Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 13637 City of Palo Alto (ID # 13637) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/10/2022 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: NVCAP Concept Plan Review Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Staff Recommend the City Council Review the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Preferred Alternative, Take Public Comment, and Endorse the Preferred Alternative. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council review and confirm direction for the preferred plan for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). Executive Summary: On September 20, 2021, the City Council reviewed draft NVCAP alternative concepts, components of the different alternatives, the vision of the Working Group, and Council adopted goals for the NVCAP to select a preferred alternative. The Council, in their motion, included direction on 12 items for development in the preferred concept plan. This report describes the Council motion and how the motion affects the preferred plan selection. Staff seeks clarification and confirmation of those items, and ultimately Council’s endorsement of the preferred plan concepts. Once the preferred plan is confirmed, the City’s consultant will begin work on the draft plan and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. When completed, the draft plan and environmental review will be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for recommendation and the Council for adoption. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background: On September 20, 2021, City staff presented an overview of the NVCAP and a set of project alternatives to the City Council.1 This included the breakdown of the various components that made up the alternatives. This approach allowed for mixing and matching different elements from each of the three project alternatives to form the preferred plan that reflects Council’s interests. Following discussion regarding the various components of the alternatives and the objectives, the Council adopted the following motion2 verbatim for the NVCAP preferred plan: A. For Housing, to follow Alternative 1 plus going to 50-foot height in designated areas; B. For Office, to follow Alternative 1 and evaluate the need for amortization of some office uses; C. For Retail, incentivizing retail through parking requirements and other ways to encourage (or require) some ground floor retail on El Camino Real and Park Blvd.; D. For Park and Open Space, focus on a naturalized creek, Alternative 1 for other buffers, parks, bike paths, and pursue opportunities for park space in the plan area; E. Maintain a maximum 50-foot height limit with exception for 100% affordable housing, and consider other incentives for affordable housing; F. Allow higher density housing on the two largest properties in the NVCAP; G. Adaptive reuse of the historic structures subject to CEQA; H. Request staff to return with a recommendation on residential parking requirements based on the existing Fehr & Peers study and other context-based conditions; I. Commercial parking use a blended rate of one per 250 square feet; J. Staff to minimize additional expenditures needed to complete the NVCAP; K. Request staff to return with a researched revision or set of alternatives for jobs created per 1,000 square feet of office; and L. Direct staff to engage with the large property owners in order to meet the goals of this motion. The motion represented a milestone in the NVCAP process and starting point for confirming a preferred plan. On October 25, 2021, the City Council also considered a zoning code interpretation regarding the property generally referred to as 340 Portage; one of the larger parcels in the NVCAP plan area. Council postponed its consideration of the zoning interpretation related to the property but directed staff to begin conversations with representatives of the Sobrato Organization for 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council- agendas-minutes/2021/09-september/20210920/20210920pccr-amended-qa.pdf 2 Passed 5-2 for parts B, E, I & K and passed 6-1 for parts A, C, D, F-H & J) City of Palo Alto Page 3 the purpose of exploring a possible negotiated agreement regarding the future development of the site.3 While that effort is anticipated to be aligned with Council’s overall direction regarding NVCAP, the results of that effort are ongoing and not addressed in this report. The Council will receive an update on the ongoing conversations in the first quarter of 2022. Discussion: The discussion below outlines a preferred plan alternative based on the Council’s adopted motion. Staff wants to ensure that before preparing the preferred plan and evaluating the project consistent with CEQA, that we understand the direction from Council and receive an endorsement of the preferred plan. Additionally, this report identifies opportunities and constraints presented by aspects of the motion, where additional discussion is warranted for further refinement. Figure 1 and Attachment A (enlarged map) illustrate the draft preferred alternative. 3 October 25, 2021 Council Motion: A. Postpone formal interpretation of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) for four months, and; B. Direct Staff to begin conversations with representatives of the Sobrato Organization, possibly involving a Council ad hoc committee, and return to the Council within that same time period with a recommendation on whether or not to continue discussion on a possible negotiated agreement with the property owner for the future redevelopment of the property located at 3200 Park/340 Portage/Olive Avenue. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Figure 1: Draft Preferred Plan The tables below provide summary statistics for the draft preferred alternative. Table 1 estimates the number of housing units, commercial square footage, and park and open space area that could be generated by the alternative. The “realistic” buildout potential assumes redevelopment of a portion of “Tier 1” opportunity sites, which represents larger underutilized sites as described in previous reports. Table 1 reports the population, jobs, and other metrics generated as a result of the realistic potential buildout. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Table 1: Potential Development (Build Out Scenario if Plan is Realized) LAND USE EXISTING PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Housing Units - Maximum Potential 142 units 1,380 units Housing Units - Realistic Potential 142 units 670 units Office Commercial (sq. ft.) 744,000 466,000 Retail Commercial (sq. ft.) 111,200 103,700 Parks and Open Space (acres) (Realistic to Maximum Buildout) 0 2.0 to 5.2 # of Potential Redevelopment Sites (Range = Realistic to Maximum Sites Turning Over) - 11 to 21 Source: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office Data, Realquest.com Data, City of Palo Alto GIST Data, Accela Data, and City of Palo Alto, Planning and Development Services Staff. Table 2: Metrics Based on Realistic Potential EXISTING PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Below-Market Rate Housing Units (assumes 15% of total)1 23 100 Residential Population2 340 1,630 Office Jobs3 2,460 1,610 Retail Jobs3 200 160 Housing Units Needed to Support New Jobs - 30 Parks and Open Space (acres/1,000 new residents) (Realistic to Maximum Buildout) 0 1.6 to 1.7 1 The City requires new for-sale units to locate BMR units on-site; new rental housing typically pays an impact fee only. The current inclusionary requirement for ownership units income restricts 1/3rd of the units to 120% AMI and 2/3rds of the restricted units to 100% AMI. 2 Assumes vacancy rate of 5% and existing household size of 2.55 persons/unit. 3 Based on VTA Congestion Management Program job per square foot ratios 1.23 persons/household, sourced from 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, City of Palo Alto GIST Data, Accela Data, and City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services. The section below discusses thematic items that are the building blocks for selection of a preferred plan. Each item addresses