HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2402-2622CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Tuesday, June 18, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
4:00 PM
Agenda Item
11.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Implementing the North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), Amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Certifying
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Including a Statement of Overriding
Considerations; and FIRST READING: an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending
Chapters 18.14, 18.24, and 16.65 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code as Well as
Amendments to the Zoning District Map, and Rezoning of Parcels Within the NVCAP
area. CEQA Status -- Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH
#2023020691. Item Removed Off Agenda and Deferred to August 5, 2024 City Council
Meeting.
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: June 18, 2024
Report #:2402-2622
TITLE
PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Implementing the North Ventura Coordinated Area
Plan (NVCAP), Amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Certifying the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report, Including a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and FIRST
READING: an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24, and 16.65
in the Palo Alto Municipal Code as Well as Amendments to the Zoning District Map, and
Rezoning of Parcels Within the NVCAP area. CEQA Status -- Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report SCH #2023020691.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the City Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) implementing the NVCAP and approving associated
environmental work, including:
a. Certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
b. Make the findings required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
including a Statement of Overriding Considerations
c. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
d. Adopt the NVCAP and amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
2. Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment B) to:
a. Adopt a new Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) in the Palo
Alto Municipal Code and make other amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) to
implement the NVCAP
b. Amend Chapter 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements)
c. Amend the Zoning District Map and re-zone parcels within the NVCAP area
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In November 2017, the City Council initiated the NVCAP process. Soon after, the Council
adopted goals and objectives and appointed Working Group members to guide the plan's
development. The Working Group convened to discuss the plan's components and develop
alternatives for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the
City Council.
In January 2022, the City Council endorsed a Preferred Plan, which was further refined in
November of the same year. A draft NVCAP reflecting the Council's direction was released in
May 2023, and staff received feedback from both the PTC and the Architectural Review Board
(ARB).
On March 8, 2024, the City released the Revised Public Draft NVCAP along with Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to solicit public comment on both
documents. The 45-day comment period required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) ended on April 22, 2024. Staff received three public comment letters and one oral
comment. The Final SEIR (Attachment C) addresses comments on the Draft SEIR and provides
environmental analysis related to NVCAP implementation, including a finding of significant
unavoidable impacts related to air quality and cultural resources necessitating Council
agreement of a statement of overriding considerations to approve the plan.
Consideration of the NVCAP by the City Council is a major milestone; a culmination of extensive
community outreach reflecting input from decision-makers and stakeholders during multiple
public hearings on the plan alternatives, and the refinement of the Council-endorsed preferred
alternative plan by consultants and staff. The Final Draft NVCAP (Attachment G) incorporates
the feedback received from both the PTC and Architectural Review Board (ARB) on the previous
versions, wherever feasible and appropriate.
The NVCAP will be implemented through the draft zoning ordinance (Attachment B). A new
chapter (18.29) will be added to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to establish zoning
districts and standards specific to the NVCAP. The report outlines the methodology used to
develop the zoning ordinance and explains its relationship to the 2023-2031 Housing Element
(Housing Element) and 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan).
BACKGROUND
The NVCAP area lies within the Ventura neighborhood of Palo Alto. It is comprised of
approximately 60 acres, roughly bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue,
and the Caltrain tracks. The plan area is near key community destinations such as the California
Avenue Business District; California Avenue Caltrain Station; and Stanford Research Park.
Coordinated Area Plan
The City’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2017, called for site specific planning in the North
Ventura area. The City secured grant funding in 2017 to initiate the NVCAP project. On March 5,
2018, the City Council adopted seven goals and six objectives (Attachment E). Goals include
adding to the City’s supply of multi-family housing, developing a transit accessible
neighborhood with retail services, creating a connected street grid, developing community
facilities, and encouraging sustainability.
Upon adoption, the NVCAP will become an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. It will serve as
a guide for creating a walkable neighborhood within the plan area with housing options and
improved connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists, and other modes of transportation. The NVCAP
will provide a comprehensive policy framework which, in conjunction with the zoning
ordinance, will implement the vision for the plan area.
Coordinated Area Plan Process
Development of the NVCAP followed the process contained within PAMC 19.10, Coordinated
Area Plans. This chapter provides details on coordinated area plan initiation, plan development
procedures, including the creation of goals and objectives; community involvement (the
formation of a working group); public hearings, and adoption.
The nearly seven-year process of developing the NVCAP has involved an extensive public
engagement, including two community workshops, 17 Working Group meetings, 6 Stakeholder
Group meetings, and 2 online surveys in addition to numerous public hearings with the City
Council and Planning and Transportation Commission. Table 1 highlights the key milestones in
the process. Additional information on prior meetings can be found on the NVCAP project
website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/nvcap
Table 1: Notable Project Milestones
Date Milestone
November 6, 2017 City Council initiated the coordinated area plan process
March 5, 2018 City Council adopted Goals & Objectives for the plan
April 30, 2018 City Council appointed members of the working group
March 10, 2021 PTC recommendation on Preferred Plan
January 10, 2022 City Council endorsed a Preferred Plan alternative
November 14, 2022 City Council further refined the endorsed plan
May 2023 Public Draft NVCAP published
May 31, 2023 Study Session with Planning and Transportation Commission
June 1, 2023 Study Session with Architectural Review Board
June 8, 2023 Study Session with Historic Resource Board
March 8, 2024 Revised Public Draft NVCAP and Draft SEIR released
April 18, 2024 Study Session with Architectural Review Board on the Draft
Zoning Ordinance and public hearing to solicit oral comments
on the Draft SEIR
April 22, 2024 Last day of the 45-day Public Comment Period
May 8, 2024 PTC recommendation hearing for adoption of NVCAP and
NVCAP zoning ordinance
June 17, 2024 Last day of the 10-day Final SEIR Circulation Period
June 18, 2024 City Council consideration of SEIR, Final Draft NVCAP, and
NVCAP zoning ordinance
Endorsed Preferred Plan Concept
The City Council endorsed a preferred land use plan for NVCAP in January 20221 and further
refined the endorsed plan in November 20222. The staff reports from January and November
2022 contain additional background on the Preferred Plan development process. Attachment D
summarizes the endorsed preferred alternative and the Council refinements. In summary, the
Preferred Plan endorsed by the City Council includes:
•530 net new dwelling units
•Transitioning office space to housing
•Adaptive re-use of the former cannery
•Naturalization of Matadero Creek
•No parking minimums or maximums with NVCAP
•Focusing greater densities along El Camino Real and Park Boulevard
A draft plan was released in May 2023 based on Council’s direction and further refinements of
the Preferred Plan by staff and its consultants for consistency with state law and the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC).
Revised Draft NVCAP
Staff presented the May 2023 Public Draft NVCAP at study sessions with the PTC on May 31,
20233, and ARB on June 1, 20234. The PTC and ARB’s comments and staff responses are
included in the matrix in Attachment F. Based on feedback at the study sessions, the draft
NVCAP was revised, where appropriate. In addition to incorporating comments received from
the PTC and ARB, staff made further refinements to streamline the document. The Revised
Public Draft NVCAP was published on March 8, 2024 along with the Draft SEIR.
Sobrato Development Agreement
In parallel to the NVCAP process, the Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato) proposed the 200
Portage Avenue Townhome Project, which included, among other project details, demolition of
a portion of the cannery building at 340 Portage Avenue to accommodate the new
development. In September 2023, the City Council approved a Development Agreement with
Sobrato for the redevelopment of a combined project site encompassing 14.65 acres at 200-
404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street, and 278 Lambert
Avenue. The development agreement included demolition of a portion of the cannery site to
accommodate the townhome development and dedication of approximately 3.25 acres of land
1 January 10, 2022 City Council Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/5/agendas-
minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20220110/20220110pccsm-linked-
updated.pdf#page=150
2 November 14, 2022 City Council Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-
amp-development-services/north-ventura-cap/nvcap-nov-14th-cc-packet_1.pdf
3 May 31, 2023 PTC Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-
Services/Planning-and-Transportation-Commission-PTC/Current-PTC-Agendas-Minutes
4 June 1, 2023 ARB Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2023/arb-6.01-nvcap.pdf
to the City adjacent to Matadero Creek for park and affordable housing uses. The development
agreement was approved by the City in October 2023 and became effective November 1, 2023.
The Sobrato development is generally consistent with the proposed NVCAP zoning ordinance
development standards. However, because the project was submitted and entitled prior to
adoption of the NVCAP, it is not subject to the new NVCAP standards. When the 10-year term
of the development agreement ends, conformance with the NVCAP will be required for all new
projects in the development agreement area.
Economic Feasibility Study
An initial economic feasibility study, prepared in November 2020, assessed three land use
alternatives. Much of the residential development in two of the lower density alternatives
(Alternative 1 and 2) was identified as unlikely to be financially viable due to height and parking
restrictions. Among the alternatives considered, Alternative 3, with the highest density and
lower parking requirements, was the only alternative concluded to be financially viable. In
March 2021, a supplemental economic feasibility study was prepared to assess the shortfall or
funding gap for one of lower-density alternatives (Alternative 2) and the feasibility of a third
alternative (Alternative 3) with an inclusionary requirement exceeding the current 15 percent
standard. After reviewing the draft NVCAP in May 2023, the PTC requested an additional study
because the City Council endorsed Preferred Plan was more similar to Alternative 1, the
alternative with the lowest density, which was not part of the supplemental economic
feasibility study prepared in March 2021. The requested study, however, was not prepared due
to budget constraints as detailed in the fiscal analysis section of this report.
Feedback from Architectural Review Board
On April 18, 20245, the ARB conducted a public hearing to allow for comments on the Draft
NVCAP and Draft SEIR. In a study session, they also reviewed and provided feedback on the
draft NVCAP zoning ordinance. The ARB discussed development standards (Section 18.29.060)
specifically and recommended several changes to the staff recommendation. These included
recommendations related to increasing lot coverage and maximum height limits, reducing
setbacks, encroachment of subsurface structures into setbacks, and certain lot coverage
allowances for these encroachments. Since the NVCAP was discussed as a study session item,
there was no formal motion. However, the ARB held an unofficial vote for the recommended
changes, which passed with a 3-0-2 vote. The suggestions from ARB are detailed in the Analysis
section.
Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendations
On May 8, 20246, the PTC reviewed the NVCAP project documents, focusing on development
standards, particularly building heights and daylight impacts. The PTC discussed concerns with
the height limit in the NV-MXM zoning district, since some locations border low-density
5 April 18, 2024 ARB Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2024/arb-4.18-nvcap.pdf
6 May 8, 2024 PTC Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/3/agendas-minutes-
reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2024/ptc-5.08-nvcap-3.pdf
residential areas. The PTC also reiterated the need for additional economic analysis related to
the NVCAP and requested a map clarifying Street Yard setback requirements. The PTC
unanimously recommended the NVCAP for adoption along with the draft zoning ordinance but
made several modifications to the staff recommendation to forward for the City Council to
consider.
