road decreases in size from four lanes with street parking and no bike lane, down to only 70’ wide with no shoulder, no street parking, and no bike lane. The sidewalk on Middlefield Road has a blind corner where it curves to follow the narrowing of Middlefield Road, just before it crosses Ellsworth Place. This section of road has a downward slope as it descends from the Matadero Creek overpass, and Ellsworth place has a slight incline as it connects with Middlefield Road. Regardless if one is turning right or left out of Ellsworth Place onto Middlefield Road, these obstacles are always a problem. Auto accidents have already occurred here, as well as near-misses with pedestrians, including a teen on a skateboard rolling down the sidewalk from Matadero Creek overpass! Thankfully, there has been no direct contact with pedestrians and cyclists and cars…yet, as our residents quickly learn to be extremely cautious when coming and going from Ellsworth Place. However, there has been more than one fender bender here. As one homeowner recounts: I’ve lived on Ellsworth Place for more than 10 years, and raised 3 kids. We drive to school every day at 8:10 am and have had many near misses when turning out of Ellsworth Place onto Middlefield Road. One time I had an actual fender bender. The police were called, but they told us to exchange information and would not come out to the accident. The other driver was a Keys School parent and they said, “I did not see you! Where did 12 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 95     you come from?” (Ellsworth Place Resident, March 2023.) The homeowner was told the police would not come out to the site to file a report, and that they were to exchange information with the other driver. So a report was never filed for this accident or any others that have occurred here. And thankfully, all pedestrian issues have been near misses so far. However, since the fence has gone up, the residents of Ellsworth Place have become increasingly worried about entering and exiting our street, and we fear this will become ever worse if a structure were to be built close to the road, where the parking lot is, thereby making the approach to our street even narrower than it is now. Ellsworth Place residents are also still worried about overflow parking. As one of our longest residents. John K. Abraham recently stated in an email, “...While I cannot attend meetings I fully support the basic position for Ellsworth Place–Namely we do not want to be victims of spillover parking rom the Apartment complex. We are all affected, not just the residents near Middlefield. We are 400 feet away from the nearest hydrant and Fire trucks would need all the help they could get in case of an emergency.” There is a strong fear that emergency crews will be unable to quickly reach the residents at the end of our 523-foot long street. We have spoken with the Palo Alto Fire Department about this concern, and were assured a fire truck will fit down the 20 foot wide street, that this is the minimum size needed to fit a fire truck. This gives us some peace of mind, however it increases the importance of keeping our street clear of on-street parking, and to also make sure that the 20 foot wide road is kept clear of parked cars. And while developers are pointing to bicycles as being the answer to removing parking spots, not everyone can ride a bicycle for reasons including age, mobility, and injury, and not everything people do is within a mile or so of this location. Palo Alto has limited shopping within its city limits. The stores that are here, outside of grocery and pharmacy, are all higher end retail, and located over two miles from Ellsworth Place. All big-box stores are located in the nearby cities of Mountain View and Redwood City, much farther away. The CalTrain station is a 30-minute walk away according to Google Maps. It is also very dangerous to ride a bike from this area of Midtown because there are no bike lanes on this section of Middlefield Road. The cyclists who do ride bikes here are mostly kids going to and from Midtown Shopping Center and their schools and homes, and they have to use the sidewalks. Commuting cyclists know to either “take the lane” or avoid this section of Middlefield Road altogether. 13 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 96     (Photo from Google Maps, January 2023) And while some of us would like to have bike lanes on this section of Middlefield Road, about ten years ago, two Ellsworth Place residents inquired about this idea with the Palo Alto Bicycle Coalition and were told to “NOT BRING IT UP!” Apparently, getting bike lanes installed on this section of Middlefield Road, between Loma Verde and Midtown Shopping Center is a hotbed of contention. The lanes are narrow as it is, and Middlefield has become the alternative route to 101 with traffic speeds to match! PC-2343 The City of Palo Alto Ordinance PC-2343 of 1967 was restructured from OR-1810 of 1958 Returning to the topic of PC-2343, when the developer could not pre-sell the professional buildings, nine years later he asked for an amendment to OR-1810, to return four of the original six parcels of land back to being zoned for garden apartments. Due to the housing density of his plans to build a 12-unit apartment complex on too small of a land space, the “Planned Community” or PC was created to allow for them to be built. This information was extracted from the City Council Minutes discussing PC-2343 held on March 13, 1967. Additionally, during the City Council meeting of March 1, 1967, the subject of ingress and egress was discussed for the existing Ellsworth Place homes. (These homes were built between c. 1937 - 1949, with the majority being constructed during the post WWII housing boom.) This issue on ingress/egress was resolved then, proving all thirteen of the homes on Ellsworth Place have, “A NON-EXCLUSIVE right of way for ingress and egress…” written into their deeds. 14 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 97     (Excerpt taken from the City Council Minutes of 3-1-67, page 3) Bringing this up again 56 years later is farcical. Nevertheless, title insurance companies have agreed to open claims for the Ellsworth Place homeowners, and chain-of-title searches are being done. Additionally, Cross Land Surveying, Inc. has confirmed our parcels are not landlocked, and that half of the road is still written into the deed of house #741. We are continuing to research this and have more information coming in every day. Please read the attached letter provided by Kristy D. Comerer of Cross Land Survey, Inc., which has been submitted separately. Also discussed was the fact that, “it would be very difficult and very uneconomical to develop the land between Ellsworth Place and the canal in any way.” The Ellsworth Place Residents agree with this statement! The land being referred to as, “between Ellsworth Place and the canal” is the parking lot, and it has been an integral part of the circulation between the houses on Ellsworth Place and the Apartments which also use Ellsworth Place! Adding to this confusion, we recently learned Santa Clara County Assessor has considered Ellsworth Place to belong to the City of Palo Alto as far back as 1968! 15 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 98     This is a section of the 1968 127-35 Parcel map, which shows how Ellsworth Place flows into Middlefield Road. According to the SCC Assessors Mapping Department, “On our Assessor’s Map, I looked back to the oldest map that we have, from 1968, and it appears that since then, your parcels have always been shown with Ellsworth Place shown as that right of way (Street). At some point before 1968 there must have been a document that granted those portions of the street to the City of Palo Alto for the Assessor’s Office to represent it the way that it is on our map. From our map it looks like the City of Palo Alto owns the road, since it isn’t called out to be private (there would be a notation and how the line is represented would be different).” Given Santa Clara County Accessors has the road as belonging to the City of Palo Alto since their 1968 map, was this changed after the studies done for the Ordinance PC-2343 of 1967 confirmed ingress/egress for all homes of Ellsworth Place? The history of our deeds is a bit hard to follow, but it can be done, and we are receiving more information daily on it. In conclusion, the Ellsworth Place homeowners and tenants ask you to look out for our safety and for the safety of the Midtown neighborhood by keeping the current PC-2343 in place as it was written in 1967 and approved by City Council. We also want the PC-2343 to be fully implemented by widening and improving the driveway approach entrance/exit to Ellsworth Place as it intersects with Middlefield Road. This should have been done when the apartments were built fifty-six years ago, per the instructions of Ordinance PC-1810, which had section 2 amended to become PC-2343, thereby allowing the apartments to exist. We are continuing to pull information together, but have only had since February 9, 2023, to start working on this process of information gathering, and to also learn about this whole process surrounding the creation of PC-2343 and how it directly impacts all 13 home (15 address) here on Ellsworth Place. The developers have been at this since October 2018 when they cut the trees down! We strongly feel that we have not been treated fairly in this process so far, and ask for fair treatment going forward in the Planning Department and Commission processes. We love our street and the Midtown Neighborhood! We appreciate your looking our for all of Ellsworth Place and our Midtown Neighborhood as a whole. -The Ellsworth Place Neighbors 16 Item 2 Attachment K part 3 Van Fleet Correspondence item 3     Packet Pg. 99     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 2 1 6 0 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 28, 2023 TITLE Amendment to Title 18 Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.18, 18.42, 18.52, 18.76 and Title 16 Chapter 16.20 to Waive Parklets from Certain Planning and Zoning Requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and recommend City Council adoption of the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) amending Title 16 Chapter 16.20 and Title 18 Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.18, 18.42, 18.52, and 18.76 to waive parklets from certain Planning and Zoning requirements. BACKGROUND The City Council extended the interim program via an interim ordinance and resolution on May 8, 2023, with second reading on May 22, 2023, to enable the pilot program of temporary parklets within City rights-of-way to continue beyond June 30, 2023, until March 31, 2024. The proposed parklet standards City Council reviewed in October 2022 are in Attachment B. The May 8, 2023 staff report is attached to this report as Attachment C. Council also adopted a resolution to continue the related programs for commercial use of private and public parking lots through the end of 2023. The interim program has been in effect since the summer of 2020, during the COVID pandemic. The interim ordinance and resolution have been extended several times since 2020. City staff are now working on a ‘permanent’ parklet program, including an implementing ordinance and technical regulations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The attached amendments (Attachment A) would amend Titles 16 and 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The draft ordinance would amend Title 18, Zoning, to provide a definition of parklet, adjust the outdoor activity limitations in commercial districts, clarify that a CUP is not required for parklets in public rights of way and that parklet square footage is exempt from parking calculations, and that Architectural Review is not required for parklets; permitting is via encroachment permit process set forth in PAMC Chapter 12.12 Section 12.12.010. The draft ordinance would amend Title 16, Building Regulations, Chapter 16.20, Signs to enable signs to be placed on parklets in public rights of way, per the parklet standards, without the requirement for Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 100     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 1 6 0 1 architectural review. Parklet applications would be an ‘over-the-counter' process, if the proposed parklets are compliant with the parklet standards. ANALYSIS As noted, the Council recently adopted an interim ordinance temporarily continuing expansion of outdoor dining, retail and other activities until March 31, 2024. The ordinance presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission is focused on the Title 18 modifications within the PTC’s purview, as well as the limited modification to Title 16 regarding parklet signs, which would otherwise be subject to Title 18 regulations. The draft parklet standards includes Item 6 regarding signage, as follows: This ordinance would be bundled with the ordinance that is in development for parklets and the parklet standards, to be presented together to the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The adoption of this ordinance would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Amendment to Title 18 Chapters 18.04, 18.16, 18.18, 18.42, 18.52, 18.76 and Title 16 Chapter 16.20 Attachment B: Council Reviewed Parklet Standards Attachment C: Council Report-May 8, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Report #: Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 101     *Not Yet Approved*  1  273_20230621_ts24  Ordinance No. _____    Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal  Code (PAMC) Title 16 (Building), Chapter 16.20 (Signs), Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters  18.04 (Definitions), 18.16 (Commercial Zones), 18.18 (Commercial Downtown  Zones), 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), 18.52 (Parking and Loading  Requirements), and 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) to Waive Parklets from Certain  Requirements in those Chapters.       The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:     SECTION 1.  Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18  (Zoning) is amended to add a definition for ‘Parklet’ as follows:    18.04.030   Definitions    (a)    Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings  ascribed in this section.    . . .    (112.1) “Parklet” means an outdoor area placed within a public right of way (but  not on a public sidewalk) with appropriate barriers/safety installations and  constructed in accordance with established standards with approval of a permit  per PAMC Chapter 12.11.    . . .    SECTION 2.  Section 18.16.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.16  (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial Districts, CN, CC and CS Districts) of Title 18  (Zoning) is amended as follows:     18.18.060  Site Development Standards    . . .     (h) Outdoor Sales and Storage:      (1)   In the CN district, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted within a  building, except for:          (A)   Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no more  than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display area,  Item 3 Attachment A Amendment to Title 18 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 102     *Not Yet Approved*  2  273_20230621_ts24          (B)   Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and          (C)   Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.          (D) Parklets that have obtained a permit per PAMC Chapter 12.11.       (2)   In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to outdoor  sales and storage:          (A)   Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be  conducted within a building, except for:             (i)   Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no more  than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display area,             (ii)   Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services or  intensive retail uses, including parklets permitted under PAMC Chapter 12.11,             (iii)   Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and             (iv)   Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit          (B)   Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be subject to a  conditional use permit; parklets on public property approved via permit per PAMC Chapter 12.11  are exempt from this section.          . . .       (3)   In the CS district, outdoor sales and display of merchandise, and outdoor eating areas  operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services shall be permitted subject to the  following regulations:          (A)   Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding the gross building  floor area on the site, except as authorized by a conditional use permit. Parklets on public  property approved via permit per PAMC Chapter 12.11 are exempt from this section.          . . .    SECTION 3.   Section 18.18.060 (Development Standards) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown  Commercial CD District) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended as follows:     18.18.060  Site Development Standards    Item 3 Attachment A Amendment to Title 18 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 103     *Not Yet Approved*  3  273_20230621_ts24  . . .     (h) Outdoor Sales and Storage: The following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and  storage in the CD  district:     (1)   CD‐C Subdistrict; In the CD‐C subdistrict, the following regulations apply:     …     (B)   Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be subject to a  conditional use permit; parklets on public property approved via permit per PAMC Chapter 12.11  are exempt from this section.     SECTION 4.   Section 18.42.090 (Alcoholic Beverages) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for  Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) shall be amended as follows:     18.42.090  Alcoholic Beverages    . . .    (e) Alcohol Service in Parklets on Rights of Way: Establishments that are allowed by the City  to serve alcohol for onsite consumption by issuance of a conditional use permit (“CUP”) as required in this  section or as a legal nonconforming use, and that have both an on‐sale license from the Department of  Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) and are duly authorized by ABC to serve alcohol in outdoor areas, shall  be allowed to serve alcohol for onsite consumption without an amendment of the CUP in parklets on  public property approved via permit per PAMC Chapter 12.11 or other outdoor uses approved via permit  per any other relevant section of the PAMC. Outdoor alcohol service shall be in full compliance with all  applicable regulations, including ABC regulations, as may be amended.    SECTION 5.   Section 18.52.040 (Off‐Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility  Requirements) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) shall be  amended as follows:     18.52.40   Off‐Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements    . . .    (10) The area of a parklet permitted per Chapter 12.11 shall not be counted toward a  business’ gross floor area for the calculation of minimum off‐street parking requirements  whether within a parking assessment district or outside of parking assessment districts    SECTION 6.   Section 18.76.010 (Conditional Use Permit) and Section 18.76.020  (Architectural Review) of Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of Title 18 (Zoning) shall be  amended as follows:   Item 3 Attachment A Amendment to Title 18 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 104     *Not Yet Approved*  4  273_20230621_ts24  18.76.010 Conditional Use Permit    (b) Applicability    . . .    (4) Establishments that are allowed by the City to serve alcohol for onsite  consumption by issuance of a conditional use permit (“CUP”) as required in this  section or as a legal nonconforming use, and that have both an on‐sale license from  the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) and are duly authorized by ABC  to serve alcohol in outdoor areas, shall be allowed to serve alcohol for onsite  consumption without an amendment of the CUP in parklets on public property  approved via permit per PAMC Chapter 12.11 or other outdoor uses approved via  permit per any other relevant section of the PAMC. Outdoor alcohol service shall be  in full compliance with all applicable regulations, including ABC regulations, as may be  amended.     18.76.010 Architectural Review           (b) Applicability  (1) Exempt Projects. The following projects do not require architectural review:  . . .  (D) Parklets as defined in Chapter 18.04 and permitted per permit under Chapter  12.11, and signs that comply with the City’s adopted parklet standards affixed to  parklets shall not require Architectural Review approval. Notwithstanding PAMC  Sections 18.77.077 and 18.76.020, architectural review shall not be required for  proposed outdoor eating and drinking service areas or signage affixed to such  parklets.     SECTION 7.   Section 16.20.100 (Prohibited Locations) of Chapter 16.20 (Signs) of Title  16 (Building Regulations) shall be amended as follows:     16.20.100 Prohibited Locations  Unless otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, all signs shall comply with the following  location requirements:    (a) Public Property. No sign shall be placed on any public property, including but not limited  to any city building, sidewalk, crosswalk, curb, street lamp post, hydrant, tree, shrub, tree  stake or guard, railroad trestle, electric light or power or telephone or telegraph wire pole  or wire appurtenance thereof or upon any fixture of the fire alarm system or upon any  lighting system, street sign or traffic sign, except for signs that comply with the City’s  adopted parklet standards affixed to parklets permitted via permit per PAMC Chapter  12.11.  Item 3 Attachment A Amendment to Title 18 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 105     *Not Yet Approved*  5  273_20230621_ts24  SECTION 8.  Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto  inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no  further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this  Ordinance.     SECTION 9.  If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is  for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent  jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.  The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every  section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without  regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or  unconstitutional.     SECTION 10.  The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the  provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections  15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting  scheme.    SECTION 11.  This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first date after the date of its  adoption.          INTRODUCED:  PASSED:  AYES:  NOES:  ABSENT:  ABSTENTIONS:  ATTEST:                  ____________________________     ____________________________  City Clerk             Mayor    APPROVED AS TO FORM:       APPROVED:    ____________________________     ____________________________  Assistant City Attorney       City Manager                 ____________________________               Director of Planning and                Development Services  Item 3 Attachment A Amendment to Title 18 Ordinance     Packet Pg. 106     DRAFT PALO ALTO PERMANENT PARKLETS PROGRAM I. Introduction The City of Palo Alto has developed a Permanent Parklet Program that will allow for parklet installations in eligible areas of Palo Alto. The program is designed with the intended purpose of supporting the vibrancy of the public realm and enhancing the civic experience of diners, pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists. The following standards outline the requirements for parklet installation including, location, materials, and design. The City of Palo Alto will review all parklet permit applications and will only approve parklets that are able to meet the standards. Due to the unique circumstances of each proposed parklet location, some parklets may require additional review by key departments (as outlined). All parklets—including installations previously installed under the pilot parklet program—will require a new Permanent Parklet Permit from the City of Palo Alto. Application requirements are outlined in Section IV (A) Submittal Requirements. Parklets are permitted in conjunction with legally existing and permitted eating and drinking establishment uses as well as commercial uses including retail and fitness establishments. Any and all business activity must be contained within the parklet space and not encroach into the sidewalk, public right-of-way, or roadway. II. Glossary Due to the unique design and placement of parklets, there are several terms with distinct meanings that should be understood in order to implement the standards. 1. Enclosure—Protective barrier that follows the parklet edge. 2. Platform Edge—The outermost edge of the parklet platform. 3. Parklet Footprint—The total area within the parklet edge that can be utilized by a project applicant. 4. Platform—Base of the parklet that is at grade with the sidewalk. 5. Travel Lane—Portion of the street with active automobile traffic. Figure 1: Key Terms Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 107     III. Location and Setback Requirements A. Location The location of a parklet is dependent on the eligibility criteria, which varies based on the type of parking space a parklet will occupy (parallel parking spaces, angled spaces, and non-standard spaces). 1. Eligibility a. Parklets are only permitted on streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less. b. Parklets are generally permitted on streets with a running slope (grade) of five percent or less. c. Parklets cannot be installed in any portion of a travel lane at any time. d. When located near an intersection, parklets must be located at least 20 feet from the rear most boundary of a crosswalk at the nearest intersection of the street corner. Exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. e. In the event a restricted area (i.e., loading zone) is being proposed to be used as space for a parklet, the Office of Transportation shall meet with the applicant to evaluate relocation of the restricted area. Relocation of the restricted area may not be possible. 2. Parallel Parking a. For parallel parking spaces, the parklet structure must be set back 48 inches (4 feet) from adjacent marked parking spaces. b. It is recommended, though not required, that a parklet consist of at least two contiguous parallel parking spaces. c. The platform edge shall be 2 feet back from the outer edge of the parking space it occupies. For all parallel parking spaces located on public streets within the City of Palo Alto, this shall be 2 feet from the exterior edge (closest to traffic) of marked parking T’s (where they exist). This is shown in Figure 2. d. In no case shall a parklet be placed within the 2-foot area measured from the outer edge of the parking space. These 2 feet shall be kept clear at all times. The only objects which shall lawfully occupy this space are reflective delineator posts, or their equal. e. Parallel parking spaces adjacent to a curb typically measure 8 feet wide by 20 feet long. The dimensions of a parklet in one parking space could be 6 feet wide and 12 feet long. This is because of the 2 foot setback from the outer edge of the parking space, and the 4-foot setbacks from the adjacent parking spaces(Figure A). f. Parallel parking space measurements may vary across the City of Palo Alto. As a result of this variation, some parklets may measure less than 6 feet wide. If the existing parking stall width is less than 8 (eight) feet, the parklet shall be 2 feet less than the parking stall width. g. Parklets located in the downtown area that are between a bulb-out tree planter do not require a 4-foot setback from the adjacent parking spaces. Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 108     3. Angle Parking Spaces a. A parklet in an angle parking space shall consist of at least two contiguous angles parking spaces. b. A parklet platform shall be 3 feet back from the rear edge of the existing angled parking space. For angled parking spaces located on public streets within the City of Palo Alto, this shall be 3 feet from the exterior edge (closest to traffic) of the marked parking stall. This is shown in Figure 3. c. In no case shall a parklet be placed within the 3-foot area measured from the rear edge of the parking space. These 3 feet shall be kept clear at all times. d. The only objects which shall lawfully occupy this space are reflective delineator posts, or their equal. e. For angled parking spaces, the edge of the parklet must be set back 3 feet from the adjacent parking space on either space. Figure 2: Dimensions of a Parallel Parking Space Parklet Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 109     4. Non-Standard Spaces 1. A non-standard parking space is an angle or parallel space that does not meet the City of Palo Alto’s standard width or length for parking spaces. Standard parking space dimensions are as follows: a. Parallel parking space adjacent to a curb: 8-feet wide and 20-feet long b. Parallel parking space adjacent to a wall: 10-feet wide and 20-feet long c. 45-degree angle parking space: 8.5-feet wide and 21.2-feet long d. 60-degree angle parking space: 8.5-feet wide and 19.7-feet long e. 75-degree angle parking space: 8.5-feet wide and 20.2-feet long f. 90-degree angle parking space: 8.5-feet wide and 17.5-feet long 2. Angled parking space measurements may vary across the City of Palo Alto. As a result of this variation, some parklets may measure less than the standard 8.5-feet wide. If the existing parking stall width is less than 8.5-feet, the parklet shall be 3 feet less than the parking stall width. 