a specific topic that is relevant to one or more motion items by the City Council. At the end of each item are a set of recommendations for the Council to consider. Two items of the motion—residential parking and job ratios—were requests for staff to return with additional information. City of Palo Alto Page 6 1. Housing and Housing Types: Transition commercial uses to residential and residential mixed uses. As in Alternative #1, allow low and higher density on the two largest project sites (395 Page Mill Road and 340 Portage Avenue) and the southern end of El Camino Real. Heights up to 50 feet would be permitted (55 feet where ground-floor retail; see Items 6 & 7). Housing types may include four to five story mid-rise residential/mixed-use development in these locations and up to 35-foot/3-story townhome development adjacent to existing lower density residential uses. (Motion Items A, E & F) The draft preferred plan proposes a “realistic” development potential for 530 additional residential dwelling units within the plan area or about 670 dwelling units in total. All existing zoning districts except for the General Manufacturing (GM) district permit housing within the plan area. Notably, at 340 Portage there are tradeoffs to determine between the desire for a creek amenity, adaptive reuse, and new residential development built on existing surface parking lots—it will be difficult to achieve all three at the densities described in this item. Based on existing zoning standards, the maximum height for housing projects in the NVCAP would generally range between 35 and 50 feet. For Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Service Commercial (CS) property, proximity to a residential district other than High Density Multiple- Family Residential district (RM-40) or a Planned Community (PC) zone would require a lower height. Based on the existing development standards, most of the plan area would be subject to a 35-foot height limit, except for properties located near El Camino Real/Acacia, El Camino Real/Portage and El Camino Real/Lambert intersections. Staff recommends that first floor retail spaces have a minimum 15-foot ceiling height, which is ideal for retailers. Implementing this requirement would affect the overall height of residential mixed-use buildings. While at 35 feet, ground floor retail and two upper of floors of residential are possible, it creates a cookie-cutter building form and lacks architecture variation. Local architects have indicated that additional height up to 40 feet for three-story residential mixed- use buildings and 55 feet for five-story residential mixed-use buildings allowed for the necessary space for required elements such as mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire sprinklers to meet building codes without resorting to eliminating an entire floor. In addition, the extra height allowed for more architectural expressions with parapets and cornices. Staff would anticipate that objective standards would control the design of the rooftops of the buildings. All residential mixed-use projects with ground-floor commercial space with residential above the retail space should be allowed an additional five feet in height to accommodate a taller first floor ceiling, accommodation of required code elements and provisions for architectural design quality. Based on the recommended building heights for the plan, it is anticipated that new development could result in low to mid-rise buildings that include townhouses, flat-style condos, apartments and mixed-use with commercial on the ground floor typologies. City of Palo Alto Page 7 These typologies were developed by the NVCAP project consultants, Perkins & Will and Strategic Economics, for the preliminary alternatives analysis. They identify the types, heights, densities of residential and mixed use typologies that are feasible and can be expected within the planning area. As recommended in the Council’s motion, the plan should allow for higher density housing on the largest properties (395 Page Mill Road and 340 Portage Avenue—Items 6 & 7). As shown in the Low-Rise Block typologies shown above, increase height limits to 50 feet to allow for 4-5 story buildings. At 340 Portage Ave., this 4- to 5-story typology will likely not be feasible if the cannery building is retained for adaptive reuse. To accommodate ground-floor retail, staff recommends an additional five feet (55 feet total) to allow adequate ground-floor ceiling height of approximately 15 feet, while still accommodating four floors of residential development above the ground floor. As a voluntary program, when property owners request additional height and density allowance, these large parcels would be required to provide park dedication, as discussed below. There are portions of the plan area along El Camino Real restricted to 35 feet because of their adjacency to lower density residential districts. To accommodate ground-floor retail, staff recommends an additional five feet (40 feet total) to allow adequate ground floor ceiling height of approximately 15 feet, while still accommodating two floors of residential development above the ground floor. Building massing compatibility with surrounding lower density residential (Single Family Residential [R-1]) can be achieved through compliance with objective design standards that include techniques such as a partial step down in height and daylight planes. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Extending similar development standards such as those found in the housing incentive program (i.e., no density limit, no maximum lot coverage, and increased floor area ratio) should be considered for housing sites throughout the plan area to allow for additional flexibility in limiting site constraints. Staff seeks confirmation and direction based on these recommendations. Item 1 Recommendations: • Realistic development potential of 530 dwelling units. • Rezoning of properties to accommodate plan objectives. • Higher densities on largest properties (395 Page Mill & 340 Portage). • Require minimum 15-foot first floor ceiling height for retail spaces. • Allow height up to 35 feet (applicable properties) and 50 feet. Allow additional height up to 40 (applicable properties) and 55 with ground-floor retail (minimum 15-foot first floor ceiling height) as indicated on map exhibit with massing compatibility development standards to allow four stories of housing above retail space. • Height up to 55 feet for housing projects on interior of 395 Page Mill & 340 Portage sites with massing compatibility development standards. • Townhouses to mid-rise building typologies. 2. Below Market Rate Housing: Support the development of more affordable housing by creating an NVCAP Height and Density Bonus available to 100%, deed-restricted, below- market rate housing and 100% deed-restricted workforce housing. Previous staff reports have explored a range of other policy options to support affordable housing which will be incorporated into the NVCAP. These include inclusionary housing and impact fee requirements, public funding, and alternatives models such as land trusts. (Motion Item E) Generating affordable housing is one of the key drivers of the plan and is generally supported by all stakeholders and decision-makers alike. For the NVCAP, staff recommends the following components to support the below market rate housing program: City of Palo Alto Page 9 Bonuses: This involves creating a plan specific height and density program, available to 100% deed-restricted, below market rate housing and 100% deed-restricted workforce housing. The bonus allows such developments height up to 70 feet, above the 50-foot maximum. The bonus is proposed along the southern stretch of El Camino Real and mid-block along Page Mill Road. The El Camino Real properties currently have no maximum on residential density, however, the property along Page Mill Road would need to have an extension of the housing incentive program or similar tool, where there is no limit to the maximum density, no limit to the lot coverage, and increases in the floor area ratio to 1.5:1. Inclusionary Housing: For-sale townhomes can likely support an increased inclusionary housing requirement, from 15 to 20%, based on Strategic Economics’ analysis. However, apartments and condominiums are generally feasible at the 15% limit. The current plan and financial feasibility analysis assume the continuation of the existing assessment methods: for-sale units meet the inclusionary housing requirements on-site and rental units would pay an in-lieu fee. Staff seeks concurrence or direction on the below market rate housing program for the NVCAP. Item 2 Recommendation • Confirm options for encouraging and implementing a below market rate housing program (bonus program). • 20% inclusionary requirement for townhomes (ownership). 