The PTC voted 6-0-1 to recommend the City Council:
1. Consider the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2. Adopt the NVCAP, including staff recommended modifications
3. Adopt a Draft Ordinance to:
a. Add a new Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) in the Palo
Alto Municipal Code and make other amendments to Title 18 (Zoning) to
implement the NVCAP
b. Amend Chapter 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements)
c. Amend the Zoning District Map and re-zone parcels within the NVCAP area
With the following modifications:
1. Extend the existing special setback requirement on Park Boulevard, which stops on
Lambert Avenue, to Page Mill Road (not reflected in the Final Draft NVCAP; see
Additional Recommendations Considered but Not Incorporated in the Analysis section of
this report)
2. Ensure that the daylight plane requirements for the NVCAP be consistent with the
comparable zoning districts (incorporated into the NVCAP Ordinance, Attachment B)
3. Confirm the City Council’s awareness of the economic feasibility study requirement per
PAMC Chapter 19.10 (see Economic Feasibility Study in the Background section of this
report)
4. Increase the maximum height for NV-R1 and NV-R2 zoning districts to 35 feet
(incorporated into the Final Draft NVCAP)
5. Prepare a diagram to show Street Yard setbacks for NVCAP (Attachment I includes a map
of the NVCAP zoning districts with street yard setback requirements)
The PTC made a separate motion for the NV-MXM maximum height limit, which passed with a
4-2-1 vote:
6. Change the maximum height for the NV-MXM zoning district to 45 feet
Two public speakers attended and commented on the NVCAP. Feedback was provided
regarding the NVCAP project's timing in relation to approved or proposed development in the
coordinated area plan boundary, potential harm to trees by allowing basement encroachment
into setback areas, and the potential for developers to take advantage of increased
development potential through use of State Density Bonus law.
ANALYSIS
The NVCAP represents an important opportunity to plan proactively for a transit-oriented,
mixed-use, mixed-income, and walkable neighborhood. The NVCAP sets forth a vision that is
responsive to the history and unique character of the North Ventura neighborhood; considers
the needs of current residents; puts forward near-term solutions to current challenges;
establishes a long-term framework for desired growth so that more people can call North
Ventura home; and invests in community infrastructure to support an equitable, resilient, and
sustainable Palo Alto.
In November 2018, Council adopted the following six goals that were intended to help guide
development of the NVCAP:
1. Housing and Land Use: Add multifamily housing in a transit-accessible neighborhood
with mixed uses.
2. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections: Create well-defined connections to transit
and major roads.
3. Connected Street Grid: Create a connected street grid.
4. Community Facilities and Infrastructure: Integrate development of new services with
private development.
5. Balance of Community Interests: Balance community-wide objectives with residents.
6. Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric: Develop human-scale design
and guidelines that strengthen neighborhood fabric.
Supporting these goals are six objectives:
•Use a Data Driven Approach
•Create a Comprehensive User-Friendly Document and Implementation
•Provide a Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision-Makers
•Include Meaningful Community Engagement
•Determine Economic Feasibility
•Complies with California Environmental Quality Act
Throughout the plan development process, staff ensured that the NVCAP was substantially
consistent with the adopted goals and objectives. Attachment E includes consistency analysis of
each goal and objectives.
NVCAP Summary
The following summarizes the content of the NVCAP, released in March 2024. More detailed
consistency analysis for each goal and objective for the NVCAP is included in Attachment E.
Chapter 1: Introduction
The introduction chapter provides an overview of the NVCAP physical and regulatory context.
The plan is shaped by the project goals and objectives, adopted and in-progress City plans and
policies, recently enacted regional and state laws, and the comprehensive planning process.
Chapter 2: Vision
The Vision chapter summarizes each framework that was built upon the goals and objectives of
the NVCAP. These include:
•Urban design frameworks that calibrate the optimal mix of uses (Housing and Land Use);
•Support a multi-modal mobility framework within the neighborhood (Transit, Pedestrian
and Bicycle Connections) and how it connects to the rest of the City and the region
(Connected Street Grid);
•Foster a regenerative and ecological framework to support the health of humans and
wildlife while supporting the implementation of City’s Climate Action Plan (Community
Facilities and Infrastructure and Balanced Community Interests); and
•The neighborhood’s context-specific urban form (Urban Design, Design Guidelines and
Neighborhood Fabric).
This chapter also includes land use programs that describe 530 net new dwelling units,
approximately two acres of a potential park, and reduction of commercial space (office and
retail) within the plan area, along with the land use map.
Design Standards and Guidelines (Chapters 3-6)— includes requirements that govern the
construction and modification of the public realm including streets and open space, as well as
new buildings. Standards are quantifiable, whereas guidelines are qualitative requirements. The
following chapters include design standards and guidelines for the NVCAP:
Chapter 3: Public Realm
The Public Realm chapter includes requirements and guidelines that govern the
construction and modifications of the public realm, including the sidewalk zone, traffic
lanes and intersections, green infrastructure, paving, exterior lighting, wayfinding, and
public art. These design standards and guidelines help achieve developing a human-
scale neighborhood that strengthens and supports the neighborhood fabric. The
standards and guidelines for the public realm also support the improved mobility
network envisioned for the NVCAP by providing a better pedestrian and bicycle
experience.
Chapter 4: Accessibility and Mobility
The Accessibility and Mobility chapter contains design standards and guidelines for
multi-modal frameworks described in Chapter 2. The chapter also includes design
concepts for gateway intersections and street design standards and guidelines. These
contribute to creating and enhancing well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian,
and bicycle facilities, as well as a connected street grid within the plan area.
Additionally, standards and guidelines are provided for the pedestrian realm and bike
network, addressing first/last mile connections and bicycle facilities as shown in Chapter
2. This will support achieving the goals and objectives of the NVCAP. The chapter also
includes standards and guidelines for transit access, vehicular circulation and parking,
and TDM strategies.
Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space
The Parks and Open Space chapter contains design standards and guidelines that govern
improvements within park and open space areas such as Matadero Creek and the future
public park. During the public engagement process, the community and working group
members showed a great interest for naturalization of Matadero Creek, which is located
in the northwest corner of the plan area near the intersection of Park Boulevard and
Lambert Avenue. The NVCAP mandates a 100-foot riparian buffer around Matadero
Creek to create an opportunity for the future naturalization. This chapter also discusses
development of a public park near the creek. Additional standards and guidelines on
programming and natural planting that protect the natural environment are included in
this chapter to further develop and strengthen the neighborhood fabric.
Chapter 6: Site and Building Design
The Site and Building Design chapter contains design standards and guidelines for
desired future built form and sets aspirations for how new buildings will contribute to
the character of the NVCAP as it develops incrementally over time. It describes how
building height and massing regulations are intended to respect the scale and character
of the surrounding residential neighborhood as well as supporting the neighborhood
fabric. The chapter also includes design standards and guidelines for integrating building
frontages to ensure that required and encouraged ground floor uses are well integrated
into the neighborhood. In addition, to protect and enhance the environment while
addressing the principles of sustainability, the chapter describes various sustainable
design standards and guidelines.
Chapter 7: Implementation
The Implementation chapter outlines the necessary steps to fulfill the vision of the plan,
including funding, financing strategies, and capital investments. The chapter describes how the
NVCAP document and NVCAP zoning ordinance would be used in conjunction with the rest of
the zoning standards in PAMC Title 18. It also includes a list of implementation actions to
achieve the NVCAP goals. Each action includes a description, as well as the responsible parties
for implementation and the timeframe. Naturalization of Matadero Creek and development of
a public park near Matadero Creek are identified as long-term infrastructure implementation
actions. Additionally, several parking management related implementation actions are
identified with mid-term to long-term timeframes.
Modifications to the Revised Draft NVCAP
While developing the zoning ordinance implementing the NVCAP, staff identified areas where
further modifications were required for consistency and feasibility. These modifications were
primarily to Chapter 4 (Accessibility and Mobility). Additional modifications were incorporated
to address comments received during the 45-day public comment period of the Draft SEIR and
Draft NVCAP. Other modifications include minor text and graphic revisions. The final draft
NVCAP, which includes the modifications made since the release in March 2024, can be found
in both clean and marked-up versions in Attachment G. This attachment also includes a matrix
listing modifications with reasoning behind each modification.
Zoning Implementation
Staff prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment B) to implement the NVCAP by rezoning the
parcels within the NVCAP area and establishing development standards for new NVCAP zoning
districts. Each zoning district within the plan area is identified with the prefix, North Ventura
(NV). The new zoning district standards reflect the varying residential and mixed-use densities
anticipated within the plan area. Table 2 below summarizes the relationship between the
NVCAP land use designations and the PAMC zoning district regulations. Figure 1 depicts the
location of each proposed NVCAP zoning district.
The NVCAP zoning ordinance chapter is consistent with the structure of other zoning chapters
with sections such as permitted uses, development standards, parking and loading, and special
requirements. In addition to typical development standards, the NVCAP ordinance includes
special requirements specific to the plan area, including office use restrictions, storefront
guidelines, and ground floor commercial use regulations.
The draft ordinance also references the NVCAP document for several items, including the
designated location of required and encouraged ground floor uses, requirements for active
ground floor uses, specific site and building design requirements in Chapter 6, and public realm
improvements. Both the NVCAP plan document and the NVCAP zoning ordinance are intended
to be used together when designing or reviewing development proposals in the plan area.
Table 2: NVCAP Land Use Designation & Proposed Zoning District Crosswalk
NVCAP Land Use
Classification
Anticipated
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Height (FT)
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
Allowed Zoning
Districts
High-Density
Mixed-Use
61-100 65 3.0:1 NV-MXH
Medium-Density
Mixed-Use
31-70 55 2.0:1 NV-MXM
Low-Density
Mixed-Use
3-17 35 0.5:1 NV-MXL
High Density
Residential
61-100
61-100
65
65
3.0:1
3.0:1
NV-R4
NV-PF
Medium Density
Residential
16-30 45 1.5:1 NV-R3
NVCAP Land Use
Classification
Anticipated
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Height (FT)
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
Allowed Zoning
Districts
Low Density
Residential
1 or 2 units/lot 30 0.45:1 NV-R2
NV-R1
Parks NV-PF
Figure 1: NVCAP Proposed PAMC Zoning Designation Map
Staff notes that Figure 1 reflects the future vision for the entire NVCAP area. However, in
accordance with the Sobrato Development Agreement (Ordinance #5595), areas that were
rezoned to Planned Community in accordance with the Development Agreement will not be
rezoned as part of the adoption of the draft ordinance. The City Council may consider rezoning
and redesignating these parcels once the Development Agreement has expired.
To create the development standards for each of the new NVCAP zoning districts in Chapter
18.29, staff reviewed comparable existing zoning districts in the PAMC. Development standards
and permitted uses within each of the NVCAP zoning districts were selected to align with
NVCAP’s goals, including the addition of 530 net new dwelling units. These standards primarily
focus on density, FAR, height limits, and setback requirements.