3. For any non-standard parking space, the Office of Transportation staff, in partnership with Public Works, will review plans for such sites; this may include a site visit. The additional review will help maximize the parklet while maintaining an adequate travel lane. 4. For non-standard angled parking spaces, the edge of the parklet structure must be set back 3 feet from the adjacent parking space on either side. (This applies to all angle parking spaces along University Avenue as nearly all are substandard). Figure 3: Angle Parking Space Parklet Dimensions Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 110     B. Parklet Setbacks 5. Setbacks a. As stated above, all parklets in parallel parking spaces must be setback 4 feet from the adjacent parking spaces. This setback shall be delineated by a concrete wheel stop affixed to the street (see figure 2 above and ‘Traffic Safety’ below). b. As stated above, all parklets in angled parking spaces must be setback 3 feet from adjacent parking spaces and 3 feet from the rear edge of the parking space (see figure 3). c. All parklets are required to include 2-foot setback from adjacent driveways. d. Parklets are prohibited in front of active driveways, on street curves, or hills where horizontal or vertical sight-distance is a safety issue as determined by the Office of Transportation. e. The setback may not contain seating. 6. Sidewalk Area a. Neither the construction nor operation of the parklet shall interfere with, obstruct, or otherwise diminish the adjacent sidewalk and pedestrian path of travel. b. All walkways and sidewalks shall maintain at least 8 (eight) feet clear path of travel. c. A parklet cannot operate in conjunction with sidewalk dining. Eligible applicants must elect to operate a parklet or sidewalk dining. This ensures sidewalks remain open and available for pedestrian travel. d. The setback may not contain seating C. Other Location Criteria 1. Proximity to Utilities and Public Facilities a. Parklets must not block public utilities, bus stops, driveways, telecommunication vaults, or other in-ground infrastructure. i. Parklets shall not be placed over gas main or gas services due to potential hazards. b. Parklets located next to alleys (as defined under PAMC 18.04.030(a)8) must be set back 5 (five) feet from the outside edge of the driveway as measured from the curb face/gutter flowline. c. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 50 linear feet from a bus stop loading zone. d. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 15 linear feet from fire hydrants. e. Parklets shall not be placed within a 5 foot radius of a manhole cover to allow for maintenance access. f. Parklets shall be placed no closer than 5 linear feet from a storm drain catch basin. Parklet construction and design must allow access to the catch basin and shall not obstruct the catch basin. Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 111     g. In the event a proposed parklet location is in conflict with public infrastructure (i.e., public signage, benches, etc.), the Public Works Department shall meet with the applicant to evaluate relocation of the infrastructure. Relocation of any infrastructure may not be possible. 2. Fire Safety a. No portion of the parklet or associated seating shall block FDC or associated equipment. b. Business address shall be visible from the street and cannot be fully obstructed by the parklet and associated materials. 3. Street Trees a. Any portion of the proposed parklet must maintain the following clearances from existing street trees: a. Horizontal clearance equal to a two-foot radius around the tree well. This does not apply to raised tree wells. b. Vertical clearance of 3 feet measured from the highest point of the parklet (if proposing a parklet with a roof). c. At no time shall there be materials placed in the tree well area or within City planters. b. To discourage patrons from stepping on tree wells and possibly damaging tree roots, where needed, a railing shall be installed on the parklet platform adjacent to the tree well. This will alter the path patrons travel, limiting persons stepping on the tree roots. 4. Bike Facilities c. Bicycle racks or other bicycle facilities shall not be removed, made unusable, or otherwise disturbed or obstructed by the construction of a parklet. i. Any parklet design that proposes such disruption shall require review by and approval of the Office of Transportation. Relocation of an existing bicycle facility may be subject to additional fees. d. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate bike parking into their parklet design. 5. Accessibility 1. The sidewalk and parklet path of travel must comply with the appropriate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Building Code (CBC) chapter 11B accessibility provisions. 2. The parklet path of travel must comply with CBC chapter 10 exiting requirements. Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 112     IV. Parklet Design The following guidelines describe both the safety and design requirements for parklet applications including standards for: A. Platform B. Enclosure C. Traffic Safety D. Furnishings & Fixtures A. Platform 1. Structural a. Parklets shall be constructed with quality materials and shall be of natural durable wood (such as redwood, cedar, etc.), preservative treated wood, or other engineered material suitable for exterior conditions. b. The parklet platform must support 100 pounds per square foot of live load. c. All fastening hardware and fasteners adjacent to and into preservative treated wood must be made of one of the following: hot-dipped zinc coated galvanized steel, stainless steel, silicon bronze, or copper. 2. Drainage & Ventilation a. The underside of the platform shall be constructed to allow for seasonal drainage. b. Adequate cross ventilation shall be installed to allow for the surface to dry within 12 –24 hours. c. Openings under the platform shall be screened with corrosion-resistant material with a maximum one quarter inch mesh. d. Parklets shall not impede the flow of curbside drainage. The parklet design shall include a minimum 6.5” wide clearance from sidewalk curb along the entire length of the parklet. Openings at either end of the parklet shall be covered with screens to prevent debris buildup beneath the parklet and in the gutter. The closure 2x decking can be removable for easy access for under platform inspection as needed. See Figure 4 for suggested platform attachment design details. 3. Platform Attachment a. The parklet shall be anchored to the City street and/or curb. Any anchoring proposed into the public street will require USA markings and additional staff review. Platform system shall be anchored at maximum 6’-0 apart in each direction to the roadway to avoid movement during an earthquake. See Figure 4. i. Limit anchoring to 6-12 inches embedment in the street. b. The grate support along the curb face shall be anchored to the curb. The anchor shall be installed perpendicular to the curb (per the detail provided in figure 4). i. The manner of anchoring shall be through a pre-drilled hole into the curb and a concrete anchor bolt. Limit anchoring to 3-4 inches embedment in the curb. Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 113     Figure 4: Suggested Platform Attachment Design Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 114     4. Roofs a. Structural i. Complete roof framing plan, which includes horizonal and vertical bracing, is required to be submitted with structural calculations. A licensed architect, and/or a civil and/or structural engineer, shall sign the plan and associated calculations. ii. All connector hardware and fasteners shall be resistant to corrosion and listed as compatible to the framing material. iii. Roof may be a solid uniform material or open construction (i.e., trellis, pergola, etc.) iv. Roofs shall not be attached or connected to a building. v. Roof shall slope toward the street to ensure rainwater drains into the street. vi. Gutters and rain leaders are required. vii. Roofs shall not extend over the public sidewalk. viii. Roof’s outer edges along the travel lane may extend 6 inches beyond parklet footprint at 8 feet or above to allow for attachment of the rain leaders and gutters only. b. Height i. The roof shall be a minimum height of 8 feet provided the adjacent sidewalk is at least 8 feet wide. If the adjacent sidewalk is less than 8 feet wide, the applicant will need to consult with the Palo Alto Fire Department ii. A parklet roof shall measure no taller than 12 feet, as measured from the platform grade. c. Materials i. Rooftop material may be of plywood sheathing, polycarbonate sheets, or sheet metal. i. If plywood sheathing is used, it must be painted or stained. ii. If fabric shade sails or similar fabric coverings are proposed, the fabric cover shall be limited to the top portion of the parklet and not extend to additional sides perpendicular to the street or sidewalk. All fabric coverings shall be of all-weather and flame retardant materials excluding vinyl. iii. Roof material may be a solid uniform material or open construction (i.e., trellis, pergola, etc.) iv. All exposed wood is required to be treated for exposure to weather. 5. Accessibility a. The parklet shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). b. The surface of the parklet platform must be flush with the adjacent sidewalk with a maximum gap of one quarter inch and one quarter inch vertical tolerance. c. A minimum 4-foot-wide accessible path of travel and 5-foot diameter turnaround space must be maintained within the parklet. d. Any abrupt changes in elevation exceeding 4 inches along an accessible path of travel shall be identified by 6-inch-tall warning curbs. e. Parklets shall utilize outdoor grade reflective tape to mark changes in grade. Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 115     D. Enclosures 1. Dimensions & Load a. For user safety, parklets are required to include a continuous enclosure along the parklet’s edge adjacent to the travel lane and parking spaces. The sidewalk edge of the parklet may be enclosed or open. i. All parklets in which alcoholic beverages are served shall be enclosed on all sides of the parklet edge, as required by the department of alcoholic beverage control. b. The continuous enclosure shall include a periodic barrier, which may be planters or other heavy material, along the parklet edge. i. The periodic barrier shall weigh at least 500 lbs when filled with soil, sand, water, or concrete. ii. The periodic barrier shall be placed at least every 6 feet along the parklet edge parallel to the travel lane. iii. The periodic barrier shall measure at least 16 inches in depth, and a height of at least 36 inches and no more than 38 inches measured from the surface of the platform. c. The enclosure must be at least 36 inches in height and no more than 38 inches in height, measured from the surface of the platform. d. Any gaps in the enclosure shall be smaller than a 4-inch sphere. e. The Enclosure must be capable of withstanding at least 200 pounds of horizontal force. 2. Emergency Access (Figure 5) a. A minimum 3-foot-wide emergency gap, with vertical and horizontal clearance, is required for every 20 feet of enclosure length. b. The gap must be kept clear of any tables, chairs, bike racks, poles, walls, roofs, or other elements. c. The barrier in the emergency access gap shall be easily removable by emergency personnel and provide a latch or hinge that allows easy access. i. The latch shall be placed on the outside of the barrier, facing the travel lane. ii. The hinge shall open a minimum of 90 degrees. iii. Any gaps in the barrier shall be smaller than a 4-inch sphere. Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 116     3. Design a. Enclosure materials must be high-quality, durable, and non-reflective including but not limited to hardwood, steel, concrete planters, etc. a. Materials that are not permitted: particle board, vinyl, soft plastic or tarps. b. Street facing colors used on the exterior of enclosure must be matte-finish paint or opaque stain. c. Parklets shall integrate and/or incorporate vegetation into the enclosure (edge treatment) at least every six (6) feet. a. The height of any plants contained within planters in setback or planters serving as a parklet platform enclosure shall not impede or obstruct the view from the travel lane to the sidewalk and vice-versa. b. Plant material shall not impede or hinder pedestrian and vehicular visibility. Images above illustrate compliant examples of a parklet enclosure Figure 5: Example Emergency Access Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 117     4. Sidewalls a. Parklets may include a hard, transparent screen between the enclosure and the roof to provide a windscreen for parklet users. i. The sidewall screen must be completely transparent and not obstruct sightlines from the travel lane to the sidewalk and vice-versa. ii. Materials that are not permitted: vinyl, soft plastic or tarps. E. Traffic Safety 1. Wheel Stops a. When a parklet is adjacent to active parallel parking spaces, a wheel stop must be installed to delineate the 4-foot setback from adjacent parking spaces (see figure 3 above). The wheel stop shall measure 3 feet long by 4 inches high (see figure 6). It shall be constructed of concrete or rubber. Figure 6: Wheel Stop b. Affixing Wheel Stops i. Drilled-in Wheel stops: A permittee will need USA clearance to anchor a wheel stop into the road. c. Location i. The wheel stop shall be placed one foot from the curb at the edge of the front parking space. ii. A wheel stop shall be placed one foot from the curb at the edge of the rear parking space. iii. Wheel stops shall be placed four feet from the parklet structure. d. Exceptions i. Parklets extending the length between two in-street tree wells, as on University Avenue, may omit wheel stops. 