15% inclusionary for other housing types (ownership and rental). 3. Office and Amortization: Consistent with the Council’s motion, office would follow Alternative 1 maintaining the current amount of office4 space and allowing for conversion to housing but without any timeline to abate the commercial use. The Council also directed staff to evaluate the need for amortization5 of some office space. The need to amortize office uses depends on Council policy interests. Staff does not anticipate most property owners in the study area would voluntarily convert existing office space to a residential use 4 Note that “office uses” as described herein include a range of employment classifications from the Zoning Ordinance including Administrative Office Services, Medical Office, Research & Development, General Business Office, Professional Office. These are the five categories of office use that are subject to the Annual Office Limit. 5 The process by which nonconforming uses and structures must be eliminated or made to conform to requirements of the current zoning regulations at the end of a certain period of time. This period of time, called the amortization period, allows the property owner a return on their investment in the property. City of Palo Alto Page 10 under the Alternative 1 housing policy as there is limited to no economic incentive to do so. To the extent Council wants to see more housing development in place of office in the NVCAP area, there would need to be significant adjustments to local zoning to allow taller, higher density housing or amortization of nonresidential uses, and potentially, a combination of the two. To the extent Council is interested in amortization – one approach would be to phase out nonresidential uses on currently zoned residential properties. This approach would apply to 340 Portage. As previously noted, a City Council Ad Hoc is meeting with property owner representatives and direction to amortize this specific site is premature pending the outcome of that discussion. Another approach would be to amortize the largest commercial office/R&D uses within the plan area to facilitate greater opportunity for housing development over a defined period of time. In addition to 340 Portage, this would also include 395 Page Mill Road. These two properties combined make up more than half of the total office area in the NVCAP boundary. Another similar approach is to establish a lower threshold to begin transitioning other nonresidential uses toward residential uses over time. Table 3 below summarizes those office spaces over 5,000 square feet in the plan area. The City Council could also take a more strategic approach and identify specific properties it would like to see transition to housing. Table 3: Office Uses Greater Than 5,000 Square Feet Address Zoning District Most Recent Use Office Square Footage 395 Page Mill Rd. ROLM (Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing) General Office 224,852 340 Portage Av. RM-30 (Multiple Family Residential) R&D/Warehouse 142,744 195 Page Mill Rd. GM (General Manufacturing) Mixed Use: Apartments/Offices 49,717 3101 Park Blvd. GM (General Manufacturing) General Office 40,000 3045 Park Blvd. GM (AD) (General Manufacturing with Automobile Dealership Combining District) Constructed in 2020. Unoccupied R&D space. 29,120 435/455 Portage Av. CS (Service Commercial) Research & Development 23,172 441 Page Mill Rd. CS (D)(Service Commercial with Site and Design Review) Mixed Use: Residential, unoccupied commercial 18,000 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Address Zoning District Most Recent Use Office Square Footage space 411 / 429 Acacia Av. CS (Service Commercial) General Office 12,067 3239 El Camino Real CS (Service Commercial) Mixed Use: Offices, Retail 8,288 3200 Ash St. CS (Service Commercial) General Office 7,900 290-300 Lambert Av. CS (Service Commercial) General Office 6,750 268 - 270 Lambert Av. CS (Service Commercial) General Office 6,228 412 Olive Av. GM (General Manufacturing) Office / Bank/ Clinic 5,693 Total 574,531 Source: Santa Clara County Assessors Office and City of Palo Alto, 2021. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Figure 2: Parcels with Office Uses Greater than 5,000 Square Feet To facilitate the conversion of office space, through the NVCAP process, the City could rezone parcels to prohibit office uses and identify alternative uses, such as a residential and commercial retail. Non-conforming spaces would have at least 15 years to amortize these uses, based existing amortization regulations in PAMC 18.70.070. Realistically, almost all sites will prepare and submit studies to request additional time to recoup investments. The City would likely wish to prepare its own studies and amortization schedules would need to be established on a case by case basis. As a result, amortization is likely to unfold over a 15 to 35+ year time frame. The City would need to identify funding for its own economic analyses of affected properties. Notably, amortization will be unpopular among most property owners. Previous economic analyses by Strategic Economics indicate the high lease values of office uses and the resulting high property values compared to other uses, including residential. Moreover, the two largest property owners have indicated they are interested in continuing office uses according to their City of Palo Alto Page 13 public comment letters at the September 20, 2021 City Council. Separately, a third property owner with multiple sites in the planning area has indicated to staff that they are not interested in reducing their R&D/office presence. However, they stated an interest in developing residential uses if they could maintain (rebuild) their existing commercial floor area. Item 3 Recommendations • Consider options for amortization, if desired: o Amortization by zoning district o Amortization by square footage threshold • If amortization is supported: o Rezone parcels to prohibit office uses and identify alternative uses such as residential, retail or retail like and public open space. o Non-conforming spaces would have at least 15-35 years to amortize office uses based on regulations contained in PAMC 18.70.070. When accounting for the age of construction, the amortization schedule is governed by the table within PAMC 18.70.070. o Sites with more recent improvements may prepare and submit studies to request additional time to recoup investments. 