Density
To establish appropriate density for the NVCAP plan, staff used a one-acre lot as the base to
calculate realistic density for each land use designation. Several factors were considered in this
calculation, including building height directed by City Council, NVCAP land use designations, and
an average unit size of 1,250 square feet to promote diversity in unit sizes within the plan area.
Staff employed different FAR levels and the average unit size to arrive at a projected density
and building size appropriate for each new NVCAP zoning district. The development standards
are also intended to provide transitions between NV districts, and between existing
development. Notably, other than the NV-R1 and NV-R2, the NV zone districts do not provide a
maximum number of dwelling units per acre, relying instead on FAR and other development
standards to control development.
FAR
The development standards tables include maximum residential FAR, maximum non-residential
FAR, total mixed-use FAR, and a minimum mixed-use ground floor commercial FAR for the
mixed-use zoning districts. The maximum FAR allowed for the NVCAP is 3.0, exceeding the
maximum FAR of 2.0 allowed for other existing zoning districts. This higher FAR is intended to
encourage higher density development, especially along El Camino Real and Park Boulevard
(particularly for NV-R4 and NV-MXH zones).
Maximum Height
On April 18, 2024, the ARB conducted a public hearing to allow for comments on the Draft
NVCAP and Draft SEIR. Considering the El Camino Real Focus area across from the NVCAP area,
which has a maximum height limit of 85 feet, the ARB recommended increasing maximum
height limits for NV-R4, NV-MXM, and NV-MXH to 65 feet. In addition, the ARB recommended
increasing maximum height limits for NV-R3 to 55 feet.
Staff reviewed these suggestions prioritizing minimal impact on neighboring low-density areas
and the Council’s endorsed preferred land use plan for NVCAP. This led to a recommendation of
45 feet for the NV-R3 and 55 feet for the NV-MXM, which are lower than the ARB's proposals.
The PTC expressed concerns about potential impacts on low-density areas. While exploring
options like varied height limits for NV-MXM zoning districts, the PTC ultimately recommended
45-foot height limit, consistent with the Preferred Plan. The existing zoning district currently
allows a maximum height of 50 feet. In addition, the El Camino Real Focus Area, which is
located across from the plan area, currently allows up to 85 feet in height. As a result, the staff
recommended height for the NV-MXM is 55 feet. Staff also modified the daylight plane
requirements to reflect the existing zoning district requirements that minimize impacts low-
density residential areas.
Table 4 compares NVCAP zoning district heights between Preferred Plan, ARB and PTC
recommendations, and staff recommendations. The maximum height limits recommended by
staff are reflected in the draft NVCAP zoning ordinance (Attachment B) and can be changed
based on City Council direction. Any projects located within the NVCAP may utilize the state
density bonus law which could result in a request for modifications to existing applicable
development standards. Any projects requesting density bonus would be evaluated pursuant to
PAMC Chapter 18.15 (Density Bonus) and could result in taller development with more floor
area and use waivers or concessions to modify objectives standards.
Table 4: Maximum Height Comparison
Maximum Height Limit (feet)
Zoning
District
Preferred
Plan
ARB
Recommendation
PTC
Recommendation
Staff
Recommendation
NV-R1
NV-R2 30 30 35 35
NV-R3 35 55 55 45
NV-R4 55 65 65 65
NV-MXL 35 35 35 35
NV-MXM 45 65 45 55
NV-MXH 55 65 65 65
Parking
AB 2097 exempts development projects within a half mile of transit from minimum parking
requirements. The map prepared for the NVCAP initially showed that the entire plan area was
within a half-mile radius of the California Avenue Caltrain station, and therefore the NVCAP
zoning ordinance did not include parking requirements. However, since the PTC meeting, staff
realized the map contained incorrect information, and the NVCAP area includes some parcels
outside the half-mile radius. The corrected NVCAP maps are included in Attachment G.
To avoid confusion and ensure consistent requirements within individual NVCAP zoning
districts, staff recommend no minimum or maximum parking requirements within the NVCAP
area. However, if the Council believes there is an interest in having parking requirements for
areas of the NVCAP outside of the half-mile radius, the requirements in the proposed zoning
ordinance (Attachment B) could be amended. However, within the NVCAP, a transportation
demand management plan will be required for all new development projects and any other
projects that meet the conditions under PAMC 18.52.030(i). This will help ensure vehicle miles
traveled in the NVCAP are properly evaluated and the long-term mobility improvements
envisioned for the area are realized.
Other Modifications
There are other modifications made to the draft zoning ordinance per ARB and PTC:
•Lot Coverage. ARB recommended increasing lot coverage for higher density residential
areas, including NV-R3 and NV-R4. The increased lot coverage for NV-R3 (from 40% to
60%) and NV-R4 (from 45% to 80%) has been incorporated into the draft NVCAP zoning
ordinance in Attachment B.
•Street Yard Setback. ARB recommended a minimum street yard of 10 feet to encourage
higher density and provide more flexibility in developing projects. Any street yards
exceeding 10 feet were reduced to 10 feet, except for Olive Avenue in R-4, which
maintains a minimum 20 feet street yard to reflect the existing stormwater treatment
area along Olive Avenue.
•Daylight Plane Requirements. PTC recommended the NVCAP daylight plane
requirements be made consistent with the requirements in the comparable zoning
districts. The draft NVCAP zoning ordinance includes revised language necessary to
implement this recommendation.
•Maximum Height for NV-R1 and NV-R2. PTC requested to increase the maximum height
limits for low density residential zoning districts, NV-R1 and NV-R2, to 35 feet from 30
feet. This has been reflected in the draft NVCAP zoning ordinance.
Additional Recommendations Considered but Not Incorporated
In addition to other items already discussed above, staff considered the following suggestions
and recommendations from the ARB and PTC which have not been incorporated into the staff
recommendation based on further analysis. The basis for these recommendations is detailed
below.
•Setback Measurement and Lot Coverage Calculation. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Title
18 (Zoning) lacks clarity on applying setbacks to basements in multi-family and
nonresidential projects. ARB requested specific language be codified to the zoning
districts that allow higher density residential (NV-R3, NV-R4, NV-MXM, and NV-MXH) to
encroach into front setbacks. However, this policy decision requires further discussion
and analysis to determine appropriate standards. In addition, staff believe this is a larger
policy decision of whether to allow encroachment of subsurface structures into setback
areas, which impacts storm water management compliance, the quality of landscaped
areas and tree plantings, groundwater recharge and potentially other considerations. As
a result, this ARB recommendation is not reflected in the draft zoning ordinance.
•Special Setback on Park Boulevard. The PTC recommended extending the special
setback requirement on Park Boulevard, currently ending at Lambert Avenue, to cover
up to Page Mill Road. The special setback requirement was not considered previously
and the impact on those properties along Park Boulevard within the NVCAP area has not
yet been analyzed. In addition, the implementation of a special setback requires
additional procedures to notify the property owners and solicit feedback before
implementation. As a result, this PTC recommendation is not reflected in the draft
zoning ordinance.
Application Review Processing
The development applications for the NVCAP will follow the City’s entitlement review process
in accordance with Title 18 of the PAMC. Development applications in the NVCAP will be
reviewed the same way as those in other areas of the City. This typically includes review by the
Architectural Review Board and approval by the Director unless appealed to the City Council. A
Planning and Transportation Commission hearing would be required for certain permits like a
Conditional Use Permit or Tentative Parcel Map. If any project is deemed Housing Development
project under the state law, then no more than five public hearings will be included as part of
its entitlement review process.
New development projects may be able to streamline their environmental analysis by tiering
off of the NVCAP SEIR. For this to occur, the project’s scope cannot extend beyond the NVCAP’s
CEQA analysis and would need to show consistency with the environmental analysis of the SEIR.
Any projects that have a scope beyond the CEQA analysis prepared for the NVCAP may need to
prepare a separate environmental analysis and may not be able to “tier off” from the SEIR.
Pipeline Projects
Since the onset of the NVCAP project, property owners have been allowed to submit
development applications consistent with the existing zoning code. Notable projects submitted
and entitled since the NVCAP initiation include 3001 El Camino Real7, 3200 Park Boulevard8,
and 3241 Park Blvd9. The zoning ordinance proposes to exempt these “pipeline projects” from
compliance with the NVCAP due to the submittal of a complete planning entitlement
application prior to the adoption of the NVCAP and its associated implementing zoning code
amendments.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The NVCAP implements one component of Comprehensive Plan Program L.4.10.1, which directs
staff to prepare a coordinated area plan for the North Ventura area and surrounding California
Avenue area. Program L.4.10.1 outlines that the plan should describe a vision for the future of
the North Ventura area as a walkable neighborhood with multi-family housing, ground floor
retail, a public park, creek improvements and an interconnected street grid.
7 3001 El Camino Real: a 100% affordable housing project with 129 units. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-
Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/30013017-El-Camino-Real
8 200 Portage: a project including partial demolition of cannery, construction of 74 dwelling units and renovation of
cannery into research & development space with associated Development Agreement.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/200-Portage-Avenue
9 3241 Park Blvd: a new 7,861 square foot office building. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-
Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/3241-Park-Boulevard
The NVCAP provides a land use framework that encourages higher density development,
including multifamily residential development and mixed-use development with higher density
residential. The NVCAP also supports a variety of housing options, a diverse range of unit sizes
and bedroom configurations, and price points to support Palo Alto residents at different stages
of life. At build out, the NVCAP would add 530 new dwelling units. Section 2.3 (Ground Floor
Edges) shows where ground floor uses would be required (along El Camino Real) and
encouraged (other mixed use areas), lists what is considered active ground floor uses, and
describes how these uses should be integrated to fit the urban fabric of the North Ventura
neighborhood.
In addition to the land use framework, the mobility framework in Section 2.4 of the NVCAP
emphasizes well-balanced and safe streets, with pedestrian and bicycle facilities designed for all
ages, and accessible paths to transit. The NVCAP prioritizes local circulation and access but also
envisions a fully integrated transportation network that goes beyond the plan area to ensure
seamless connections for all users. Chapter 4 (Accessibility and Mobility) includes gateway
intersection concept design and street design standards and guidelines that would support
achieving these mobility visions and goals. By incorporating mixed-use development,
interconnected streets, and pedestrian facilities, the NVCAP would achieve the walkable
neighborhood envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan at buildout.
The NVCAP also includes a public park and open space design standards and guidelines that
encourage development of a new park, naturalization of the Matadero Creek, and green
stormwater infrastructure.
Housing Element
The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements within the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, which assesses the condition of the City's current housing and future needs of its
residents through citywide housing goals, objectives, and policies. The City is required to
update the Housing Element every eight years.
The City adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element in May 2023. A revised Housing Element was
considered by Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council at a joint meeting on
April 15, 2024 and adopted by the City Council. The Housing Element includes the housing
needs assessment, resources and inventory of potential housing sites, housing constraints, and
housing element programs or implementation actions. The Housing Element identifies a total of
295 potential housing opportunity sites. Of the total, 17 housing opportunity sites are located
within the NVCAP. The Housing Element estimated that the development capacity for these 17
sites would yield over 300 dwelling units.