2. Reflective Delineators a. The parklet shall include installation of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) approved delineator posts or flexible bollards. Examples of these devices are illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 118     Figure 7: Reflective Delineator (Left Travel Lane) Figure 8: Reflective Delineator (Right Travel Lane) b. Location i. Delineator posts shall be surface mounted to the roadway via epoxy and/or glue down methods unless approved otherwise. ii. Reflective delineators must be installed at the outside corners of the parklet. The channelizers or posts must align with the end of the platform and not encroach on the travel lane. iii. Additional delineators must be placed every 20 (twenty) feet in the 2 foot buffer zone along the lane of travel—but not in the lane of travel. c. Dimensions i. Right side of trave lane – Delineators shall be 42 inches high and white with white reflective bands for use on the right side of a travel lane. ii. Left side of travel lane – Delineators shall be 42 inches high and be white with yellow reflective bands if used on the left edge of a travel lane. d. Maintenance i. Maintenance of the delineator posts shall be the responsibility of the Permit holder. ii. Permittee shall replace any missing or damaged delineators within 24 hours of a delineator’s failure or within 24 hours’ notice from the City. F. Furnishings & Fixtures 1. Materials a. Parklet furnishings and fixtures must be high-quality, durable, outdoor-rated, and non- reflective including but not limited to: Hardwood, steel, concrete, etc. i. Materials that are not permitted: particle board and vinyl. 2. Electrical Power Supply a. No power cords or conduits are allowed under the sidewalk. b. Power cords between the building and the parklet shall be in conduit, with a limit of one conduit per parklet, and shall not be adjacent, above, below or attached to any part of a fire escape. a. Conduit shall be finished to match the parklet design b. No extension cords shall be permitted for fixed lighting or heaters c. A weatherproof GFCI electrical outlet may be installed on the exterior of the building at a Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 119     minimum of 10 feet above the walking surface for decorative lighting purposes only. Fixed cables may be used to support the light’s cord and it shall be easily unplugged by fire department personnel. d. Electrical power supply to the parklet, including receptacle outlets, shall comply with permanent wiring methods as outlined in the adopted California Electrical code. e. Parklet power source shall not be pulled from city sidewalk lighting or supported by tree f. Generators are not allowed in association with parklets. 3. Lighting a. If installing permanent lighting, an electrical permit shall be obtained and shall comply with permanent wiring methods as outlined in the adopted California Electrical code. b. The following types of lighting and fixtures are permitted: i. String lights; ii. Solar powered and/or rechargeable battery powered table lights; and iii. Overhead light fixtures for parklets with roofs (permit required) c. The use of electrical adaptors and power strips are prohibited. d. All lighting must be rated for exterior use, listed, and carry a product certificate for its intended use by a recognized electrical testing laboratory. e. Lighting must be LED only f. Lighting shall be limited to the parklet area and not encroach into any portion of the public sidewalk. g. Lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture with a maximum of 100 watts or 1600 lumens, whichever is greater, per fixture. h. Applicants interested in lighting should consider solar-powered lighting that use a rechargeable battery. 4. Heaters a. Only electrical heaters are allowed on parklets. i. Electric heaters must be an outdoor approved type ii. Electric heaters must be located on the parklet in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and specifications. iii. Electric heaters must be placed at least 5 feet away from any combustible materials. iv. A fire extinguisher is required to be mounted within sight and have appropriate signage per the Fire Code. b. Propane is not permitted to be used for heaters, equipment, appliances, or decorated elements. c. Any new electrical circuits required for heating require an electrical permit from the Building Department (see ‘Power Supply’ above). Any electrical equipment must be listed and carry a product certificate for its intended use by a recognized electrical testing laboratory. 5. Umbrellas a. Permitted Umbrella Types: i. Table Umbrella ii. Tilting Umbrella iii. Off-set/ Cantilever Umbrella Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 120     b. No portion of an umbrella shall extend beyond the edge and/or enclosure of the parklet on any side. c. No umbrella shall obstruct the view from the street between three (3) and eight (8) feet, measured from the street, from any side. 6. Signage a. Parklet signage is limited to six (6) square feet and shall be limited to the name of the business and shall be non-illuminated and non-reflective. Letters no taller than 15”. b. Businesses are permitted one (1) sign on their parklet, total. c. Signs must be affixed to the outer most portion of the parklet enclosure no higher than 36” from the street grade. d. No form of advertising is permitted to be painted or mounted on any surface or area of the parklet. e. Any existing parking signs installed adjacent to the parklet must be covered with opaque plastic; such coverage or illegibility shall occur only in manners approved by the City of Palo Alto through its Department of Public Works and/or its Office of Transportation. 7. Seating & Furniture a. Accessibility i. The establishment must provide 5% accessible seating for each type of seating provided (table, booth, etc.) or a minimum of 1 seat per type, whichever is greater, in an outdoor seating area where the slope is no greater than 2% in any direction. ii. Such ADA accessible areas shall include a clear path of travel to the seating and a 60” diameter turnaround area. iii. Such ADA accessible seating shall be provided at an accessible height which includes: i. Table surface between 28 to 34 inches high. ii. At least 27 inches of space from the floor to the bottom of the table. iii. Knee clearance extends at least 19 inches under the table. iv. Total clear floor area of 30 inches by 48 inches per seat. iv. Such ADA accessible seating shall be of the same size and appearance as the establishment’s other outdoor seating. b. Street Furniture i. Street furniture including tables, chairs, benches, etc. shall be all-weather, and of a high-quality material. Images above illustrate street furniture examples. 8. Landscape a. Vegetation shall be comprised of native, low-water use, and drought tolerant plants. Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 121     b. No plants shall have thorns, spikes, or sharp edges. c. Poisonous or invasive plants are not permitted. 9. Televisions a. Televisions are not permitted on parklets. V. Operational Standards 10. Private Control a. Parklets will be considered under the control of the permit holder. The permit holder is responsible for securing the parklet and any fixtures and furnishings contained within it at all times, including during hours when the associated business is not in operation. 11. Alcohol Service a. Parklets that serve alcoholic beverages shall include appropriate fencing or other barriers to delineate the space and adhere to Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) regulations. i. As described in the Enclosure section above, all parklets in which alcoholic beverages are served shall be enclosed on all sides of the parklet edge, as required by the department of alcoholic beverage control. b. All physical requirements of ABC should be reflected in the design submitted for review. c. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment is required to allow alcohol service at a parklet. d. A restaurant with existing CUP for alcohol service must submit an application to Planning and Development Services to amend the existing CUP to expand alcohol service to parklet. e. The CUP Amendment must be approved before alcohol service is allowed at a parklet. 12. Site Maintenance a. Parklets shall be maintained free of litter and debris. b. The parklet area and adjacent sidewalk shall be scrubbed and mopped to remove any food or drink stains on a daily basis by the permittee. 13. Hours of Operation a. The parklet shall adhere to the same approved hours of operation as the associated business. b. Note: In the CN or CS zone districts, a CUP is needed to operate/activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and approval conditions for operations during these hours are to ensure the operation is compatible with the abutting (or within 50 feet of) residential property. 14. Amplified Sound a. Amplified sound shall not exceed a noise level of more than fifteen dB above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or more, as defined in section 9.10 of the Municipal Code. b. Amplified sound is restricted to the following daytime hours: i. 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays ii. 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Saturday, except holidays iii. 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Sunday and holidays Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 122     15. Bathroom Occupancy a. Parklets with 14 or less seats (as described on the submitted Floor Plan) will not trigger seat recount toward bathroom occupancy. b. For parklets with 15 or more seats, staff will need to assess if the associated business has enough restrooms to service all of the establishments patrons inside and outside. The assessment of restroom facilities needed will include all proposed parklet seating and indoor seating. VI. PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Submittal Requirements 1. Site Plan—Site plan shall be drawn to scale on 11 x17 tabloid paper, include all pertinent dimensions and the following information: a. Location of the business frontage b. Dimensions of the parklet platform c. ADA accessibility measurements d. Setbacks from adjacent parking spaces and the adjacent traffic lane e. Locations of traffic protection improvements including wheel stops, reflective delineators, etc. f. Location of public utilities including any manhole covers, gutter drains, fire hydrants, and FDCs, light poles, etc. (and distances to parklet) g. Any adjacent installations on the sidewalk including utility boxes, street signs, bike racks, street furniture, etc. (and distances to parklet) h. Existing parking space striping i. Crosswalks, bus stops, driveways (and distances to parklet) j. Width of sidewalk k. Planters (if applicable) 2. Floor Plan a. Floor Plan of the proposed parklet showing the following information: i. Total number and location of tables and seats and/or benches on parklet ii. Dimensions of tables, seats, and benches on parklet 3. Elevations a. Elevation drawing showing the following information: b. Height and design of platform railings/guards or edge buffers c. Height and design of roof (if applicable) d. Heating, lighting, other electrical equipment e. Power connection (show distance from ground to overhead wire) f. Storm water drainage g. Cross-section drawing of parklet 4. Construction Drawing/Calculation a. Structural drawings b. Structural calculations (if applying for parklet with roof) c. heating, lighting, other electrical equipment d. electrical power connection/source 5. Pictures of proposed site—The application should include at least 3 photos showing existing built parklet, if applicable, the proposed parking space(s) converted into a parklet, adjacent Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 123     sidewalk and store frontage 6. List of all materials and equipment proposed a. Materials palette showing the following information: i. Proposed materials for platform ii. Proposed materials for railings or edge buffers iii. Proposed furnishings iv. Roof material (if applicable) b. Equipment sheet including: i. Image of equipment ii. Any manufacturer instructions c. Planters d. Type of plants 7. Parklet Information: a. Number of parking spaces requested b. Perpendicular or angled spaces c. Color of curb d. Proposed use of parklet e. Business hours of operation f. Parklet Designer/ Architect/ Engineer/ Construction Firm contact (if applicable) g. Signage (if applicable) 8. Business Information a. Business Address b. City of Palo Alto Business License Number 9. Business Owner Information 10. Property Owner Information (if different than applicant) 11. Insurance Documents 12. Letter(s) of Support – A parklet applicant must get a letter of support from the neighboring ground-floor tenant(s) and 18building owner(s) if more than half of a marked parking space is not in front of the applicant’s storefront, or if any part of an unmarked parking space is not in front of the applicant’s storefront (see Figure 9). [Note to City: Draft template to be provided, still being drafted by staff]. a. If the tenancy and/or ownership of the neighboring property changes, Public Works may require the parklet sponsor to submit an updated letter of support to continue utilizing any space extending into a neighboring frontage regardless of the status of the parklet license at the time of change of ownership/tenancy. b. Consent to occupy neighboring space as part of a parklet permit is revocable by nature; and, if such support is revoked, or if parklet occupancy is not in accordance with the terms of any applicable law, these regulations, and/or any permit requirement, the parklet sponsor is responsible for the removal of any structure placed in the right of way under the parklet permit, including any applicable portion of the parklet permit extending into a neighboring frontage. c. Parklet sponsor must obtain an up-to-date letter of support for any future license renewals as requested by Public Works during future permit renewal processes. 