4. Retail Incentives: Allow ground floor commercial in all locations, focusing on key locations within the Plan area. Offer a five-foot bonus height for mixed-use projects with ground floor retail and three to four floors of residential above (between 40 and 55 feet) on the northern reach of Park Boulevard and the southern reach of El Camino Real to facilitate high-quality retail spaces and housing development. (Motion Item C) City Council Motion Item C recommended incentivizing retail through parking requirements and other ways to encourage or require ground floor retail along El Camino Real and Park Boulevard. For the greatest flexibility to locate retail, staff recommends allowing ground floor commercial in all locations (except the R-1 district). The plan also identifies ground floor retail along El Camino Real, and Park Boulevard. Additionally, staff recommends a five-foot bonus height to accommodate a minimum 15-foot ground floor ceiling height for retail within mixed-use buildings with three or floor floors of residential above the retail space. Taller ceilings are ideal for successful retailers to City of Palo Alto Page 14 accommodate customer preferences to feel less confined during a shopping experience. Having taller ceilings for the ground floor is also a critical part of what makes a building feel comfortable for pedestrians on the adjacent sidewalk. This would mean mixed-use buildings could have heights ranging between 40 and 55 feet (three to five stories). See Item #1 for further discussion regarding building form. New housing units can support approximately 15 square feet of retail per housing unit (assuming an internal capture rate of 25% of shopping within the plan area).6 Therefore, the 530 new housing units anticipated over the 20-year plan horizon could support 7,500 square feet of retail/retail like development, as previously presented. This equates to four to eight retail/retail like businesses within the plan area and is likely not enough retail floor area to generate synergies between uses or vibrancy in the neighborhood. At these levels, ground floor retail tends to be a “loss leader” since it does not generate revenues above development costs. The five-foot bonus would also allow a project to still develop four stories of residential development, above the ground-floor, which would improve feasibility of providing retail as an amenity (a loss leader) instead of as a revenue generator. To further incentivize retail or retail like uses, the first 1,500 square feet of retail space could be exempted from vehicle parking requirements. This is already in place for ground-floor retail in residential mixed-use developments in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C) zone, Community Commercial Subdistrict (CC(2)) zone, on CN and CS zoned sites abutting El Camino Real, and on CS zoned sites abutting San Antonio Road between Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road. Within the NVCAP, this is already applicable along El Camino Real properties. Allowing this exemption for retail uses regardless of whether the retail is within a building containing residential or confined to the ground-floor would be an expansion of the current exemption. This action could further spur retail development. Staff seeks confirmation of this approach. Other ways to incentivize are to consider fee reductions or fee waivers and/or reduced review times for building permits for qualified retail projects such as local businesses or other identified businesses. These actions may reduce a barrier to entry for smaller businesses. Item 4 Recommendations: • Allow retail in all zoning locations except for R-1. • Require retail in select areas as indicated on map (northern portion of Park Boulevard 6 According to Strategic Economics Draft Plan Alternatives Presentation: Retail Demand Analysis, December 27, 2019. City of Palo Alto Page 15 and El Camino Real). The existing Retail Preservation Ordinance (PAMC 18.40.180 still applies where applicable. • Require a minimium 15-foot ceiling height for the ground floor retail space for residential mixed use buildings. Provide a five foot bonus height for residential mixed- use buildings that provide ground floor retail and residential floors above. • The first 1,500 square feet of retail uses shall not be counted toward the vehicle parking requirement. • Consider fee reductions, fee waivers and/or reduced review times for building permits for qualified retail project such as local businesses. 5. Open Space: Accommodate (1) new public parks, and (2) other kinds of public open spaces, such as landscape buffers, plazas, and bike/ped paths, including woonerfs. Pursue several strategies for public open space development including land dedication requirements, incentives for publicly-accesible open spaces, impacts fees, public subsidy, easements on private property to support naturalization of Matedero Creek and pedestrian and bicycle connections, including woonerfs and other pedestrian/bike paths. This menu of options approach can provide options for developers and property owners while providing a range of public open spaces that support livability. (Motion Item D) The Council motion regarding public open space focused on a naturalizing Matadero Creek and then pursuing other opportunities for open space, including parks, landscape buffers, and bike paths. Given the minimal amount of development that can be expected under this preferred plan, the City will need to pursue several strategies and public initiatives to generate public open space in the planning area. Open Space Program The draft preferred plan distinguishes between new public parks and other types of public open spaces, including a linear park along Matadero Creek. Under these conditions, approximately 2.0 to 5.2 acres of parkland could be developed, under the realistic and maximum buildout scenarios, respectively. This equates to 1.6 acres/1,000 residents to 1.7 acres/1,000 residents, under realistic and maximum buildout, respectively.7 This range does not meet the 4 acres/1,000 residents aspired to in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum buildout open space concept is illustrated in Figure 3. 7 Figures 1 and 3 show a best-case scenario (the maximum buildout scenario) for how to generate public open spaces. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Figure 3. Public Open Space Concept Public Parks. Public parks are attainable through City acquisition or requirements for land dedication. The City could acquire parcels to turn into public parks. However, this is an expensive proposition based on land costs. Developers who develop public open space within their project sites could be exempt from paying park impact fees. Additionally, staff recommends that the NVCAP include a policy that enables impact fees collected within the planning area to be used with ¼-mile of the planning area. The draft preferred alternative is unlikely to generate substantial park impact fees; therefore, additional public subsidy (e.g., bond funds, CIP) will be required to fund acquisition. The Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Title 21) currently requires that subdivisions with 50+ units/lots dedicate open space. The 50+ unit threshold is derived from state law, which permits only the collection of in-lieu fees for subdivisions of 50 or fewer units. This ordinance could facilitate new parks if the largest properties redevelop with a subdivision (i.e, for sale units). However, there is also an option for projects that are subject to land dedication to pay an in- lieu fee that meet certain criteria. The City could explore removing the option of in-lieu fees for large subdivisions. Notably, amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance would apply citywide, not just in the NVCAP planning area. City of Palo Alto Page 17 The NVCAP could include a voluntary program for parcels over five acres (or a similarly large threshold) to dedicate land for public park (or privately maintain publicly accessible open space) when the property owner requests height and density increases outlined in Item 1. This would provide a voluntary way to achieve parkland for rental developments. At 340 Portage Avenue, 30% parkland dedication could generate 4.2 acres of parkland, including a linear park and trail along Matadero Creek, a woonerf on the privately-owned section of Portage Avenue, and a 2- acre public park adjacent to Matedero Creek, as shown in Figure 3. At 395 Page Mill Rd., a 10% parkland dedication could include retetion of the mature trees and bioswale along Olive Avenue. Additional parkland dedication, for example up to 30%, to allow for a large public park, could be achievable with more substantial repositioning of the office building parking garage, and surface parking lot. Notably, under the proposed land use plan, redevelopment is unlikely in the near term and these parks may not materialize. However, aside from site acquistion for public park, this is the strategy that can generate larger contiguous green open spaces. Other Open Spaces. Other open space areas, such as woonerfs/bike paths and other publicly accessible open space areas and plazas, could augment larger public parks: • Matadero