In January 2024, an ordinance implementing Housing Element Program 1.1A and 1.1B became
effective, rezoning housing opportunity sites for consistency with the Housing Element. The
zoning changes apply to multi-family, commercial, and industrial zoning to accommodate
greater housing production, including within the NVCAP. This includes modification of
development standards to increase density and height. For housing opportunity sites, the
proposed NVCAP development standards generally have more permissive standards compared
to development standards from the January 2024 rezoning. Therefore, applying NVCAP
development standards to housing opportunity sites within the plan area would not hinder
achieving the densities projected in the Housing Element. In addition, the proposed ordinance
updates Chapter 18.14 (Housing Incentives) for consistency.
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
The Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) is a comprehensive document laying out the
City’s strategy to achieve ambitious carbon reduction goals, while improving natural
environment, adapting to climate impacts, and increasing livability for Palo Alto residents. The
NVCAP’s goals to encourage mixed-use development and connected street grid with improved
mobility network aligns with the S/CAP goals. The NVCAP requires a 30 percent reduction in
trips to manage the transportation demand; this would contribute to one of the mobility goals
of the S/CAP which calls for a 12% reduction in total vehicle miles traveled by 2030. The
proposed NVCAP pedestrian and bicycle facilities and mobility improvements would also
contribute to, and be consistent with, the S/CAP mobility goal to increase the mode share for
active transportation and transit from 19% to 40% of local work trips by 2030. The NVCAP
ecological framework to create opportunities to naturalize the Matadero Creek and to
encourage green stormwater infrastructure would be consistent with the S/CAP’s Natural
Environment goals to achieve a 10% increase in land area that uses green stormwater
infrastructure.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The majority of the NVCAP project funding is from a $638,000 Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) Priority Development Area (PDA) grant. 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, who 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
$62,000 of FY 2021 departmental salary savings was allocated to project management (due to
staff vacancies). In 2021, the City was awarded $125,000 from the Local Early Action Planning
(LEAP) grant to support the NVCAP.
In October 2019, the City Council approved an expanded scope of work for the NVCAP project
and contract with the consultant, Perkins & Will. However, the City Council did not approve the
additional funding of $367,000 associated with the expanded scope. The project has not been
fully funded to date and staff have completed essential tasks by eliminating other tasks or doing
the work in-house. The lack of required resources has contributed to the timeline to complete
this project.
Per the grant agreements with both Caltrans and HCD, the City must complete the NVCAP
project by the grant due dates, or risk forfeiting the grant funds. In that case, the City would
need to repay any grant funds expended towards the project. The City received extensions for
both the PDA grant (June 30, 2026) and the LEAP grant (September 30, 2024). Upon adoption of
the NVCAP, staff will submit reimbursement requests to receive the remaining PDA grant
($57,815.38) and LEAP grant ($30,000) funding.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Consistent with PAMC Chapter 19.10 (Coordinated Area Plans), the City Council appointed a 14-
member working group. The working group met 17 times over the course of two years and
concluded their effort once alternatives were forwarded to the PTC and City Council for
consideration. Notifications throughout the process have been sent to the working group,
stakeholders, and property owners. The City maintains a project website with archives of
working group, workshops, and public hearing materials related to the NVCAP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Palo Alto, staff
prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the NVCAP (SCH #2023020691).
Staff released a Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR for the proposed project on March 8,
2024 for a 45-day public comment period that ended on Monday, April 22, 2024.
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the NVCAP found
that the impacts related to biological resources, archaeological resources, noise, and tribal
cultural resources could be significant but mitigatable to less than significant. Impacts to
historical resources would be significant and unavoidable because the project would involve
modifications to an historic resource eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources in
a manner that would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. Buildout
of the NVCAP, on a plan level, would have a significant and unavoidable criteria air pollutant
emissions impact because the increase in population would be exceeded by the increase in
VMT and daily trips. The statement of overriding considerations was prepared containing a list
of the benefits that the project will bring to the City consistent with General Plan and NVCAP
policies (Attachment A).
During the Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting held on April 18, 2024, a community
member addressed the Draft NVCAP, specifically urging rooftop gardens and the full
naturalization of the creek without barriers. In addition, staff received three comment letters
from public agencies (Caltrans, Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, and Santa Clara Valley
Water District) on the Draft SEIR by Monday, April 22, 2024, and the comments were generally
related to each public agency’s jurisdiction and operations. Both oral and written comments are
included in the Final Supplemental EIR (Final SEIR) as well as in Attachment H. Responses to
comments on the Draft SEIR and associated modifications have been integrated into the Final
SEIR for Council’s consideration prior to taking action on the environmental analysis and the
proposed project.
Prior to the City Council hearing, the Final EIR has been circulated for 10 days to the responsible
public agencies. The required 10-day circulation of the Final SEIR started on June 6, 2024 and
ended on June 17, 2024.
NEXT STEPS
After the NVCAP is adopted and the SEIR is certified, the NVCAP will take effect immediately
upon the passage of a resolution (Attachment A). Staff will then file a Notice of Determination
(NOD) with both Santa Clara County and the State Clearinghouse for the SEIR within five days of
the Council’s decision.
Following the zoning ordinance introduction at this meeting, a second reading of the ordinance
will occur after the Council’s July 2024 recess. Once passed, the NVCAP zoning ordinance, along
with other modifications in Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code implementing the NVCAP,
will become effective 30 days after the second reading. This will allow developers to submit
applications for new projects under the NVCAP.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Resolution to Certify the SEIR and Adopt the NVCAP
Attachment B: Draft Ordinance to Implement the NVCAP
Attachment C: Links to the Revised Public Draft NVCAP, Draft SEIR, Final SEIR
Attachment D: Summary of the Endorsed Preferred Plan and Council Refinements
Attachment E: Summary of Goals and Objectives Consistency
Attachment F: 2023 PTC and ARB NVCAP Comments and Staff Response
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP (including the redline version with modification from the
Revised Public Draft, and a link to the clean version)
Attachment H: Public Comment Letters on Draft SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Attachment I: Map of Street Yard setback requirements
Attachment J: Draft Verbatim Minutes NVCAP Excerpt from the May 8, 2024 PTC hearing
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director
1
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No.____
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, Certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report to the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Adopting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan
R E C I T A L S
A.California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. requires every city and county in
California to adopt a General Plan, known in Palo Alto as its Comprehensive Plan, for its
long-range development, and further, to periodically to update that plan to reflect current
issues and conditions; and
B.On November 13, 2017, the City Council for the City of Palo Alto (City) certified a Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan
through Resolution No. 9720, made findings in relation to the Final EIR, adopted a mitigation
monitoring and report plan (MMRP), and adopted a statement of overriding considerations
through Resolution No. 9721 and adopted the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan
through Resolution No. 9722; and
C.The City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan Policy L-1.7 and Program L-4.10 calls for the
preparation of a plan for the North Ventura and surrounding California Avenue area in order
to establish the future of the North Ventura area as a walkable neighborhood with multi-
family housing, ground-floor retail, a public park, creek improvements, and an
interconnected street grid; and
D.On November 6, 2017, the City Council directed staff to initiate the local planning process
for a North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 19.10.020; and
E.On March 5,2018, the City Council approved preliminary Project Goals, Objectives, schedule
milestones, and Plan boundaries for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, recognizing
that these may be modified during the planning process; and
F.On April 30, 2018, the City Council appointed a total of 14 members of the working group to
advise the staff, boards/commissions, and the Council during the preparation of the plan;
and
G.The City conducted extensive community outreach in multiple languages since the NVCAP
process has initiated in November 2017 including 17 meetings of the NVCAP Working
Group; several community pop-up events; numerous meeting with stakeholders including
school district, commercial property owners and tenants, interest groups in housing and
transportation; two community workshops; one meeting of the Architectural Review Board
(ARB); two meetings of the Historic Resources Board (HRB); six meetings of the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC); and seven meetings of the City Council; and
Attachment A
2
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
H. On January 10, 2022, City Council endorsed a preferred plan alternative, which was further
refined on November 14, 2022, which allows additional 530 dwelling units, reduces 278,000
square feet of office and up to 7,500 square feet of retail to accommodate the new dwelling
units, and allow up to two acres of park, including an opportunity to renaturalize the
Matadero Creek through establishment of a 100-foot riparian corridor buffer.
I. Pursuant to the provisions and requirements of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163,
the City as lead agency, prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the 2017
Comprehensive Plan Final EIR (SEIR) to analyze the potential environmental impacts resulting
from adopting the NVCAP; and
J. The SEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the NVCAP, in conjunction with the 2017
Comprehensive Plan Final EIR, is the environmental document upon which adoption of the
NVCAP is predicated; and
K. As provided in Government Code sections 65352 – 65352.5 the City mailed a public notice to
all California Native American tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission
and to other entities listed; and
L. No California Native American tribe requested consultation; and
M. In accordance with Government Code Section 65585 (b), on March 8, 2024, the City posted
the SEIR and the draft NVCAP and requested public comment for a 45-day review period;
and
N. On May 8, 2024, the PTC held a duly and properly noticed public hearing to consider a draft
of the SEIR and the NVCAP, and recommended that the City Council adopt the draft NVCAP.
O. On June 10, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to
take public testimony, consider the SEIR, reviewed the NVCAP and all pertinent maps,
documents and exhibits, including the staff report, and all attachments, and oral and written
public comments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby finds that, based on substantial
evidence in the record:
SECTION 1. Record of Proceedings
The record of proceedings upon which the City Council bases its decision herein includes, but is not
limited to: (1) the SEIR and the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Final EIR including all appendices and
attachments cited and/or relied upon therein; (2) the staff reports, City files and records and other
documents prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Final EIR,
SEIR, and the NVCAP; (3) the evidence, facts, findings, and other determinations set forth in this
Resolution; (4) the 2017 Comprehensive Plan; (5) all studies, data, and correspondence submitted by the
City in connection with the SEIR and the NVCAP; (6) all documentary and oral evidence received at
3
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
public workshops, meetings, and hearings; (7) all other matters of common knowledge to City
decisionmakers, including City, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, and regulations, reports, records,
and projections related top development within the City of Palo Alto and its surrounding areas. The
location and custodian of records is the City Clerk of the City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo
Alto, CA 94305.
SECTION 2. General CEQA Findings.
The City Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings
to comply with the requirements of CEQA, including Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines, based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. All statements set forth in
this Resolution constitute formal findings of the City Council, including the statements set forth in this
paragraph and in the recitals above.
1. The City determined to prepare a Supplemental EIR because the NVCAP would be built out and
fully occupied by 2040, which exceeds the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s development horizon of
2030; and the adoption of NVCAP could result in a new significant and unavoidable impact for
cultural resources and air quality not previously analyzed, but only minor additions or changes
would be necessary to make the Comprehensive Plan Final adequately apply to the NVCAP.