13. Indemnity Acknowledgement Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 124     Source: City of San Francisco, 2022. Shared Spaces Manual. B. Failure to Maintain A parklet sponsor who fails to properly and sufficiently maintain the cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of their parklet may be subject to violations and fines. If maintenance issues are not resolved, the City may revoke the encroachment permit and the parklet sponsor may be required by the City to remove the parklet at their own expense. Figure 9: Example of Letter of Support Requirement Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 125     C. Utility Maintenance & Public Safety Because a parklet may sit atop buried utilities, there may be instances where a parklet will need to be removed to access a utility beneath it. In the event of necessary utility maintenance or the unlikely event of a utility failure such as a gas leak or water main break that threatens public safety, the City or utility owner may remove parklets with little or no notice. Parklet sponsors are responsible for the cost of re-installing and restoring any damage to the parklet. In instances of advanced notice (such as street repaving, planned maintenance, etc., the parklet sponsor may need to remove and reinstall the parklet at their sole expense. If the sponsor cannot remove the parklet, the City will remove the parklet. D. Parklet Removal If for some reason the parklet sponsor decides no longer wants to maintain a parklet, the parklet sponsor is responsible for notifying the City and removing it at the parklet sponsors’ own expense. Immediately upon removal the parklet area shall be cleaned and restored to its previous condition to the satisfaction of the City. E. Permit Fee, License Fee, and Deposit [Note: Fee methodology for permit and license annual or monthly fee is still to be determined]. Item 3 Attachment B Parklet Standards Council Reviewed October 2022     Packet Pg. 126     CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Joint Special Meeting Monday, May 08, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:00 PM     Agenda Item     6.Adopt an Ordinance and Resolution Continuing the Interim Parklet Program Until March 31, 2024; CEQA status – categorically exempt (Regulations 15301 and 15304) Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 127     2 0 7 7 City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 8, 2023 Report #:2304-1341 TITLE Adopt an Ordinance and Resolution Continuing the Interim Parklet Program Until March 31, 2024; CEQA status – categorically exempt (Regulations 15301 and 15304) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) and resolution (Attachment B) continuing the interim parklet program to March 31, 2024. BACKGROUND The City’s interim parklet program has been in effect since the summer of 2020 during the COVID pandemic. The program is authorized by an interim ordinance and resolution, which have been extended several times since then.1 Most recently, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5572 and Resolution 10081 in October 2022 to extend the interim parklet program through June 30, 2023.2 As the interim program continues, the City continues to develop more permanent standards for parklets. City staff across several departments, including Planning and Development Services, Public Works, and Fire, in conjunction with the City Manager’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office, have been working to develop these standards while continuing to manage the interim program. The City Council continues to provide substantive feedback on these standards, most recently on October 24, 2022 with the previous Council, and with the current Council on March 13, 2023, and March 27, 2023.3 1 See staff report from June 23, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020/id-11439.pdf 2 See Ordinance 5572: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/ordinances/ordinances-1909- to-present/2022/ord-5572.pdf Resolution 10081: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/resolutions/resolutions-1909-to- present/2022/reso-10081.pdf 3 See staff reports from October 24, 2022: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20221024/20221024pccsm-amended.pdf March 13, 2023: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=1091 March 27, 2023: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=12500 Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 128     2 0 7 7 ANALYSIS Adoption of this ordinance and resolution are required to allow parklets throughout the City to continue past June 30, 2023. This ordinance and resolution have no changes from their previous versions except to extend the sunset date to March 31, 2024. Extending the interim program through March 2024 will allow the interim program to continue uninterrupted until the permanent parklet program is adopted and rolled out to participating businesses. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Continued staff time will be required to manage the interim parklet program. However, no additional resources are anticipated at this time. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The City Council held discussions on parklets most recently at its public meetings on March 13 and 27, 2023, and heard extensive public comment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Adoption of this legislation is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Interim Ordinance Temporarily Continuing Expansion of Outdoor Dining Retail and Other Activities until March 31, 2024 Attachment B: Resolution Continuing the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program until March 31, 2024 APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 129     *NOT YET APPROVED* 268_20230426_ts24 1 Ordinance No. _____ Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Temporarily Continuing the Expansion of Outdoor Dining, Retail and Other Activities on Public and Private Property and Relaxing Regulations Regarding Onsite Parking, On-Sale of Alcohol, Design/Architectural Review, Permit Fees, and Alcohol Consumption in Public Places, All to Facilitate Such Outdoor Use The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On June 23, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5500, an emergency ordinance, in response to COVID-19 and its effects on local businesses. At that time and since then, county and state regulations related to COVID-19 have limited or curtailed many indoor activities, including dining, bars, retail, performances, and other recreational uses. B. In June 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5526, which amended and restated Ordinance 5500 on a non-emergency basis (among other changes). C. On November 8, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5533, which amended and restated Ordinance 5526 with a sunset date of June 30, 2022. D. In May 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5551, which amended and restated Ordinance 5533 to extend its provisions through December 31, 2022. E. In October and November 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5572, which amended and restated Ordinance 5551 to extend its parklet provisions through June 30, 2023 and the remainder of its provisions through December 31, 2023. F. The City Council now desires to amend and restate Ordinance 5572 to extend the parklet provisions of this ordinance until March 31, 2024. The remainder of the ordinance will sunset on December 31, 2023 as previously adopted. SECTION 2. City Manager Authorization The City Manager or his or her designee(s) may promulgate guidelines and implementing regulations for the uses and programs described in this Ordinance as long as such regulations do not conflict with this Ordinance. // Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 130     *NOT YET APPROVED* 268_20230426_ts24 2 SECTION 3. Fee Waivers for Encroachment Permits and Parking Space Closures A. The permit fees set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule are temporarily waived for applications for encroachment permits under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.12.010 and Section 12.12.020, as modified by this Ordinance, to place structures and equipment in the public right-of-way (including closed streets and sidewalks) for purposes of outdoor dining and outdoor retail sales and display of wares. B. The parking space closure fee in the Municipal Fee Schedule collected by the Department of Planning and Development Services is temporarily waived for the use of a parking space(s) on-street or in a parking lot for purposes of outdoor dining and outdoor retail sales and display of wares as authorized through an encroachment permit, license, or agreement with the City. SECTION 4. Modified Review Process for Commercial Sidewalk Encroachment Permits Notwithstanding contrary provisions of PAMC Section 12.12.020, permits may be granted for commercial sidewalk encroachments for outdoor retail sales and display areas and outdoor eating areas. Permits for these purposes shall not be required to undergo and complete design review by the Planning Department described in subsection (d) of Section 12.12.020. Except as expressly modified herein, the provisions of Section 12.12.020 shall apply to commercial sidewalk encroachments. SECTION 5. Eating and Drinking Establishments Eating establishments, and drinking establishments may temporarily relocate some or all of their existing indoor seating capacity to outdoor seating capacity, as follows: A. Location. Outdoor eating areas may be placed in one or more of the following areas: 1. Public streets temporarily closed by the City of Palo Alto, through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section 12.12.010; 2. Sidewalks through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section 12.12.020, as modified by Section 4 of this Ordinance; 3. In on-street parking spaces approved for use as temporary parklets, in accordance with the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Project as first approved by Council Resolution No. 9909 and continued by subsequent resolutions; 4. Surface parking lots that currently provide required onsite parking for the eating/drinking establishment, through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning, or his or her designee, as described in subsections C and D of this Section, below; Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 131     *NOT YET APPROVED* 268_20230426_ts24 3 5. Other outdoor areas on the eating/drinking establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor seating in the establishment’s approved site plan or planning entitlement (such as landscaped areas), through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning, or his or her designee, in accordance with subsections C and D of this Section, below; and 6. In other areas that the Council identifies by resolution or ordinance. B. Use of Private Parking Lots – Temporary Reduction of Parking Requirements. 1. Notwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to eating/drinking establishments in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for eating/drinking establishments, an eating/drinking establishment may place outdoor eating areas in its parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles. If the establishment’s parking lot has ten or fewer parking spaces, up to 100 percent of the parking lot may be used for outdoor eating, subject to review and approval of the Planning Director or his or her designee. 2. Notwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to shopping centers and their tenant businesses in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for shopping centers or their tenant businesses, a shopping center with an eating/drinking establishment tenant(s) may place outdoor eating areas for such tenant business(es) in the shopping center parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles. C. Application. An application in a form approved by the Director of Planning shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department to relocate some or all of an eating/drinking establishment’s permitted indoor restaurant seating to outdoor seating in privately-owned areas on the eating/drinking establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor eating. The Director of Planning is authorized to establish submittal requirements and procedures. Temporary Use Permits (TUP) under PAMC Section 18.42.050 may be utilized for this purpose. A TUP issued for this purpose may be valid for a specified period longer than 45 days, notwithstanding subsection (d) of Section 18.42.050. The Planning Director may extend a TUP issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance to be valid beyond 45 days. D. Seating Layout Review. A Seating Layout Review is required to relocate some or all of an eating/drinking establishment’s permitted indoor seating to outdoor seating in privately- owned areas on the eating/drinking establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor eating. The Seating Layout Review shall be conducted by a transportation planner, planner, and/or fire inspector who will review and either approve or require modifications to the proposed outdoor seating layout based on the following criteria: Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 132     *NOT YET APPROVED* 268_20230426_ts24 4 1. Seating layout does not create a safety risk and adequate pedestrian and vehicular separation is maintained, including with movable barriers as appropriate where outdoor seating is to be placed in parking lots or on-street parking spaces. 2. Seating layout accommodates appropriate vehicle and pedestrian circulation and maintains adequate paths of travel and complies with accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3. Any tents must comply with fire codes and Palo Alto Fire Department issued standards for tents, and safety standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association for fire-resistant tents and must include an affixed manufacturer’s label stating the tent meets NFPA requirements. A State Fire Marshal seal on the tent or a certificate is needed to prove treatment. 4. Any heaters must comply with fire codes. 