Creek: The Council’s motion D focuses on naturalization of Matadero Creek. Five concepts for naturalization of the creek are included in the Matadero Creek Conceptual Alternative Analysis8. The preferred plan includes Concept 3. Naturalization of the creek would entail the demolition and removal of the existing U-shaped concrete flood wall, installation of an earthen channel bottom, riparian plantings, access for maintenance and recreation and flood walls to mitigated flood risk. Three of the concepts include integration of the creek with Boulware Park. Concept 1 and its alternative would expand the channel corridor to the extent of the existing Valley Water easement (60 feet), which is double the existing 30-foot U-shaped concrete channel. Concept 2 and its alternative would expand the channel corridor to 85 feet and include increased angled bank on one side. The area available for riparian plantings, creative landscape architecture design and recreation access would be increased along the modified left bank slope as well as across the channel bottom within the existing right- of-way. Concept 3 would expand the channel corridor to 100 feet. The area available for riparian 8 Matadero Creek Conceptual Alternative Analysis, WRA, Inc. September 2020 City of Palo Alto Page 18 plantings, creative landscape architecture design and recreation access would be increased along the margin of the low elevation channel bottom adjacent to the inset geomorphic channel. Concept 3 appears to mostly align with the Council’s motion. The Council may decide that the other concepts are better options. Concept 3 naturalization option would likely require a combination of a City-initiated bond effort, expanded easements, and dedication of private land. At 340 Portage, the City could seek to widen the existing creek easement as well as require at least a portion of the parkland dedication to be adjacent to Matadero Creek to create a complementary park space. Along the south side of the creek, where there are multiple owners, the City could pursue individual easements, that would “spring” into effect as properties redevelop, for a southern creek trail. The full naturalization option requires widening the flood channel to at least 100 feet from Park Boulevard to Chestnut Avenue and replacement of the Lambert Avenue bridge to accommodate a 100-foot span. The required land would decrease land available for housing development. This would also require subdivision of the 340 Portage parcel and acquisition of the resulting parcel, eminent domain, or willing partnership to naturalize this portion of the creek. This concept would allow for planting on the concrete retaining walls, new maintenance access ramps and pedestrian pathways for access and recreation. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Concept 3 in the Matadero Creek Conceptual Alternative Analysis, WRA, Inc. September 2020 • Woonerf/Bike Paths: At 340 Portage, require use of the public access easement (the eastern segment of Portage Avenue) as a woonerf9. Explore rezoning of GM-zoned sites between Park Boulevard and the railroad tracks to include space for a bike path along the tracks and to connect to a future pedestrian/bike railroad crossing. Pursue a ped/bike path between Olive and Acacia Avenues, in coordination with private properties owners, to improve connectivity. City-initiated projects may be required to achieve other woonerfs and bike paths. • Other Publicly-Accessible Open Spaces/Plaza/”POPOS”: Require publicly-accessible open space for all other projects on sites in exchange for higher floor area and height limits to generate landscaped buffers and plazas. This could be in the form of privately-owned public open space (“POPOS”) which are common in San Francisco, and could be assessed on a similar square foot basis as private or common open space requirements. Sites are visibly signed and publicly accessible during daytime hours, but maintained and operated by the private developer. One pitfall of this strategy is that open spaces will likely be small, proportional to the development site, and not contiguous. Item 5 Recommendations: • Plan for naturalized creek implementation based on Concept 3. • Pursue other types of open space, including linear parks, ped/bike paths and woonerfs, plazas, and landscape buffers. • Enable impact fees collected within the planning area to be used with ¼-mile of the planning area. • Modify Subdivision Ordinance to require land dedication for projects with a minimum 9 Woonerf is a Dutch planning concept which means “living street”. This street model of shared space, low-speed limits and traffic calming was first implemented in the Netherlands and Belgium. City of Palo Alto Page 20 of 30 lots/units (from 50 lots/units, currently). This amendment would apply citywide. • As a voluntary program when property owners of project sites over five acres request height and density increases up to 50-55 feet described herein, require public parkland dedication. 6. 340 Portage Avenue Housing & Cannery Adaptive Reuse: The preferred plan anticipates maintaining the current amount of office space and transitioning commercial space to housing over time. No new office space would be allowed once former office space is discontinued and housing established consistent with the underlying residential zoning. The preferred plan accommodates new housing primarily through adaptive reuse, as specified in Item 1. Additions to the historic building could be considered to allow taller heights, above 35 feet, and more density. In addition to adaptive reuse, townhome development with approximately 35-foot maximum heights could be built on the remaining narrow surface parking areas. Building massing compatibility with surrounding lower density residential (R- 1) can be achieved through compliance with objective design standards that include techniques such as a partial step down in height and daylight planes. Retention of the Ash potentially historic building for creative arts uses, such as galleries, artist studios, and live/work. The site is an irregularly shaped 12.5-acre parcel between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. What appears to be one large building at 340 Portage Avenue is composed of approximately ten buildings that were constructed at various times between 1918 and 1949. The building is surrounded by a narrow parking lot to the northwest and a larger parking lot to the southeast. The rectangular former cannery building features walls that are concrete, corrugated metals or wood siding, with a variety of roof shapes. Significant renovation would be required to reuse the buildings as residential units, with code-compliant openings, egress, structural columns, and building systems to meet Building Code requirements. As one the larger parcels in the NVCAP, 340 Portage Avenue represents opportunity for new development. However, the property also contains constraints such as the former cannery and office building (historically eligible) and the proposed SB330 application for 91 townhouses. On October 25th, the City Council voted 6-1 to engage the property owner in a conversation about a possible negotiated agreement for redevelopment of this property. A City Council ad hoc committee has been formed and includes Councilmember Lydia Kou and Mayor Tom DuBois. The outcome of a future Council-endorsed negotiated agreement may alter the NVCAP planning effort specifically as it relates to this property and generally the NVCAP project area. The recommendations and direction sought in this report do not take into consideration a possible negotiated outcome. City of Palo Alto Page 21 If a negotiated outcome is not achieved, the City could continue to advance its interests to encourage more housing at this location through amortization or other policy incentives to support adaptive reuse of the cannery building. However, interest to support a naturalized creek and expanded open space (Motion Reference D), retention of the historically eligible cannery building and Ash building (Motion Reference G) and allowing higher density housing (Motion Reference F) will require prioritization as the planning process continues. Item 6 Recommendations: • Transition office use on site including considering amortization (See Item 3) • Property owner to explore adaptive reuse of cannery building as residential and Ash office building for creative arts • Allow residential and mixed-use buildings with heights up to 55 feet on the interior • Accommodate open space concepts (See Item 5) • Consider tradeoffs and desire for public open space land dedication/creek amenity, adaptive reuse of the cannery building, and new multifamily housing 7. 