2. The City Council was presented with, and has independently reviewed and analyzed, the SEIR
and other information in the record, and has considered the information contained therein prior
to acting upon and adopting the Project. The City Council bases the findings stated below on
such review.
3. The SEIR, in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Final EIR, provides an adequate basis for
considering and acting upon the Project. The City Council has considered all of the evidence and
arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the SEIR. In determining whether
the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set
forth herein, the City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code Sections
21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2.
4. The City Council agrees with the characterization of the SEIR with respect to all impacts initially
identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately
and are less than significant as so described in the SEIR. This finding does not apply to impacts
identified as significant or potentially significant that are reduced to a less than significant level
by mitigation measures included in the SEIR. The disposition of each of those impacts and the
mitigation measures adopted to reduce them are addressed specifically in the findings below.
5. Mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts of the Project will be
implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) described
below, which is the responsibility of the City to enforce. The MMRP associated with the SEIR
works, for the NVCAP area, in addition to the MMRP for the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The SEIR considers a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, sufficient to foster
informed decision making, public participation and a reasoned choice, in accordance with CEQA.
7. The Revised Final SEIR contains responses to comments received on the Draft SEIR. The Final
SEIR also contains corrections and clarifications to the text and analysis of the Draft SEIR where
warranted. Factual corrections and minor changes added to the Draft SEIR have been made to
merely clarify, amplify, and/or make insignificant modifications to the information provided in
the Draft SEIR. The City Council does hereby find that such changes and additional information
4
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
are not significant new information under CEQA because such changes and additional
information do not indicate that any of the following would result from approval and
implementation of the Project: (i) any new significant environmental impact or substantially
more severe environmental impact (not already disclosed and evaluated in the Draft SEIR)
would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented,
(ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft SEIR
that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and
would not be implemented, (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those
analyzed in the Draft SEIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project
has been proposed that would not be implemented, or (iv) the Draft SEIR was fundamentally
and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment
were precluded. The City Council does find and determine that recirculation of the Final SEIR for
further public review and comment is not warranted or required under the provisions of CEQA.
8. The City Council finds and certifies that the SEIR has been prepared and completed in
compliance with CEQA and reflects the City of Palo Alto’s independent judgment and analysis as
the lead agency.
9. The City Council makes findings in this resolution with respect to significant effects on the
environment of the Project, as identified in the SEIR, with the understanding that all of the
information in this Resolution is intended as a summary of the full administrative record
supporting the SEIR, which full administrative record should be consulted for the full details
supporting these findings.
10. Any modifications to the NVCAP directed by the City Council on June 18, 2024 do not change the
conclusions of the SEIR and the Comprehensive Plan Final EIR.
SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Reduced to Less than Significant.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council
hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from
approval and implementation of the Project and the means for mitigating those impacts.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in
the SEIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable
mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the
significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of
these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the SEIR. These findings hereby
incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the SEIR that support the SEIR's determinations
regarding significant project impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The
facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and
explanation in the SEIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the determinations
and conclusions of the SEIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the
extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these
findings.
The SEIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental impacts that the
Project will cause or to which the Project would contribute. The following significant effects can be fully
addressed and reduced to less than significant through the adoption and implementation of standard
5
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
project requirements incorporated as part of the Project and feasible mitigation measures. Those
impacts, along with the standard project requirements and mitigation measures to reduce them to less
than significant, are listed below as referenced in the SEIR.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Construction activities associated with build out of the Project could result in
the loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest
abandonment.
(a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.3.2.2 of the
SEIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will be implemented as
provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings:
MM BIO-1.1: Construction During Migratory Bird and Raptor Nesting Season. To the extent
feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction
activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts to nesting birds
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code shall
be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from February 1
through August 31.
If initial site disturbance activities, including tree, shrub, or vegetation removal, are to occur
during the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting migratory birds and raptors. The survey for
nesting migratory birds shall cover the project site itself and the immediate vicinity of the site,
with the survey for nesting raptors encompassing the site and surrounding lands within 250
feet, where accessible. The survey shall occur within seven days prior to the onset of ground
disturbance.
If active nests are detected, appropriate construction-free buffers shall be established. The
buffer sizes shall be determined by the project biologist based on species, topography, and type
of activity occurring in the vicinity of the nest. Typical buffers are 25 to 50 feet for passerines
and up to 250 feet for raptors. The project buffer shall be monitored periodically by the project
biologist to ensure compliance. After the nesting is completed, as determined by the biologist,
the buffer shall no longer be required.
Following the conclusion of nesting activity and removal of the construction buffers, a report
shall be submitted to the City summarizing the results of the survey including identifying any
buffer zones, and outlining measures implemented to prevent impacts to nesting birds.
(c) Finding and Rationale. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and that it
would reduce the potential impacts on fertile eggs, nesting raptors or other migratory birds, or nest
abandonment to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure is adopted by the City Council.
Accordingly, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the SEIR.
6
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update FEIR maps the NVCAP and surrounding area as “urban forest” and
based on a survey of the California Natural Diversity Database, there is no special-status habitat located
within the areas mapped urban forest. The channelized portion of the Matadero Creek also does not
contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. However, tree removal activities have the
potential to disturb migratory birds resulting in a short-term reduction in potential nesting and foraging
habitat as well as directly destroying active nests if present; however, it is anticipated that resident and
migratory bird species would resume nesting and foraging behavior once the construction is complete,
and would utilize existing nearby nesting and foraging habitat during construction. In addition, the
above mitigation would ensure habitat or species avoidance through appropriately timed habitat
surveys to determine absence/presence, pre-construction surveys to determine absence/presence,
implementation of avoidance/preventative measures, passive removal efforts, on-site monitoring by
qualified biologists, and/or establishment of no-construction buffer zones during construction.
Therefore, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
(d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1 specified above would reduce all potential impacts for
future development under the Project to less than significant.
Noise
Impact NOI-1: Construction activities associated with build out of the Project could generate
groundborne vibration capable of causing cosmetic or worse building damage or
adversely nearby sensitive receptors.
(a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.10.2.3 of the
SEIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will be implemented as
provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings:
MM NOI-1.1: Applicants for projects within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan area shall
obtain a groundborne vibration study prior to the issuance of any discretionary permits that
would allow the use of construction equipment within 22 feet or pile driving within 101 feet of
existing structures. The study shall be prepared by a qualified professional in accordance with
industry-accepted methodology, which include the recommended vibration assessment
procedure and thresholds provided by public agencies such as Caltrans and the Federal Highway
Administration. The study should identify necessary construction vibration controls to reduce
both human annoyance and the possibility of cosmetic damage. Controls shall include, but not
be limited to, the following measures:
• A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce
high vibration levels (tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams,
etc.) shall be submitted to the City by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify
equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to
define the level of effort for reducing vibration levels below the thresholds.
• Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibration-
sensitive receptors.
7
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
• Use smaller equipment to minimize vibration levels below the limits.
• Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas.
• Select demolition methods not involving impact tools.
• Modify/design or identify alternative construction methods to reduce vibration levels
below the limits.
• Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials.
(c) Finding and Rationale. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and that it
would reduce the potential impacts related to groundborne vibration to a less-than-significant level. This
mitigation measure is adopted by the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council finds that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR.
MM NOI-1.1 requires a qualified professional to prepare a study outlining recommended vibration
assessment procedures, thresholds, and construction controls. These recommendations would address
both human annoyance and cosmetic damage, if any, to nearby single- and multi-family residences,
which are noise-sensitive receptors defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, with
implementation of MM NOI-1.1, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
(d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 specified above would reduce all potential impacts for
future development under the Project to less than significant.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: Future projects proposed under the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan could
potentially result in impacts to undiscovered tribal cultural resources.
(a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.12.2.2 of the
SEIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will be implemented as
provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings:
MM TCR-1.1: Cultural Sensitivity Training. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project
applicant shall be required to submit evidence that a Cultural Awareness Training program has
been provided to construction personnel. The training shall be facilitated by a qualified
archaeologist in collaboration with a Native American representative registered with the Native
American Heritage Commission for the City of Palo Alto and that is traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.
MM TCR-1.2: Sub-Surface Monitoring. Prior to issuance of any tree removal, grading,
demolition, and/or building permits or activities, the applicant shall notify the Director of
Planning, of grading and construction dates and activities that require a qualified archeologist
and Native American monitor to be present on the project site. The City shall then notify the
tribe via email correspondence 10 days prior to any grading or construction activities. If the tribe
chooses not to send a monitor or does not respond within the 10 days, work shall continue
without the monitor.
8
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
A qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor, registered with the Native American
Heritage Commission for the City of Palo Alto and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated
with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3, shall be
present during earthmoving activities including, trenching, initial or full grading, scraping or
blading, lifting of foundation, boring, drilling, , or major landscaping. The qualified archaeologist
and Native American monitor shall have the authority to halt construction activities in the event
any cultural materials are encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities. The
qualified archeologist and Native American monitor shall keep a daily monitoring log on days
that monitoring occurs documenting construction activities that were monitored, location of the
monitoring, and any cultural materials identified. These daily monitoring logs shall be made
available to the City upon request.
MM TCR-1.3: Treatment Plan. In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered
during construction, construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find would be halted, the
Director of Planning shall be notified, and the on-site qualified archaeologist shall examine the
find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the
appropriate treatment of the resource.
The qualified archeologist in collaboration with a Native American monitor, registered with the
Native American Heritage Commission for the City of Palo Alto and that is traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section
21080.3, shall prepare and implement a treatment plan that reflects permit-level detail
pertaining to depths and locations of excavation activities. The treatment plan shall contain, at a
minimum:
1. Identification of the scope of work and range of subsurface effects (including location
map and development plan), including requirements for preliminary field investigations.
2. Description of the environmental setting (past and present) and the historic/prehistoric
background of the parcel (potential range of what might be found).
3. Monitoring schedules and individuals.
4. Development of research questions and goals to be addressed by the investigation
(what is significant vs. what is redundant information).
5. Detailed field strategy to record, recover, or avoid the finds and address research goals.
6. Analytical methods.
7. Report structure and outline of document contents.
8. Disposition of the artifacts.
9. Security approaches or protocols for finds.
10. Appendices: all site records, correspondence, and consultation with Native Americans,
etc.
The treatment plan shall utilize data recovery methods to reduce impacts on subsurface
resources. The treatment plan must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, or
the Director’s designee prior to implementation of the plan.
MM TCR-1.4: Evaluation. The project applicant shall notify the Director of Planning, Native
American Monitor, and Archeological Monitor, of any finds during grading or other construction
activities. Any historic or prehistoric material identified in the project area during excavation
9
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
activities shall be evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic
Resources as determined by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Data recovery
methods may include, but are not limited to, backhoe trenching, shovel test, hand augering, and
hand-excavation. The techniques used for data recovery shall follow the protocols identified in
the approved treatment plan. Data recovery shall include excavation and exposure of features,
field documentation, and recordation. All documentation and recordation shall be submitted to
the Northwest Information Center, and the Director of Planning.