5. An adequate and visible barrier is placed that clearly separates the retail area from the parking area and provides sufficient protection for patrons. Adequacy shall be defined in standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning. 6. Other requirements established in the standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning. E. Fee. No fee will be charged for submittal and review of the Application and for conducting a Seating Layout Review. F. Occupancy. Total seating occupancy (including all indoor and outdoor seating) shall not exceed the overall occupancy for which the restaurant is permitted. G. Alcohol Service. Establishments that are allowed by the City to serve alcohol for onsite consumption by issuance of a conditional use permit (“CUP”) as required by PAMC Section 18.42.090 or as a legal nonconforming use, and that both have an on-sale license from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) and are duly authorized by ABC to serve alcohol in outdoor areas, shall be allowed to serve alcohol for onsite consumption in such outdoor areas, notwithstanding any prohibition on outdoor alcohol service or consumption in the PAMC or planning entitlement issued under Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC. During the effective period of this Ordinance, establishments that meet the preceding requirements may expand their footprint to outdoor areas without an amendment of the CUP, notwithstanding PAMC Section 18.42.090(c). Outdoor alcohol service shall be in full compliance with ABC regulations, as amended. Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 133     *NOT YET APPROVED* 268_20230426_ts24 5 H. No Architectural Review. Notwithstanding PAMC Sections 18.77.077 and 18.76.020, architectural review shall not be required for proposed outdoor eating areas or signage related to such areas during the effective period of this Ordinance. SECTION 6. Retail Establishments Retail establishments may temporarily relocate some or all of their existing customer-accessible square footage to outdoor spaces as follows: A. Location. Outdoor retail sales and display areas and outdoor eating areas may be placed in one or more of the following areas: 1. Public streets temporarily closed by the City of Palo Alto, through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section 12.12.010; 2. Sidewalks through issuance of an encroachment permit under PAMC Section 12.12.020, as modified by Section 4 of this Ordinance; 3. Surface parking lots that currently provide required onsite parking for the retail establishment, through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning, or his or her designee, as described in subsections C and D of this Section, below; 4. Other outdoor areas on the retail establishment site not originally permitted for retail sales and display or dining in the retail establishment’s approved site plan or planning entitlement (such as landscaped areas), through issuance of an approval by the Director of Planning or his or her designee in accordance with subsections C and D of this Section, below; and 5. In other areas that the Council identifies by resolution or ordinance. B. Use of Private Parking Lots – Temporary Reduction of Parking Requirements. 1. Notwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to retail establishments in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for retail establishments, a retail establishment may conduct outdoor retail sales and display and may place outdoor eating areas in its parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles. If the establishment’s parking lot has ten or fewer parking spaces, up to 100 percent of the parking lot may be used for outdoor dining/retail, subject to review and approval of the Planning Director or his or her designee. 2. Notwithstanding the parking requirements applicable to shopping centers and their tenant businesses in Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC or in individual planning entitlements or approvals for shopping centers or their tenant businesses, a shopping Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 134     *NOT YET APPROVED* 268_20230426_ts24 6 center with a retail establishment tenant(s) may place outdoor retail sales and display areas and outdoor eating areas for such tenant business(es) in the shopping center parking lot, so long as at least half of the parking spaces on the subject site remain available for use by vehicles. C. Application. An application in a form approved by the Director of Planning shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department to relocate some or all of a retail establishment’s customer-accessible square footage to outdoor retail sales and display in privately-owned areas on the retail establishment site not originally permitted for outdoor retail sales and display. The Director of Planning is authorized to establish submittal requirements and procedures. Temporary Use Permits (TUP) under PAMC Section 18.42.050 may be utilized for this purpose. A TUP issued for this purpose may be valid for a specified period longer than 45 days, notwithstanding subsection (d) of Section 18.42.050. The Planning Director may extend a TUP issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance to be valid beyond 45 days. D. Merchandise or Seating Layout Review. A Layout Review is required to relocate some or all of an retail establishment’s permitted indoor customer-accessible square footage to privately-owned areas on the retail establishment site not originally permitted for retail. The Layout Review shall be conducted by a transportation planner, planner, and/or fire inspector who will review and either approve or require modifications to the proposed retail layout based on the following criteria: 1. The placement of the merchandise, displays, or other items does not create a safety risk and adequate pedestrian and vehicular separation is maintained, including with movable barriers as appropriate where outdoor seating is to be placed in parking lots or on-street parking spaces. 2. The layout accommodates appropriate vehicle and pedestrian circulation and maintains adequate paths of travel and complies with accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 3. Any tents must comply with fire codes and Palo Alto Fire Department issued standards for tents, and safety standards set forth by the National Fire Protection Association for fire-resistant tents and must include an affixed manufacturer’s label stating the tent meets NFPA requirements. A State Fire Marshal seal on the tent or a certificate is needed to prove treatment. 4. Any heaters must comply with fire codes. 5. An adequate and visible barrier is placed that clearly separates the retail area from the parking area and provides sufficient protection for patrons. Adequacy shall be defined in standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning. Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 135     *NOT YET APPROVED* 268_20230426_ts24 7 6. Other requirements established in the standards and guidelines issued by the Director of Planning. E. Fee. No fee will be charged for submittal and review of the Application and for conducting a Layout Review. F. No Architectural Review. Notwithstanding PAMC Sections 18.77.077 and 18.76.020, architectural review shall not be required for proposed outdoor retail areas or signage related to such areas during the effective period of this Ordinance. SECTION 7. Compliance with Other Regulations, Orders and Approvals The uses of public and private property allowed in this Ordinance shall be conducted in compliance with any applicable state or county mandate (including executive orders and health orders), this Ordinance, Resolution No. 9909 and its successors, and all other local and state regulations, orders, and approvals, as applicable (collectively, “Applicable Law”). Any approval, allowance or permit to conduct such temporary outdoor use(s) shall be subject to revocation by the issuing City official if the use is conducted in violation of Applicable Law, or poses a threat to public health, safety or welfare. SECTION 8. No Vested Rights The outdoor uses of public and private property allowed in this Ordinance are temporary and shall be terminated upon the earlier of the date stated in the applicable permit/approval or the expiration of this interim Ordinance, unless earlier revoked by the City Manager or other authorized official (or their designee) or terminated by action of the City Council. The City may discontinue one or more, or all, of the allowed outdoor uses at any time if the City Manager or designee determines that the public health, safety or welfare warrant such action. Nothing in this Ordinance shall establish a vested right. SECTION 9. Suspension of Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption in Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza Notwithstanding PAMC Sections 22.04.330 and 22.04.331, the City Manager is authorized to suspend the prohibition on consumption of alcoholic beverages in the parking lots adjacent to Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza. SECTION 10. Use of City Parking Lots for Reopening Activities A. The City Manager, or his or her designee (“City Manager”), is authorized to permit outdoor dining, retail and other activities necessary to facilitate the reopening of businesses, in public parking lots owned by the City, subject to the City Manager’s adoption of rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards for such use (“Regulations”), and publication of such Regulations on the City’s website. Use of parking lots, or portions Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 136     *NOT YET APPROVED* 268_20230426_ts24 8 thereof, by a business shall require a license or other agreement, including an agreement to indemnify and hold harmless the City, and provision of insurance. B. The City Manager is authorized to waive any fee in the Municipal Fee Schedule associated with the temporary use of parking areas for the purposes identified in Section A above. C. Notwithstanding PAMC Section 9.04.020, the City Manager is authorized to suspend the prohibition on consumption of alcoholic beverages in any City owned parking lot. SECTION 11. Personal Services, Indoor Recreation and Other Uses The authorized outdoor uses of public and private spaces authorized in this Ordinance may be applied to personal services, indoor recreation and other uses. Prior to authorizing these additional activities to occur, the City Manager, or his or her designee (“City Manager”), shall adopt rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards for these uses, and publish them on the City’s website. SECTION 12. Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 13. Environmental Review The Council finds that the Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment). SECTION 14. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be effective 31 days after adoption. The provisions of this Ordinance allowing temporary parklets shall remain in effect until March 31, 2024 unless otherwise modified, repealed or extended by the City Council. The remainder of this Ordinance shall remain in effect until December 31, 2023 unless otherwise modified, repealed or extended by the City Council. SECTION 15. Uncodified This Ordinance shall not be codified. Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 137     *NOT YET APPROVED* 268_20230426_ts24 9 SECTION 16. Supercedes Ordinance 5572. As of the effective date of this Ordinance, this Ordinance shall supercede Ordinance 5572, and any conflict shall be resolved in favor of this Ordinance. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works ____________________________ Director of Planning & Development Services Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 138     *NOT YET ADOPTED* 269_20230426_ts24 1 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Continuing the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program as Continued by Resolution 10081 R E C I T A L S A. On June 23, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 9909 in response to COVID-19 and its effects on local businesses. Resolution 9909 created a Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program and also permitted the City Manager to temporarily close certain streets. At that time and since then, county and state regulations related to COVID-19 have limited or curtailed many indoor activities, including dining, bars, retail, and other recreational uses. B. On June 7, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 9962, which amended and restated Resolution 9909 on a non-emergency basis (among other changes). C. On October 18, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 9992, which amended and restated Resolution 9962 to continue the pilot program until June 30, 2022. D. On May 9, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 10036, which amended and restated Resolution 9962 to continue the pilot program until December 31, 2022. E. On October 24, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution 10081, which amended and restated Resolution 10036 to continue the pilot program until June 30, 2023. F. The City Council now intends to extend the pilot program through March 31, 2024 through this Resolution. G. This Resolution, like its predecessors, implements a temporary parklet program authorized by Ordinance 5526 and its successor ordinances. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The Council hereby adopts the above Recitals as findings of the Council. SECTION 2. Pilot Parklet Program and Design Requirements. The City Council hereby approves the temporary use of on-street parking spaces in Palo Alto for parklets Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 139     *NOT YET ADOPTED* 269_20230426_ts24 2 under the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program as first described Resolution 9909 and continued by its successor resolutions. A. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or his or her designee (the “Director”), is delegated the authority to exercise their discretion to approve specific parklet locations, plans, designs, materials, and standards, and amendments thereto. The plans and designs shall be signed by the Director. Any existing parklet locations, plans, designs, materials, standards, and amendments to the Parklet Standards and Requirements approved by the Director under the authority of Resolution 9909 and/or its successors shall remain valid under the authority of this Resolution unless otherwise amended, rescinded, or modified in any other way. B. The Director is authorized to issue implementing guidelines and regulations for the Pilot Parklet Demonstration Program, and to approve amendments to the Parklet Standards and Requirements as the Director in his or her discretion deems necessary and proper. Any existing guidelines, regulations, or amendments issued by the Director under the authority of Resolution 9909 and/or its successors shall remain valid under the authority of this Resolution unless otherwise amended, rescinded, or modified in any other way. C. A valid encroachment permit issued under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.12.010 is required to operate a parklet under this Program. The Director may approve a parklet application through issuance of an Encroachment Permit, subject to the general regulations in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.12.010 and the following criteria and procedures: 1. Use. Parklets shall be restricted to outdoor eating areas of eating establishments. 