395 Page Mill Road: The preferred plan for the site maintains current office space, however, does not allow expansion of any office space. The Plan accommodates new housing as specified in Item 1, while retaining the existing office building. Office uses could be amortized, as specified in Item 3 to acelerate transition to housing. Building heights increase from 35 feet (existing) to 50 feet; allow up to 55 feet in height for housing projects on the interior of the site; density increase above 30 du/ac to facilitate four to five story mid-rise development. Property owners have expressed interest in redevelopment and housing production only if office uses are maintained and expanded. (Motion Items F and L) As one of the larger properties in the NVCAP, 395 Page Mill Road represents opportunity for new development. However, the site also includes constraints such as the existing three-story office building and parking garage constructed in 2000. The site is a 9.87-acre parcel bound by Park Boulevard, Page Mill Road, Ash Street, and Olive Avenue. The site includes a 224,852 square foot, three-story office building, a large surface parking lot, and a smaller two-level parking garage. The site includes a large linear vegetated City of Palo Alto Page 22 area along Olive Avenue and Ash Street that serves as a landscaped buffer for the adjacent low- density residential uses across from the property. Currently, the building consists of office users. The preferred plan assumes the current office space on site would be maintained with no expansion of office space. The remainder of the site could transition to housing with ground floor retail over time. Potential development on the site appears readily possible on the western portion of the surface parking lot. Staff recommends permitting housing buildings up to 50 feet in height with portions on the interior of the site having buildings allowed up to 55 feet. At the Page Mill Road/Park Boulevard intersection, the building could also be up to 55 feet accommodating ground-floor retail. Building massing compatibility with surrounding lower density residential (R-1) can be achieved through compliance with objective design standards that include techniques such as a partial step down in height and daylight planes. The property owner presented a concept for redevelopment of the site at the September 20, 2021 Council meeting. This concept expanded the office use, added housing units, and a public park. However, any option to amortize office space and not allow expansion of office would unlikely lead to redevelopment of the site in the near-term. Item 7 Recommendations: • Maintain current office space with no expansion of office space. • Allow residential and mixed-use buildings with heights up to 55 feet on the interior and at the intersection of Page Mill Road/Park Boulevard. 8. Residential Parking Ratio: Based on the Fehr & Peers parking occupancy study, consider expressing the City’s existing parking standards as a maximum instead of a minimum and allow reduced parking requirements in exhange for providing exceptional bicycle and transit incentives. (Motion Item H) The City engaged Fehr & Peers, a transportation consulting firm, to conduct a study of parking demand in multi-family rental developments in Palo Alto in 2017 and 2018. The study evaluated parking demand and support across nine developments including market rate, affordable, and senior housing located at varying distances to transit. None of the studied projects had unbundled parking, meaning that parking was included in the cost of the unit. Therefore, we can expect that tenants park on-site as long as parking is available. Still, to provide the most conservative scenario, the numbers below report peak City of Palo Alto Page 23 demand (typically late night) for on-site and off-site parking. As a result, these numbers likely overestimate demand since they include on-street parking occupied by other residents or visitors on the block. For market rate projects, the study found a range of parking occupancy rates, between 0.58 and 0.97 spaces per bedroom, at peak occupancy. These rates fall within the City’s required parking ratio of one space per studio/1-bedroom and two spaces per 2+ bedroom, especially since the market rate projects are primarily 1- and 2-bedroom units, with just 3% 3-bedroom units. Two of the three market-rate projects evaluated were well-below this threshold, at 0.58 and 0.69 spaces/bedroom, respectively.10 Photo Left: This bicycle storage room at multifamily housing development in Berkeley includes amenities and facilities that make biking an attractive and convenient travel choice: bike repair tools and a workspace, a vending machine with basic bike supplies like tubes and lights, a water fountain, ample secure bike storage, vibrant artwork, good lighting, and direct access to the sidewalk. Photo Right: Car sharing options are rapidly evolving beyond well-known local providers like Zipcar. For example, Envoy has partnered with multifamily housing developers/operators in San Francisco and Oakland to offer on- site shared electric vehicles for tenants’ use. These findings suggest that a parking standard between 0.6 and 1.0 spaces per bedroom (capped at 2-bedrooms) would be appropriate to accommodate peak demand. Given the location of the NVCAP planning area, within ½ mile of the California Avenue Caltrain Station and El Camino Real Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus lines, NVCAP is identified as a transit-oriented location in the Comprehensive Plan and is within a designated Planned Development Area, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG/MTC). The Comprehensive Plan supports multi-modal access for the plan area, encouraging travel by bicycle, on foot, and by transit to reduce vehicle trips. The Council-adopted goals for the NVCAP and the Working Group vision for the NVCAP likewise support development of a neighborhood that has local services and infrastructure that support walking and biking. 10 Fehr & Peers, City of Palo Alto Multi-Family Residential Development (Rental) Parking Rate Study, August 2018. City of Palo Alto Page 24 The NVCAP could implement this transit-oriented vision, by coupling reduced parking standards with incentives for walking, biking and transit. For example, the NVCAP could establish the current parking requirements as a maximum instead of a minimum and create objective standards for allowed reductions, as shown in the text box below. Item 8 Recommendations: Maximum Parking Requirement • 1 space per studio/1-bedroom and two spaces per 2+ bedroom (existing standard) Minimum Parking Requirement • 0.5 space/unit; and • Exceptional Bicycle Parking: bicycle parking at one space/unit, with 10% large bike spaces (e.g., cargo bikes, bikes with trailers), 10% electric bike charging spaces, repair facilities, direct access to the street, etc.; and • On-Site Car Share (e.g., one designated car share space/50 units, 2/100+ units) • Free Transit Passes (e.g. one Caltrain GoPass or one CTA EcoPass per unit) As an alternative, if the Council prefers maintaining parking minimum requirements, then the Council could consider reducing the minimum parking requirement from 1 space per bedroom (up to 2 spaces per 2+ bedrooms) to 0.6 spaces/bedroom (still capped at 2 spaces), as suggested by the most conservative finding in the Fehr & Peers study findings. 