(c) Finding and Rationale. The City Council finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible and that it
would reduce the potential impacts related to undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less-than-
significant level. This mitigation measure is adopted by the City Council. Accordingly, the City Council
finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that would
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the SEIR.
There are no known Tribal Cultural Resources in the NVCAP area. In addition to complying with the
Comprehensive Plan Policies L-7.15, L-7.17, and L-7.18, require mitigation, identification, and protection
of archaeological resources, as well as L-7.16 that would ensure tribal consultation in accordance with
California Government Code Section 65352.3, implementation of above mitigation measures would
provide proper training and proper procedures to follow if any undiscovered tribal resources are
uncovered during construction. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures TCR-1.1 through
TCR-1.4, potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
(d) Remaining Impact. Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1 through TCR-1.4 specified above would reduce all
potential impacts for future development under the Project to less than significant.
SECTION 4. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council
hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts from
approval and implementation of the Project and the means for mitigating those impacts.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in
the SEIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable
mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and adopted by the City, and state the findings on the
significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of
these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the SEIR. These findings hereby
incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the SEIR that support the SEIR's determinations
regarding significant project impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The
facts supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the analysis and
explanation in the SEIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the determinations
and conclusions of the SEIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the
extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these
findings.
The Draft SEIR and the Revised Final SEIR documented that the Project would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated through the adoption and implementation
10
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
of feasible mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with mitigation measures to mitigate them to the
extent feasible, are listed below as referenced in the SEIR.
Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: Build out of the Project would increase VMT and daily trips by six and 12.2 percent,
respectively, and increase the service population by 4.1 percent. Since the increase in population would
be exceeded by the increase in VMT and daily trips, the Project would have a significant criteria air
pollutant emissions impact.
(a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.2.2.3 of the
SEIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following Comprehensive Plan mitigation measure are already adopted
and will be implemented as provided in the MMRP for the Project, and as further described in the
remainder of these findings:
AIR-2a: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines and Municipal Code to require, as part of
the City’s development approval process, that future development projects comply with the
current Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) basic control measures for
reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines).
AIR-2b: The City shall amend its local CEQA Guidelines to require that, prior to issuance of
construction permits, development project applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the
potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening-criteria listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
prepare and submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical assessment evaluating potential project
construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with
BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air
pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of
significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto shall require
that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures (Table 8-3,
Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for Projects with Construction
Emissions Above the Threshold, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or applicable construction
mitigation measures subsequently approved by BAAQMD) to reduce air pollutant emissions
during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures shall be
incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management
plans) submitted to the City.
AIR-2c: To ensure that development projects that have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD
screening criteria air pollutants listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines reduce regional air
pollutant emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the proposed Plan shall
include policies that require compliance with BAAQMD requirements, including BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines.
AIR-2d: Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b. In addition, to reduce long-
term air quality impacts by emphasizing walkable neighborhoods and supporting alternative
modes of transportation, the proposed Plan shall include policies that achieve the following:
11
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
• Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections between commercial and mixed-use
centers.
AIR-3a: The City of Palo Alto shall update its CEQA Procedures to require that future non-
residential projects within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel
truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered TRUs, and 2) are
within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as
measured from the property line of a proposed project to the property line of the nearest
sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto prior to future
discretionary project approval or shall comply with best practices recommended for
implementation by the BAAQMD.
The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If
the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds,
the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable
of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate
enforcement mechanisms.
Mitigation measures and best practices may include but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as
feasible.
• Electrifying warehousing docks.
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
• Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific HRA shall be identified as mitigation
measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan
as a component of a proposed project.
AIR-3c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to mitigate potential sources of toxic air
contaminants through siting or other means to reduce human health risks and meet the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s applicable threshold of significance. Policies shall also
require that new sensitive land use projects (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, nursing homes,
parks or playgrounds, and day care centers) within 1,000 feet of a major stationary source of
TACs and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicles per day consider potential health
risks and incorporate adequate precautions, such as high-efficiency air filtration, into project
design.
AIR-4: To reduce odor impacts, the proposed Plan shall include policies requiring:
• Buffers, mechanical, and other mitigation methods to avoid creating a nuisance.
TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to reducing motor vehicle traffic, with the goal of
achieving no net increase in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from new development, with an
exception for uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood character and diversity of Palo
Alto (such as ground-floor retail and below-market-rate housing). The program should, at a
12
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
minimum, require new development projects above a specific size threshold to prepare and
implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following
reduction in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from the rates included in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category and
size. These reductions are deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for the districts indicated.
• 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district
• 35 percent reduction in the California Avenue area
• 30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research Park
• 30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real Corridor
• 20 percent reduction in other areas of the city
TDM Plans must be approved by the City and monitored by the property owner or the project
proponent on an annual basis. The Plans must contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties
that accrue if targets are not met and may achieve reductions by contributing to citywide or
employment district shuttles or other proven transportation programs that are not directly
under the property owner’s control.
TRANS-1b: Require new development projects to pay a Transportation Impact Fee for all those
peak-hour motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM measures. Fees collected would
be used for capital improvements aimed at reducing motor vehicle trips and motor vehicle
traffic congestion.
(c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures are adopted Comprehensive Plan Final EIR mitigation
measures. The Comprehensive Plan Final EIR concluded that the Comprehensive Plan would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact on O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Future development under the NVCAP would
be subject to the above mitigation measures; however, as the Comprehensive Plan Final EIR concluded
that impact even with implementation of these mitigation measures would not be reduced to a less-
than-significant level. In addition, the buildout of the NVCAP would conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan
due to a net increase of O3, PM10, and PM2.5.
(d) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate this
impact to a less-than-significant level due to the programmatic nature of the NVCAP. Even though future
individual projects under the NVCAP might comply with air quality regulations, the overall program-level
impact with the buildout of the NVCAP would remain significant and unavoidable.
(e) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other benefits of the Project
override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating to air quality as set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Future projects proposed under the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan could result in
the demolition of historic buildings, including yet identified historic resources as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
(a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.3.22 of the
SEIR.
13
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure will be adopted and will be implemented as
provided in the MMRP, and as further described in the remainder of these findings:
MM CUL-1.1: Prior to project approval, future development projects that would demolish a
potential historic resource shall be required to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) to
evaluate whether the property is eligible for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory, CRHR, and NRHP. The HRE shall address the feasibility of avoiding adverse impacts
through project redesign, rehabilitation, or reuse of the resource. Preservation in place is always
the preferred measure for mitigating direct impacts to historic resources. If the resource is to be
preserved on the property, specific measures to protect the integrity of the structure and its
setting shall be identified.
MM CUL-1.2: If impacts to the historic resource cannot be avoided, all feasible measures are
required to be implemented to reduce the magnitude of the impact. At a minimum, the City
shall require “Documentation” and “Commemoration” efforts in accordance with the guidelines
established for Historic American Building Survey (HABS) consistent with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. Additional measures
could include relocation, incorporation of the resources into the project, and/or salvage. The
documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or
Architectural History.
(c) Findings. MM CUL-1.1 requires future projects that involve demolition or substantial alteration of a
potential historic resource to prepare a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE). This evaluation would
explore ways to minimize harm to the resource through project redesign, rehabilitation, or reuse. MM
CUL-1.2 ensures that all feasible measures are taken to minimize impacts if the resource cannot be
entirely avoided. However, even with these measures in place, development under the NVCAP could still
result in the demolition of historic resources, which would be considered a significant impact under
CEQA.
(d) Remaining Impacts. No further feasible measures are available to eliminate the potential for
significant cultural resource impacts. While implementing the mitigation measures outlined above (MM
CUL-1.1 and MM CUL-1.2) can lessen the impact on potential historic resources, a significant impact may
still occur. Even in scenarios where future development avoids demolition or substantial alteration,
challenges remain. Adaptive reuse of historic resources for housing presents uncertainties regarding
compliance with both the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and
the California Historic Building Code. Due to these uncertainties, the impact on cultural resources would
remain significant and unavoidable.
(e) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other benefits of the Project
override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating to historical resources as set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
SECTION 5. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives.
Public Resources Code section 21002 prohibits a public agency from approving a project if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects of the project. When a lead agency finds, even after the adoption of all
14
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
feasible mitigation measures, that a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects
that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, it must, prior to approving the project as mitigated,
first determine whether there are any project alternatives that are feasible and that would substantially
lessen or avoid the project's significant impacts. Under CEQA, “feasibility” includes “desirability” to the
extent that it is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors, and an alternative may be deemed by the lead agency to be “infeasible” if it fails
to adequately promote the project applicant’s and/or the lead agency's primary underlying goals and
objectives for the project. Thus, a lead agency may reject an alternative, even if it would avoid or
substantially lessen one or more significant environmental effects of the project, if it finds that the
alternative’s failure to adequately achieve the objectives for the project, or other specific and
identifiable considerations, make the alternative infeasible.
The City Council certifies that the Final SEIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project,
which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated
the comparative merits of the alternatives.
Chapter 2 of the Draft SEIR set forth the Goals and Objectives for the NVCAP. That list is incorporated
herein by reference. In light of the applicant's objectives for the Project, and given that the Project is
expected to result in certain significant environmental effects even after the implementation of all
feasible mitigation measures, as identified above, the City hereby makes the following findings with
respect to whether one or more of the alternatives evaluated in the Draft SEIR could feasibly accomplish
most of the goals and objectives for the Project and substantially lessen or avoid one or more of its
potentially significant effects.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes the NVCAP would remain as developed today with 142 residential
units, 744,000 square feet of office, and 111,200 square feet of retail. The No Project Alternative is
discussed in Section 7.2.2.1 of the Draft SEIR. The No Project Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible
because it would not achieve the Project objectives, as explained in Section 7.2.2.1 of the Draft SEIR.
This Alternative would not meet the NVCAP’s objectives to establish the future of the North Ventura
area as a walkable neighborhood with multi-family housing, ground-floor retail, a public park, creek
improvements, and an interconnected street grid. It would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
Policy L-1.7 and Program L-4.10. No Alternative was identified as an environmentally superior
alternative because it would avoid the identified significant impacts to historic resources.
Alternative 2: Single-Story Adaptive Reuse Alternative
Alternative 2, Single-Story Adaptive Reuse Alternative, aims to minimize modifications by keeping the
eligible historic resource building at 340 Portage Avenue at one story and creating 113 residential units,
compared to the NVCAP, which proposes to accommodate 281 residential units with a 3-story
development.
While Alternative 2 preserves the building’s character, particularly the monitor roof, significant changes
would still be necessary for residential conversion. These include modifications to all exterior walls for
windows and doors, interior compartmentalization with light wells, and substantial structural upgrades.