2. Application and Review. A complete application for a parklet encroachment permit shall be reviewed by City staff for a determination as to whether such application complies with the Parklet Standards and Requirements. The application shall include all information necessary for a determination on the application including, but not limited to a certificate of insurance and a hold harmless and indemnity agreement in favor of the City shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.08.120. The Director shall grant or deny the application. Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 140     *NOT YET ADOPTED* 269_20230426_ts24 3 3. Conditions. Conditions of approval may be imposed on parklet encroachment permits to maintain the public health, safety and welfare. 4. Revocation. The Director may revoke a parklet encroachment permit if he or she determines that the conditions of the permit, the provisions of this Resolution, or any applicable regulation, ordinance, or provision of the Municipal Code are being violated, or if the municipal use of the area is required for reasons of public health, safety, welfare or convenience. The permittee shall be notified of an intent to revoke the permit and shall be entitled to a hearing before the Director whose decision shall be final. 5. Existing Permits. Any parklet encroachment permit issued under the authority of Resolution 9909 and/or its successors shall remain valid under the authority of this Resolution unless such a permit is otherwise amended, revoked, or modified in any other way. SECTION 3. Rules and Regulations. In addition to the authority given to the Director of Public Works and his or her designee in Section 2 of this Resolution, the City Manager is authorized to enact any rule or regulation or implementing guidelines to effectuate and implement this Resolution. SECTION 4. Compliance with Other Regulations, Orders and Approvals. The uses of public and private property allowed in this Resolution shall be conducted in compliance with any applicable state or county mandate (including executive orders and health orders), and all other local, county, and state regulations, orders, and approvals, as applicable (collectively, “Applicable Law”). Any approval, allowance or permit to conduct such temporary outdoor use(s) shall be subject to revocation by the issuing City official if the use is conducted in violation of Applicable Law, or poses a threat to public health, safety or welfare. SECTION 5. No Vested Rights. The uses allowed in this Resolution are temporary and shall be terminated upon the earlier of the date stated in the applicable permit/approval or the expiration of this Resolution, unless earlier revoked by the City Manager or other authorized official (or their designee) or terminated by action of the City Council. The City may discontinue one or more, or all, of the allowed uses at any time if the City Manager or designee determines that the public health, safety or welfare warrant such action. Nothing in this Resolution shall establish a vested right. SECTION 6. The Council finds that this Resolution is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment). Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 141     *NOT YET ADOPTED* 269_20230426_ts24 4 SECTION 7. This Resolution supersedes Resolution 10081. Any conflict between this Resolution and Resolution 10081 shall be resolved in favor of this Resolution. SECTION 8. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon approval and shall remain in effect until March 31, 2024 unless otherwise modified, repealed or extended by the City Council. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Public Works _____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 3 Attachment C CMR May 8 2023     Packet Pg. 142     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 6 2 3 9 5 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 28, 2023 Report #: 2305-1569 TITLE Discuss Work Plan to Amend the Palo Alto Zoning Code to Implement Housing Element Programs 1.1 and 3.4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Receive a draft work plan and schedule to prepare amendments to Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), to implement Program 1.1 (Adequate Sites Inventory) and Program 3.4 (Housing Incentive Program) of the 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element 2. Provide feedback to staff and consultants. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Programs in the recently adopted Housing Element necessitate certain amendments to the Zoning Ordinance over the next several years. This report represents a draft work plan to implement two key programs to facilitate housing production, meet the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), and affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) in Palo Alto. According to Housing Element Law, the rezonings in Program 1.1A to meet the RHNA must be completed within one year of the required Housing Element adoption date (i.e., by January 31, 2024). According to the adopted Housing Element, the City is also committed to completing Program 1.1B (GM and ROLM rezonings) by January 31, 2024, and Program 3.4 (Housing Incentive Program), by December 31, 2024 (though the proposed schedule also aims for January 31, 2024). BACKGROUND On May 8, 2023, at a joint public hearing, the PTC recommended that the City Council adopt-- and subsequently the City Council adopted -- the 2023-2031 Housing Element. The Element aims Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 143     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 6 2 3 9 5 to implement State Housing Element law, including meeting the RHNA and fulfilling AFFH objectives. It includes two key programs that necessitate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Program 1.1A: Adequate Sites Inventory The Housing Element includes an inventory of available land that is appropriately zoned and suitable for housing development to accommodate the City’s RHNA, as required by State law. After identifying sites that already allowed for multi-family use, the City’s analysis shows a remaining total shortfall of 4,542 units. Therefore, the adopted Element identifies required rezoning on specific housing opportunity sites to make up the difference. Ultimately, the Element demonstrates that, with the rezonings described herein, there is an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate the city’s RHNA of 6,086 units, plus a small surplus. Program 1.1A, excerpted in Attachment A, represents the required rezoning to meet the RHNA. In summary, it includes: •Rezonings of commercial districts to allow housing as a permitted use •Up-zonings to increase densities, including on Stanford Lands •Modifications to other development standards to ensure that development is feasible at current and planned densities •Statutory requirements that residential uses occupy at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project within a mixed-use zone Program 1.1A aligns with the nine rezone strategies described in Chapter 3 of the Housing Element, to ensure that the City's inventory sites are appropriately zoned, including density1 and other development standards, to accommodate housing: 1. General upzoning of sites that allow for multi-family residential use to increase density (e.g., upzoning RM-30 opportunity sites to RM-40 density levels) 2. Upzoning sites located within ½ mile of a CalTrain station to allow densities equivalent to 40-50 units per acre 3. Upzoning sites within ½ mile of high-frequency bus transit corridors to allow densities equivalent to 40 units per acre 4. Rezoning parking lots owned by the City to accommodate affordable housing 5. Rezoning vacant parcels and surface parking surrounding local faith-based institutions to accommodate housing at higher densities equivalent to 30 units per acre and with development standards to support this density 6. Rezoning sites within the General Manufacturing (GM) zone to accommodate housing with densities equivalent to 72 units per acre (see additional discussion below re: Program 1.1B) 1 The Housing Element expresses residential density in units per acre thresholds, consistent with HCD Guidelines. However, in Palo Alto residential density is generally only regulated in residential districts; most commercial mixed-use districts rely on floor area ratio (FAR) metrics. These zoning amendments will likely maintain those distinctions. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 144     Item No. 4. Page 3 of 6 2 3 9 5 7. Upzoning sites within Research, Office, and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone to allow densities equivalent to 72 units per acre and related changes to development standards, including landscape coverage, parking, FAR, and building height (see additional discussion below re: Program 1.1B) 8. Upzoning three sites owned by Stanford University to accommodate housing at higher densities and building heights, and to establish design standards 9. Rezoning additional sites identified by City staff to accommodate housing at higher densities. Various land use controls or development standards work in tandem to create a building envelope. Some of these density increases will require commensurate changes in other development standards. Chapter 4 of the Housing Element analyzed potential constraints of existing development standards to achieving current densities. This revealed that some development standards represent constraints to development at current or planned densities. Most notably, this includes coverage requirements that necessitate landscaped open space at the ground-level. For the GM and ROLM opportunity sites, undergoing larger density increases, this also includes parking, FAR, height. Since these rezonings are required to meet the RHNA, they must be approved within 1 year of the statutory deadline for adopting a Housing Element (i.e., January 31, 2024). Program 1.1B: GM and ROLM Rezoning This program, also excerpted in Attachment A, identifies additional rezoning, beyond what is required to meet the RHNA. This program proposes to facilitate housing production within the GM/ROLM zone by allowing densities of up to 90 units per acre (rather than 72 units per acre cited in Program 1.1A) on properties nearest Bayshore Freeway and generally bounded by East Charleston Road and Loma Verde Avenue. This action will require additional changes to the related development standards (i.e., parking, landscape coverage, building height, floor area ratio) to accommodate higher-density development. For sites in this Bayshore Freeway area, Program 1.1B will supersede the density and development standards changes identified in Program 1.1A. Program 3.4: Housing Incentive Program This program aims to expand and extend the Housing Incentive Program (HIP), as described in Attachment B. The HIP was enacted in 2019 as a local alternative to the State Density Bonus law. It provides development incentives including no limit on dwelling units per acre, increased floor area ratios, and increased lot coverage. It also requires Architectural Review (unless projects meet objective design standards and qualify for the new streamlined review). Currently, the HIP is only applicable in the commercial mixed-use districts, including CD-C, CN, CS, and CC(2) zones, which includes much of Downtown, California Avenue, El Camino Real, and San Antonio Road. Program 3.4 seeks to expand development incentives in the HIP and extend the program to multifamily residential districts (i.e., RM districts and portions of the ROLM/GM district) to Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 145     Item No. 4. Page 4 of 6 2 3 9 5 facilitate housing production. Program 3.4 also calls for the preparation of a feasibility study to analyze the physical feasibility of current zoning standards to achieve different housing types (e.g., townhomes, apartments) and the financial feasibility of these resulting prototypical housing types. Preliminary results of the feasibility study were identified in Chapter 4 of the Housing Element, regarding land use controls. City staff will share the final results of these studies. Finally, Program 3.4 calls for revisions to the Retail Preservation Ordinance to waive the requirement for housing opportunity sites and allow projects using the HIP option to reduce their retail replacement requirements (except within key commercial areas, such as University Avenue and California Avenue). Implementation of Program 3.4 is slated to be completed by December 31, 2024 according to the adopted Housing Element. However, this work plan proposes to align the HIP amendments with the zoning amendments described in Program 1.1 (i.e., complete by January 31, 2024) in order to encourage housing production earlier in the Housing Element planning period. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Government Code Section 65300.5 requires general plan elements to be internally consistent. Further, Government Code Section 65860 requires zoning ordinances to be consistent with the general plan. The recently adopted Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan identifies planned changes to uses and densities that will need to be updated in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan so that they are internally consistent. These changes will ensure that the zoning amendments will be consistent with the Land Use Element as well as the Housing Element. ANALYSIS City staff developed a draft work plan to accomplish the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments in the next 6 months. This is a short timeframe but acknowledges that community members and other stakeholders have already weighed in, and the PTC and City Council have already considered and approved the amendments in concept. Now the community and decision- makers are requested to consider and adopt the specific changes. A series of overlapping study sessions and hearings with the Architectural Review Board, PTC, and City Council, as illustrated in Figure 1, are proposed to allow time for refinement, while meeting required deadlines. The amendments associated with Program 1.1 are more clearly specified in the Housing Element and are therefore expected to be more straightforward for the PTC to consider. City staff expect to create a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance to codify these changes for housing inventory sites. In contrast, the amendments associated with Program 3.4 are expected to generate more discussion. The PTC will want time to review and consider the results of the physical and financial feasibility testing. Therefore, a study session with the PTC is proposed prior to the public hearing Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 146     Item No. 4. Page 5 of 6 2 3 9 5 to consider the amendments. Additionally, the schedule includes a study session with the Architectural Review Board so it can review the results of the physical feasibility testing and consider potential changes to development standards as part of the HIP. Figure 1: Draft Meeting Schedule for Zoning Ordinance Amendments FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The implementation of the Housing Element will require staff resources to complete zoning amendments and program implementation and to prepare studies. This involves greater staff resources and the use of consultants for the studies. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Preparation of the Housing Element included a range of community outreach methods, including surveys, Working Group meetings, community workshops, and public hearings. Hundreds of community members have participated in the Housing Element update over the course of the Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 147     Item No. 4. Page 6 of 6 2 3 9 5 project. To announce the release of the Public Review draft, an email blast was sent to over 400 recipients with information about the Public Review draft release. Meetings included a November 16, 2022 Community Meeting, a November 28, 2022 joint City Council/PTC meeting, a March 8, 2023 PTC hearing, and the May 8, 2023 joint City Council/PTC hearing. The City’s Housing Element website, www.paloaltohousingelement.com, serves as the library for draft and final documents, past and upcoming meetings. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consultants prepared an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element. This includes the implementation of Program 1.1 and Program 3.4 and the associated increase in housing production including and beyond what was projected by the RHNA and Housing Element sites inventory. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS None. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Housing Element Program 1.1: Adequate Sites Inventory Attachment B: Housing Element Program 3.4: Housing Incentive Program AUTHOR/TITLE: Jean Eisberg, Consultant Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 148     5-4 5.6 GOAL 6.0 – FAIR HOUSING Promote equal opportunity in all City housing types (ownership and rental, market rate and affordable) for all residents to have safe and accessible housing. POLIC Y 6.1 Support programs and agencies that seek to eliminate housing discrimination. (Existing Policy H4.1) POLIC Y 6.2 Conduct fair housing outreach and education for residents, property owners, and housing providers to ensure each understands their rights and responsibilities. POLIC Y 6.3 Identify mechanisms to increase production and access to housing. POLIC Y 6 .4 Enforce notification and relocation assistance requirements for low income households displaced due to demolition, condominium conversion, and persons displaced due to code enforcement activities of illegally converted or substandard residential dwellings. POLIC Y 6.5 Support and provide ways to empower community members to participate in community development. 5.7 PROGRAMS & IMPLEMENTING OBJECTIVES PROGRAM 1 : MAINTAIN SITES . Programs that identify adequate sites, with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate Palo Alto’s RHNA allocation for each income level: P ROGRAM 1 .1 : A DEQUATE S ITES P ROGRAM Through zoning and comprehensive plan designations, the City maintains a residential site inventory that is adequate to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs. The City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is 6,086 units (1,556 units for very-low income, 896 units for low income, 1,013 units for moderate income, and 2,621 units for above moderate income). With anticipated pipeline projects (778 units) and projected accessory dwelling unit production (512 units); a total of 1,290 units can be credited toward the City’s RHNA. Based on the City’s Site Inventory capacity analysis (see Appendix D), the remaining 4,796 units (1,869 lower-income, 773 moderate-income, 2,154 above moderate- income) can be achieved through various strategies to accommodate future housing needs. Specifically, the City is able to accommodate 1,575 units of the remaining RHNA obligation with sites with appropriate zoning and development standards, in the following income categories (298 very low, 304 low, 335 Item 4 Attachment A Housing Element Excerpt 06-07- 23-Program 1     Packet Pg. 149     5-5 moderate, and 638 above moderate income). Therefore, the City has a remaining shortfall of sites for 4,511 units (1,258 very low, 592 low, 678 moderate, and 1,983 above moderate income) that must be accommodated with rezoning and upzoning. Responsible Agency: Planning and Development Services Funding Sources(s): General Fund Implementing Objective: A. Amend the Comprehensive Plan and zoning districts as needed for properties identified to meet the City’s RHNA obligations. The amendments include changes to allow increased residential densities shown in Appendix D in developments and relevant development standards to accommodate increased density, and modifications to allowable uses to permit multi-family residential uses where it is not currently allowed. Examples of possible changes include adjustments to building height, lot coverage, floor area ratios, ground floor landscaping requirement, and parking, as discussed in Chapter 4, Analysis of Land Use Controls. The rezone/upzoning shall include the following provisions of Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i) for sites accommodating lower incomes: (1) By-right development of multi-family developments in which 20 percent or more of units are affordable to lower income households and no subdivision is needed; (2) Accommodation of at least 16 units per site; (3) Minimum density of 20 units per acre; (4) Because 50 percent of the lower-income need cannot be accommodated on sites designated for residential use only, a portion shall be accomodated on sites zoned for mixed uses that allow 100 percent residential use, and require that residential use occupy at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project. The rezoning includes the following requirements for these Stanford-owned properties: i. For the housing opportunity site located at the corner of Pasteur Drive and Sand Hill Road and the adjoining property at 1100 Welch Road, as an alternative to the State Density Bonus law, amend zoning regulations to allow approximately net new 425 units up to 85 feet in height; redevelopment of the Welch Road property shall comply with the replacement housing provisions of the Housing Crisis Act, which will substantially protect tenants from displacement. ii. For the housing opportunity site located at 3128 El Camino Real (McDonald’s), as an alternative to the State Density Bonus law, amend zon ing regulations to allow at least 144 housing units with a maximum height of 50 feet nearest El Camino Real and transitioning taller away from the street to minimize a wall effect; allow a minimum of 315 housing units if combined with an adjacent property. iii. For the housing opportunity site located at 3300 El Camino Real, as an alternative to the State Density Bonus law, allow up to 200 housing units, up to a 1.4:1 floor area ratio (FAR) with a 20% inclusionary housing requirement consistent with the City’s Planned Home Zoning process; commercial office approved or permitted on this property is in addition to the floor area allowed for the future housing project. Item 4 Attachment A Housing Element Excerpt 06-07- 23-Program 1     Packet Pg. 150     5-6 Time Frame: Complete by January 31, 2024 Quantified Objective: The City will amend the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation of 291 properties located in commercial, industrial or residential zoning districts that combined will generate a realistic yield for 5,537 housing units. B. Rezone ROLM and GM zoned properties to allow multi-family residential housing with a density of 90 dwelling units per acre for those properties nearest Bayshore Freeway and generally bounded by East Charleston Road and Loma Verde Avenue. This action will require additional changes to the related development standard to accommodate higher density development. Examples of specific changes to development standards are discussed in Chapter 4, Analysis of Land Use Controls. Time Frame: Complete by January 31, 2024 Quantified Objective: The City will rezone approximately 146 sites in the designated area, including the already identified housing inventory sites, to allow for development at 90 dwelling units per acre. C. Maintain an updated inventory of housing sites and actively promote sites available for lower- and moderate-income housing development to potential developers, private and non-profit organizations, and other interested persons. Post information on the City’s website and update as necessary to maintain accurate information. D. Maintain an updated list of residential housing projects that have been submitted, approved, and denied throughout the housing cycle. Time Frame: Post information on the City’s website by January 2024 and update annually, or more often if needed. Quantified Objective: Support the development of 1,556 units for very-low income, 896 units for low income, 1,013 units for moderate income, and 2,621 above-moderate households during the planning period. E. Provide technical assistance and information on parcels available for lower-income developments to private or non-profit housing developers. Technical assistance includes land development counseling by staff planners. Time Frame: Develop technical assistance program by June 2024 and set/publish regular hours for assistance on the City’s website. Quantified Objective: Support the development of 1,556 units for very-low income, 896 units for low income households during the planning period. Primary Associated Goals and Policies: Goals: 2, 3, 4 Policies: 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, 4.4 Item 4 Attachment A Housing Element Excerpt 06-07- 23-Program 1     Packet Pg. 151     5-20 P ROGRAM 3.4 : H OUSING I NCENTIVE P ROGRAM (HIP) The HIP was enacted in 2019 as an alternative to the State Density Bonus law and provides development incentives including no housing density restrictions, increased floor area ratios and increased lot coverage. This program seeks to expand the suite of development incentives and extend the program to residential districts. Responsible Agency: Planning and Development Services Funding Sources(s): General Fund Implementing Objectives: A. Continue to allow HIP projects to benefit from relaxed development standards including, increased floor area ratios and waiver from lot coverage requirements. Time Frame: Ongoing. Quantified Objective: Monitor development activity and document how many projects take advantage of the HIP as opposed to base district zoning standard or other State incentives, such as State Density Bonus law. B. HIP qualifying projects that also comply with City approved objective standards shall be administratively reviewed with one courtesy meeting before the Architectural Review Board but subject to appeal to the City Council. Time Frame: Ongoing. Quantified Objective: Monitor projects for compliance with desired review schedule, track application processing timelines and number of applications appealed to Council; use data to inform future modifications to the HIP program. C. Reduce the City’s parking requirements to be consistent with State Density Bonus law. Based on the findings of a feasibility study, modify the local Housing Incentive Program to amend development standards that promote greater housing production; ; allow for sites subject to the City’s retail preservation ordinance – except in the ground floor (GF) and retail (R) combining districts and strategic locations generally depicted in the draft South El Camino Real Design Guidelines – a reduction in the amount of retail replacement floor area needed for redevelopment and waive the retail preservation requirement for identified housing opportunity sites. D. Reduce the City’s parking requirements to be consistent with the State Density Bonus law. Based on the findings of a feasibility study, extend and amend the local Housing Incentive Program to multi-family residential districts to amend development standards that promote greater housing production. E. Based on the findings of a feasibility study, extend the local Housing Incentive Program to the ROLM and GM districts in northeast portion of the City nearest the Bayshore Freeway and generally bounded by East Charleston Road to the east and Loma Verde Avenue. The Housing Incentive Program development standards shall be amended to increase height and floor area allowances for housing projects; reduce parking Item 4 Attachment B Housing Element Excerpt 06-07- 23-Program 3     Packet Pg. 152     5-21 requirements, and adjustment to other development standards to enable greater housing production. Time Frame: Complete by December 31, 2024. Quantified Objective: Amend the municipal code and comprehensive plan to codify implementing objective; as with A and B above, monitor program and housing production generated from program – make adjustments as warranted. Primary Associated Goals and Policies: Goal: 2, 3, 4 Policies: 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.2, 4.4 Item 4 Attachment B Housing Element Excerpt 06-07- 23-Program 3     Packet Pg. 153     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: June 28, 2023 Report #: 2306-1674 TITLE Approval of Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim & Summary Minutes of May 31, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the meeting minutes. BACKGROUND Draft verbatim and summary minutes from the May 31, 2023 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting were made available to the Commissioners prior to the June 28, 2023 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed online on the City’s website at bit.ly/PaloAltoPTC. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 154