9. Commercial Parking Ratio: Blended parking standard same as Downtown Palo Alto as one space per 250 square feet. Exempt first 1,500 square feet of retail from parking requirement. (Motion Item I) City Council Motion Item I recommended that the NVCAP follow the blended commercial use parking requirements for the Downtown University Parking District (one space per 250 square feet of commercial use). This will simplify parking requirements and allow commercial uses to change over time more readily without requiring additional parking to be developed, which could impede turnover. Any incentives for retail that reduce parking would be considered in addition to the standard. Item 9 Recommendation City of Palo Alto Page 25 Minimum parking requirement • All uses (except residential): One space per 250 square feet 10. Employment Density: Throughout the development of the NVCAP alternatives, staff has used Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) employment density of 3.4 jobs/1,000 square feet of office. Based on review of other employment density figures throughout the Bay Area, it is recommended to continue using the VTA figure. (Motion Item K) City Council Motion K directed staff to return with a researched revision or set of alternatives for jobs created per 1,000 square feet of office (employment density for office). A concern was that the figure presented for employment density for office underestimated the number of jobs created and results in lower impact fees collected. Throughout the development of the NVCAP alternatives, the City has used the VTA Congestion Management Plan (CMP) annual monitoring and conformance report for the employment density. For commercial and industrial approvals, changes in square footage are used to estimate the number of jobs created or lost. Jobs are estimated by applying an employment density value (measured in jobs per 1,000 square feet) to the size of the site. Employment density values vary depending on the specific land use type. The appropriate employment density is multiplied by the square footage of each site to determine the number of estimated jobs. These job ratios are used in the countywide traffic model and therefore will also be used in the NVCAP trip generation analysis. Table 4 describes the density values and land use categories. Table 4: VTA Commercial and Industrial Employment Densities11 Density (per 1,000 sq. ft. Land Use 3.4 Office/Educational/Institutional/Hospital 3.1 Transportation 2.5 Research & Development 2.0 Hotel 1.75 Retail/Manufacturing 0.75 Non-Manufacturing 11 2018 VTA CMP Monitoring & Conformance Report. https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020- 08/2018%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 26 The City’s Commercial Linkage Fee was adopted in 2016 based on a nexus study prepared by Strategic Economics12. One of the components in establishing the fee was determining the average employment density for office/research & development/medical office and hotels. The average employment density for office/research & development and medical office was determined to be 3.0 jobs per 1,000 square feet of space. The nexus study figure appears to be consistent with the VTA employment density. Research & development space has laboratory areas that results in more floor area per employee. If the office and research & development categories of the VTA employment densities are averaged it results in 2.95 jobs per 1,000 square feet of space. When rounded this equates to 3.0 jobs per 1,000 square feet of space or the same as the commercial linkage fee nexus study employment density figure. Other cities in the Bay Area have used the following employment densities for office: • City of Santa Clara (2010)13: 2.4 jobs/1,000 square feet • San Mateo County (2015)14: 3.0 jobs/1,000 square feet (21 Elements Study) • Oakland (2016)15: 3.6 jobs/1,000 square feet • San Francisco (2019)16: 4.2 jobs/1,000 square feet • San Jose (2020)17: 3.3 jobs/1,000 square feet (pre-pandemic) 2.5 jobs/1,000 square feet (pandemic, post-pandemic) • San Jose (2020) (high-tech): 4.4 jobs/1,000 square feet (pre-pandemic) 3.3 jobs/1,000 square feet (pandemic, post-pandemic) The other cities within the Bay Area include a range between 2.4 jobs per 1,000 to 4.4 jobs per 1,000. San Jose takes a step further and makes assumptions on employment densities during the pandemic and post-pandemic. Those employment density numbers trend downward. Palo Alto’s employment density appears to be within range of other communities in the Bay Area. 12 December 12, 2016 Council Staff Report and attachments. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55042 13 Santa Clara General Plan Land Use Assumptions Appendix 8.6. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12890/635713044859030000 14 21 Elements Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study 2015. http://www.21elements.com/documents-mainmenu- 3/impact-fees-and-inclusionary-housing/763-redwood-city-revised-commercial-report-091415/file 15 Oakland Market Assessment 2016. https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/CCTS_Oakland_MktAssessment_FINAL.pdf 16 Job Housing Nexus Analysis: San Francisco 2019. https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7297881&GUID=36D31872-977F-4EC2-A2FE-CDD21E62D99F 17 San Jose Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study 2020. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=61766 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Staff seeks confirmation or direction to continue to use VTA’s employment density figure for jobs created for office. Item 10 Recommendation: • Continue to use 3.4 jobs/1,000 square feet of office 11. Outreach: After the September 20, 2021 Council meeting, Staff met with one of the larger property owners in the planning area to provide an update on the plan. Staff will continue to engage large property owners and others that are interested in the NVCAP development. (Motion Item L) Based on previous correspondence in the record from the owners of these two sites, Jay Paul Company and Sobrato Organization, redevelopment is unlikely under the draft preferred plan conditions proposed. In particular, Jay Paul Company has indicated that it does not intend to redevelop without an expansion of their office space. The Sobrato Organization may continue to pursue redevelopment of its surface parking lots into housing as it has proposed to date, but it is not clear that adaptive reuse of the cannery into a use other than office/research & development is anticipated. Two other property owners with significant ownership in the planning area have indicated that they are interested in redevelopment, including with residential uses. Both indicated that some private-owned publicly-accessible open space at the ground-level and/or along the creek could be feasible if the height, density, and/or parking regulations or some other flexibility in existing requirements could accommodate their desired development plans. The first owner expressed a desire for heights of 60-70 feet and a parking ratio of less than one space per unit to accommodate a residential apartment development. The second owner would be interested in redeveloping an office and research & development site with residential uses if they can consolidate their total office and research & development floor area on another one of their sites (i.e., no net loss of commercial area). Their preference was to have single use buildings (i.e., office separate from residential) to allow more flexible leasing. Neither property owner is likely to redevelop their properties under the draft preferred plan due to the height limits and amortization provisions, respectively. 12. Potential for Change: Limited in short term; unknown in the long term. Modest redevelopment into residential mixed use on small sites in the short term. Redevelopment of the two largest sites is unlikely in the short term with the exception of the planned housing project at 340 Portage. Amortization of commercial office uses would occur City of Palo Alto Page 28 approximately 15-30 years following plan adoption. It is not known at this time what choices property owners (or local policy makers) may make at the end of the amortization period. City may pursue purchase of lots to facilitate public open space and 100% below- market rate housing, with bond measure or other public financing means. 