In addition, Alterative 2 produces a smaller number of residential units, which falls short of the project’s
15
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
objectives.
Alternative 2 still contributes to significant and unavoidable air quality impacts due to increased VMT,
but Alternative 2's reduced number of residential units (168 fewer than NVCAP) results in slightly lower
GHG emissions. The potential construction-related impacts on migratory birds, construction air quality
and noise, and tribal cultural resources would be same as the NVCAP and would require the same
mitigation measures.
Alternative 2 would meet all of the NVCAP’s objectives but the alternative would provide fewer
residential units than the NVCAP and would therefore be only partially consistent with Objective 1
(Housing and Land Use).
SECTION 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, this City
Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the
remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated
economic, social and other benefits of the Project.
The City finds that: (i) the majority of the significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to less-than-
significant and acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described in the Revised Final SEIR and
approved and adopted by these Findings; (ii) the City's approval of the Project will result in certain
significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all
feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (iii) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or
feasible Project alternatives that would further mitigate or avoid the remaining significant
environmental effects.
The significant effects that have not been mitigated to a less-than-significant level and are therefore
considered significant and unavoidable are identified in Section 4 herein. Despite these potentially
significant impacts, it is the City's considered judgment that the benefits offered by the Project outweigh
the potentially adverse effects of these significant impacts. The substantial evidence supporting the
following described benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding findings and in the record of
proceedings.
The benefits of the NVCAP which the City Council finds serve as overriding considerations justifying its
approval include the following:
(1)The NVCAP promotes a mix of residential, employment, and commercial uses within close
proximity. This integrated design encourages residents to walk, bike, and utilize public
transportation for daily needs, demonstrably reducing reliance on automobiles. With a multi-
modal transportation improvement and reduced VMT, the NVCAP would contribute to cleaner
air and help combat climate change by minimizing transportation-related GHG emissions. In
addition, a walkable, mixed-use community fosters a more efficient lifestyle, potentially
reducing overall energy consumption.
(2)The NVCAP prioritizes housing needs by planning for 530 residential units, directly contributing
to the City's efforts to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal. This increase in
housing stock creates more opportunity for affordable housing units within the NVCAP area as
well. While there is a reduction in office space, this prioritizes housing needs and encourages
the development of retail to create a “complete neighborhood.” This mixed-use approach offers
16
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
residents amenities and services conveniently located within walking distance, potentially
reducing reliance on cars and fostering a more vibrant community.
(3) The NVCAP creates an opportunity for a new public park for recreation and enjoyment, while
also creating an opportunity to naturalize Matadero Creek and a sufficient setback enhancing
the environment and promoting a connection with nature.
(4) The NVCAP's increased development capacity fosters a potential for revenue generation
through impact fees. This additional revenue stream can be strategically allocated to enhance
public amenities, ultimately improving the quality of life for residents within the NVCAP area
and potentially throughout the city.
(5) The NVCAP strengthens the City's grant applications by demonstrating a commitment to well-
planned development. Granting agencies often favor projects aligned with approved community
plans that have undergone environmental review (CEQA). This process ensures the project
considers potential impacts and incorporates strategies to minimize them, ultimately benefiting
the community.
SECTION 7. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(1) CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes made to the project that it has adopted in order to
mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMRP has been prepared and is
recommended for adoption by the City Council concurrently with the adoption of these findings
to ensure compliance with standard project requirements incorporated as part of the project
and mitigation measures during Project implementation. As required by Public Resources Code
section 21081.6, the MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the
implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR. The MMRP will
remain available for public review during the compliance period.
(2) The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares that the adoption of the MMRP
will ensure enforcement and continued imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in
the Final EIR, and set forth in the MMRP, in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the
environment.
SECTION 8. NVCAP Adopted as an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
1. Based on the record of proceedings as a whole, the City Council makes the following findings and
declarations regarding the NVCAP incorporated herein:
a. Adoption of the NVCAP is in the public interest. The NVCAP provides the framework to
create a walkable neighborhood with multi-family housing, ground-floor retail, a public
park, creek improvements, and an interconnected street grid for the North Ventura
neighborhood.
b. The NVCAP is internally consistent and consistent with the rest of the Comprehensive
Plan. As an integrated set of goals, policies, programs, and timelines, and quantified
objectives, the NVCAP does not itself approve any specific development projects; it
acknowledges land use and zoning changes that will be required and therefore it creates
no inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan.
17
0160103_20230504_ay16
NOT YET APPROVED
c.The NVCAP was developed through diligent effort by the City to achieve public
participation of all segments of the community, as described in Chapter 1 of the NVCAP.
2.Based on substantial evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, implementation of
the NVCAP’s visions for the NVCAP in Chapter 2 as well as land use policies and programs as
well as design standards provided in Chapters 3 through 6, the City would allow 530
additional dwelling units, supporting much needed housing supply for the City, and
approximately two acres of new public open space within the plan area. The NVCAP
envisions creating and enhancing well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and
bicycle facilities, including improved connections to the Caltrain Station and other major
streets like Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. It would create an opportunity to re-
naturalize Matadero Creek through the establishment of a 100-foot riparian corridor buffer.
3.The NVCAP is hereby adopted in its entirety, as an appendix and amendment to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
4.The Director of Planning and Development Services and City Clerk are hereby directed to
distribute copies of the NVCAP in the manner provided in Government Code Sections 65357
and 65589.7.
SECTION 9. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council.
INTRODUCED and PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager or Designee
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Planning and Development
Services
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a
Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) whenever it approves a project for which measures
have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the
monitoring or reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project
implementation.
The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concluded
that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment and
mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project or are required as a condition of project
approval. This MMRP addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.
This document does not discuss those subjects for which the EIR concluded that mitigation measures
would not be required to reduce significant impacts.
Exhibit A
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONTIORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2 J U N E 2 0 2 4
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: Build out of
the NVCAP would increase
VMT and daily trips by six
and 12.2 percent,
respectively, and increase
the service population by 4.1
percent. Since the increase
in population would be
exceeded by the increase in
VMT and daily trips, the
NVCAP would have a
significant criteria air
pollutant emissions impact.
Comprehensive Plan Final EIR (FEIR) Mitigation
measures AIR-2a, AIR-2b, AIR-2c, AIR-2d, and TRANS-
1a and Trans 1b
AIR-2a: The City shall amend its local CEQA
Guidelines and Municipal Code to require, as part of
the City’s development approval process, that future
development projects comply with the current Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
basic control measures for reducing construction
emissions of PM10 (Table 8-2, Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed
Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines).
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Development
Services (PDS)
Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure future development
complies with current BAAQMD
basic control measures
As development
applications are
received
AIR-2b: The City shall amend its local CEQA
Guidelines to require that, prior to issuance of
construction permits, development project
applicants that are subject to CEQA and have the
potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening-criteria
listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines prepare and
submit to the City of Palo Alto a technical
assessment evaluating potential project
construction-related air quality impacts. The
evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with
BAAQMD methodology in assessing air quality
impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants
are determined to have the potential to exceed the
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that projects that exceed
BAAQMD screening criteria
prepare construction air quality
assessments in conformance
with BAAQMD
As development
applications are
received
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N 3
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto
shall require that applicants for new development
projects incorporate mitigation measures (Table 8-3,
Additional Construction Mitigation Measures
Recommended for Projects with Construction
Emissions Above the Threshold, of the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines or applicable construction
mitigation measures subsequently approved by
BAAQMD) to reduce air pollutant emissions during
construction activities to below these thresholds.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into
all appropriate construction documents (e.g.,
construction management plans) submitted to the
City.
AIR-2c: To ensure that development projects that
have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD screening
criteria air pollutants listed in the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines reduce regional air pollutant emissions
below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, the
proposed Plan shall include policies that require
compliance with BAAQMD requirements, including
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that projects that exceed
BAAQMD screening criteria
prepare air quality assessments
in conformance with BAAQMD
As development
applications are
received
AIR-2d: Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a
and TRANS-1b. In addition, to reduce long-term air
quality impacts by emphasizing walkable
neighborhoods and supporting alternative modes of
transportation, the proposed Plan shall include
policies that achieve the following:
Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections
between commercial and mixed-use centers.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that Transportation
Demand Management (TDM)
Plans incorporate enhanced
pedestrian and bicycle
connections
As development
applications are
received
TRANS-1a: Adopt a programmatic approach to
reducing motor vehicle traffic, with the goal of
achieving no net increase in peak-hour motor vehicle
trips from new development, with an exception for
uses that directly contribute to the neighborhood
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Require projects implement a
TDM Plan to achieve established
trip reductions.
As development
applications are
received
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONTIORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4 J U N E 2 0 2 4
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
character and diversity of Palo Alto (such as ground-
floor retail and below-market-rate housing). The
program should, at a minimum, require new
development projects above a specific size threshold
to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan to achieve the following
reduction in peak-hour motor vehicle trips from the
rates included in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the
appropriate land use category and size. These
reductions are deemed aggressive, yet feasible, for
the districts indicated.
45 percent reduction in the Downtown district
35 percent reduction in the California Avenue
area
30 percent reduction in the Stanford Research
Park
30 percent reduction in the El Camino Real
Corridor
20 percent reduction in other areas of the city
TDM Plans must be approved by the City and
monitored by the property owner or the project
proponent on an annual basis. The Plans must
contain enforcement mechanisms or penalties that
accrue if targets are not met and may achieve
reductions by contributing to citywide or
employment district shuttles or other proven
transportation programs that are not directly under
the property owner’s control.
TRANS-1b: Require new development projects to pay
a Transportation Impact Fee for all those peak-hour
motor vehicle trips that cannot be reduced via TDM
measures. Fees collected would be used for capital
improvements aimed at reducing motor vehicle trips
and motor vehicle traffic congestion.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
At the building
permit issuance
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Collect Transportation Impact
Fees for peak-hour trips that
cannot be reduced.
As development
applications are
received
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N 5
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
AIR-3a: The City of Palo Alto shall update its CEQA
Procedures to require that future non-residential
projects within the city that: 1) have the potential to
generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or
have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-
powered TRUs, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a
sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools,
hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the
property line of a proposed project to the property
line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a
health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Palo Alto
prior to future discretionary project approval or shall
comply with best practices recommended for
implementation by the BAAQMD.
The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with
policies and procedures of the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA
shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds the
BAAQMD significance thresholds, the applicant will
be required to identify and demonstrate that
mitigation measures are capable of reducing
potential cancer and noncancer risks to an
acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement
mechanisms.
Mitigation measures and best practices may include
but are not limited to:
Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control
Measures idling restrictions, as feasible.
Electrifying warehousing docks.
Requiring use of newer equipment and/or
vehicles.