13. Potential Benefits: Limited community benefits (e.g., park and creek improvements, below market rate housing), impact fees, and inclusionary housing given low levels of development that may result. Public subsidy likely required to generate community amenities. Implementation of the plan is considered long-term. Summary of Key Issues: The Council adopted a motion on September 20, 2021, that included direction on 12 items for development in the preferred concept plan. This report describes the Council motion and how the motion affects the preferred plan selection. Staff seeks clarification and confirmation of those items, and ultimately Council’s endorsement of the preferred plan concepts. There are tradeoffs in drafting a plan that has a long-term implementation timeline and limited short- term incentives for development. Policy Implications: The draft preferred alternative may require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to revise land use designations. For example, sites designated for Light Industrial or Research/Office Park, may need to be redesignated to Multi-Family Residential or Mixed Use allow residential uses and prohibit office uses of a certain size. SB330, codified as Government Code 66300, prohibits zoning changes that would reduce the density of housing in place as of January 1, 2018, without a comparable increase in density elsewhere in the plan area. As proposed, the draft preferred plan proposes decreasing building heights in some locations, but these are balanced by increasing heights in other locations. Moveover, the draft preferred plan expands opportunities for residential uses by reducing opportunities for commercial development. Therefore, on the whole, the draft plan is not expected to reduce the intensity of housing in the planning area compared to existing zoning and the requirements under Government Code 66300 are met. Resource Impact: The majority of the NVCAP project funding is from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Priority Development Area grant ($638,000). In compliance with the grant requirement, the 15% local funding match ($112,000) was achieved with the donation of private funds from the Sobrato Organization. The Sobrato Organization also donated an additional $138,000 for the environmental review study of the NVCAP. Additional General Funds ($17,700) were used for the historic evaluation by Page & Turnbull and the Matadero Creek analysis by WRA; and City of Palo Alto Page 29 $62,000 of FY2021 department salary savings was allocated to project management (due to reduced staffing). In 2021, the City was awarded $125,000 from the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant to support the NVCAP. The funding sources and funds used are listed below: Funding Sources: 1. Caltrans Grant $638,000 2. 15% Matching Donation $112,000 3. CEQA Private Donation $138,000 4. FY2021 Salary Savings $62,000 5. General Funds $17,700 6. LEAP Grant (2021) $125,000 Total $1,092,700 Funds Used/Allocated 1. Perkins & Will - funded $889,600 2. Perkins & Will - unfunded $367,000 3. WRA – Creek Analysis $89,000 4. Project Management $62,000 5. Page & Turnbull – Historic $13,200 6. Travel and Meetings $15,000 Total $1,435,800 In October 2019, the City Council approved an expanded scope of work for the NVCAP project and contract with the consultant, Perkins & Will. Subsequently, the City Council did not approve the additional funding needed ($367,000) for the expanded contract. As summarized above, the project is underfunded by $343,000. Per the grant agreement, the City must complete this NVCAP project by December 1, 2023, or risk forfeiting the grant funds. In that scenario, the City would need to repay any grant funds expended towards the project. The Council’s action to select a preferred alternative provides some certainty to the overall completion of the project. The contract with Perkins & Will runs through December 2021, however, it will be extended for six months. During the extension time staff will negotiate new terms with Perkins & Will and come back to the City Council for approval of a revised contract. Certain milestones were accomplished under-budget or using more staff support than consultant assistance. Through a combination of eliminating some unfunded tasks and shifting budgets within the scope of work, staff has managed to address some of the budget shortfalls. However, additional funding will be required to complete the project in advance of the grant City of Palo Alto Page 30 deadline – not including funds needed to support any amortization studies that may be needed. Staff will return following Council direction with an updated contract with Perkins & Will and a budget request to advance this planning initiative. Timeline: After the Council’s confirmation and endorsement of the preferred plan, staff will advise the consultant team to complete additional study and refinement, and undergo technical analysis, including a traffic study. These studies will help support the development of the plan and the environmental analysis for consistency with CEQA. Staff expects this effort to commence early next year. Environmental Review: The current action requested of the City Council does not represent a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City anticipates that either an Addendum or a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2017) will be the appropriate level of environmental review for the approval of the NVCAP. The scope of the preferred plan and its project description will define the level of environmental review. CEQA scoping and analysis will begin next year concurrently with the NVCAP development. Attachments: Attachment A -- Draft Preferred Plan Map (PDF) Attachment B -- Draft Preferred Plan Open Space Concept Map (PDF) Attachment C -- Council Adopted Goals and Objectives (PDF) North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Project Goals, Objectives, Milestones and Proposed Boundary February 12, 2018 Proposed NVCAP Goals 1. Housing and Land Use Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed use, transit-accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. 2. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Create and enhance well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. 3. Connected Street Grid Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. 4. Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. 5. Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. 6. Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric Develop human-scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Proposed NVCAP Objectives 1. Data Driven Approach: Employ a data-driven approach that considers community desires, market conditions and forecasts, financial feasibility, existing uses and development patterns, development capacity, traffic and travel patterns, historic/cultural and natural resources, need for community facilities (e.g., schools), and other relevant data to inform plan policies. 2. Comprehensive User Friendly Document and Implementation: Create a comprehensive but user-friendly document that identifies the distribution, location and extent of land uses, planning policies, development regulations and design guidelines to enable development and needed infrastructure investments in the project area 3. Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision Makers: Provide a guide and strategy for staff and decision-makers to bridge the gap between the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and individual development projects in order to streamline future land use and transportation decisions. 4. Meaningful Community Engagement: Enable a process with meaningful opportunities for community engagement, within the defined timeline, and an outcome (the CAP document) that reflects the community’s priorities. 5. Economic Feasibility: A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with specific analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected economic benefits to the City and community. 6. Environmental: A plan that is protective of public health and a process that complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.