Restricting off-site truck travel through the
creation of truck routes.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that projects that have
the potential to generate 100 or
more diesel truck trips per day or
have 40 or more trucks with
operating diesel-powered TRUs,
and are within 1,000 feet of a
sensitive land use (e.g.,
residential, schools, hospitals,
nursing homes), as measured
from the property line of a
proposed project to the property
line of the nearest sensitive use,
prepare and submit a health risk
assessment (HRA)
As development
applications are
received
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONTIORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6 J U N E 2 0 2 4
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific
HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the
environmental document and/or incorporated into
the site development plan as a component of a
proposed project.
AIR-3b: To ensure that new industrial and
warehousing projects with the potential to generate
new stationary and mobile sources of air toxics that
exceed the BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative
significance thresholds for toxic air contaminants
and PM2.5 listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
reduce emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds of
significance, amend the City’s CEQA guidelines to
require compliance with BAAQMD requirements.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that new industrial and
warehousing projects are
evaluated against BAAQMD
thresholds and comply with
BAAQMD requirements
As development
applications are
received
AIR-3c: The proposed Plan shall include policies to
mitigate potential sources of toxic air contaminants
through siting or other means to reduce human
health risks and meet the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s applicable threshold of
significance. Policies shall also require that new
sensitive land use projects (e.g., residences, schools,
hospitals, nursing homes, parks or playgrounds, and
day care centers) within 1,000 feet of a major
stationary source of TACs and roadways with traffic
volumes over 10,000 vehicles per day consider
potential health risks and incorporate adequate
precautions, such as high-efficiency air filtration, into
project design.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that new sensitive land
uses are evaluated in
conformance with BAAQMD’s
health risk thresholds.
As development
applications are
received
AIR-4: To reduce odor impacts, the proposed Plan
shall include policies requiring:
Buffers, mechanical, and other mitigation
methods to avoid creating a nuisance.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that new development
provides adequate buffers
and/or incorporates other
methods to avoid creating odor
nuisances.
As development
applications are
received
Biological Resources
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N 7
1 Refers to smaller perching birds.
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Impact BIO-1: Construction
activities associated with
build out of the NVCAP
could result in the loss of
fertile eggs, nesting raptors
or other migratory birds, or
nest abandonment.
MM BIO-1.1 Construction During Migratory Bird and
Raptor Nesting Season. To the extent feasible,
construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid
the nesting season. If construction activities are
scheduled to take place outside the nesting season,
all impacts to nesting birds protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish
and Game Code shall be avoided. The nesting season
for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from
February 1 through August 31.
If initial site disturbance activities, including tree,
shrub, or vegetation removal, are to occur during
the bird breeding season (February 1 through August
31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-
construction survey for nesting migratory birds and
raptors. The survey for nesting migratory birds shall
cover the project site itself and the immediate
vicinity of the site, with the survey for nesting
raptors encompassing the site and surrounding lands
within 250 feet, where accessible. The survey shall
occur within seven days prior to the onset of ground
disturbance.
If active nests are detected, appropriate
construction-free buffers shall be established. The
buffer sizes shall be determined by the project
biologist based on species, topography, and type of
activity occurring in the vicinity of the nest. Typical
buffers are 25 to 50 feet for passerines1 and up to
250 feet for raptors. The project buffer shall be
monitored periodically by the project biologist to
ensure compliance. After the nesting is completed,
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Prior to the
issuance of any
tree removal or
grading permits
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that the projects either
avoid the nesting season or
conduct pre-construction surveys
for nesting migratory birds.
Prior to the
issuance of any
tree removal or
grading permit
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONTIORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
8 J U N E 2 0 2 4
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
as determined by the biologist, the buffer shall no
longer be required.
Following the conclusion of nesting activity and
removal of the construction buffers, a report shall be
submitted to the City summarizing the results of the
survey including identifying any buffer zones, and
outlining measures implemented to prevent impacts
to nesting birds.
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Future
projects proposed under the
North Ventura Coordinated
Area Plan could result in the
demolition of historic
buildings, including yet
identified historic resources
as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
MM CUL-1.1: Prior to project approval, future
development projects that would demolish a
potential historic resource shall be required to
prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) to
evaluate whether the property is eligible for
inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory,
CRHR, and NRHP. The HRE shall address the
feasibility of avoiding adverse impacts through
project redesign, rehabilitation, or reuse of the
resource. Preservation in place is always the
preferred measure for mitigating direct impacts to
historic resources. If the resource is to be preserved
on the property, specific measures to protect the
integrity of the structure and its setting shall be
identified.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
development
approval process
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that projects that would
demolish a potential historic
resource prepare and submit a
Historic Resource Evaluation
(HRE)
Prior to project
approval
MM CUL-1.2: If impacts to the historic resource
cannot be avoided, all feasible measures are
required to be implemented to reduce the
magnitude of the impact. At a minimum, the City
shall require “Documentation” and
“Commemoration” efforts in accordance with the
guidelines established for Historic American Building
Survey (HABS) consistent with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation. Additional measures
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
“Documentation”
to be provided
prior to issuance
of demo permits;
“Commemoratio
n” to be provided
prior to issuance
of occupancy
permits.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
If impacts to historic resources
cannot be avoided, ensure that
“Documentation” and
“Commemoration” efforts are
done in accordance with the
guidelines established for Historic
American Building Survey (HABS)
consistent with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for
Architectural and Engineering
Documentation.
Prior to project
approval
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N 9
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
could include relocation, incorporation of the
resources into the project, and/or salvage. The
documentation shall be completed by a qualified
architectural historian or historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards for History and/or Architectural History.
Noise
Impact NOI-1: Construction
activities associated with
build out of the NVCAP
could generate groundborne
vibration capable of causing
cosmetic or worse building
damage or adversely
affecting nearby sensitive
receptors.
MM NOI-1.1: Applicants for projects within the
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan area shall
obtain a groundborne vibration study prior to the
issuance of any discretionary permits that would
allow the use of construction equipment within 22
feet or pile driving within 101 feet of existing
structures. The study shall be prepared by a qualified
professional in accordance with industry-accepted
methodology, which include the recommended
vibration assessment procedure and thresholds
provided by public agencies such as Caltrans and the
Federal Highway Administration. The study should
identify necessary construction vibration controls to
reduce both human annoyance and the possibility of
cosmetic damage. Controls shall include, but not be
limited to, the following measures:
• A list of all heavy construction equipment
to be used for this project known to
produce high vibration levels (tracked
vehicles, vibratory compaction,
jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) shall be
submitted to the City by the contractor.
This list shall be used to identify
equipment and activities that would
potentially generate substantial vibration
and to define the level of effort for
reducing vibration levels below the
thresholds.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Prior to the
issuance of
discretionary
permits for
construction
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that projects prepare and
submit a groundborne vibration
study by a qualified professional
Prior to project
approval
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONTIORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
10 J U N E 2 0 2 4
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
• Place operating equipment on the
construction site as far as possible from
vibration-sensitive receptors.
• Use smaller equipment to minimize
vibration levels below the limits.
• Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers
near sensitive areas.
• Select demolition methods not involving
impact tools.
• Modify/design or identify alternative
construction methods to reduce vibration
levels below the limits.
• Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: Future
projects proposed under the
North Ventura Coordinated
Area Plan could potentially
result in impacts to
undiscovered tribal cultural
resources.
MM TCR-1.1: Cultural Sensitivity Training. Prior to
issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant
shall be required to submit evidence that a Cultural
Awareness Training program has been provided to
construction personnel. The training shall be
facilitated by a qualified archaeologist in
collaboration with a Native American representative
registered with the Native American Heritage
Commission for the City of Palo Alto and that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
geographic area as described in Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that projects submit
evidence that a Cultural
Awareness Training program has
been provided to construction
personnel.
Prior to issuance
of any grading
permit
MM TCR-1.2: Sub-Surface Monitoring. Prior to
issuance of any tree removal, grading, demolition,
and/or building permits or activities, the applicant
shall notify the Director of Planning, of grading and
construction dates and activities that require a
qualified archeologist and Native American monitor
to be present on the project site. The City shall then
notify the tribe via email correspondence 10 days
prior to any grading or construction activities. If the
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Prior to the
issuance of any
tree removal,
grading,
demolition,
and/or building
permits or
activities
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that projects incorporate
a qualified archaeologist and
Native American monitor to be
present during earthmoving
activities including, trenching,
initial or full grading, scraping or
blading, lifting of foundation,
boring, drilling, or major
landscaping.
Prior to issuance
of any grading
permit
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N 11
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
tribe chooses not to send a monitor or does not
respond within the 10 days, work shall continue
without the monitor.
A qualified archaeologist and a Native American
monitor, registered with the Native American
Heritage Commission for the City of Palo Alto and
that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
geographic area as described in Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3, shall be present during
earthmoving activities including, trenching, initial or
full grading, scraping or blading, lifting of foundation,
boring, drilling, or major landscaping. The qualified
archaeologist and Native American monitor shall
have the authority to halt construction activities in
the event any cultural materials are encountered
during ground-disturbing construction activities. The
qualified archeologist and Native American monitor
shall keep a daily monitoring log on days that
monitoring occurs documenting construction
activities that were monitored, location of the
monitoring, and any cultural materials identified.
These daily monitoring logs shall be made available
to the City upon request.
MM TCR-1.3: Treatment Plan. In the event any
significant cultural materials are encountered during
construction, construction within a radius of 50 feet
of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning
shall be notified, and the on-site qualified
archaeologist shall examine the find and make
appropriate recommendations regarding the
significance of the find and the appropriate
treatment of the resource.
The qualified archeologist in collaboration with a
Native American monitor, registered with the Native
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
construction
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that the qualified
archaeologist’s
recommendations are
incorporated into the treatment
plan for any encountered cultural
materials.
At the time of
the find.
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONTIORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
12 J U N E 2 0 2 4
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
American Heritage Commission for the City of Palo
Alto and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated
with the geographic area as described in Public
Resources Code Section 21080.3, shall prepare and
implement a treatment plan that reflects permit-
level detail pertaining to depths and locations of
excavation activities. The treatment plan shall
contain, at a minimum:
Identification of the scope of work and range of
subsurface effects (including location map and
development plan), including requirements for
preliminary field investigations.
Description of the environmental setting (past and
present) and the historic/prehistoric background of
the parcel (potential range of what might be found).
Monitoring schedules and individuals.
Development of research questions and goals to be
addressed by the investigation (what is significant vs.
what is redundant information).
Detailed field strategy to record, recover, or avoid
the finds and address research goals.
Analytical methods.
Report structure and outline of document contents.
Disposition of the artifacts.
Security approaches or protocols for finds.
Appendices: all site records, correspondence, and
consultation with Native Americans, etc.
The treatment plan shall utilize data recovery
methods to reduce impacts on subsurface resources.
The treatment plan must be reviewed and approved
by the Director of Planning, or the Director’s
designee prior to implementation of the plan.
MM TCR-1.4: Evaluation. The project applicant shall
notify the Director of Planning, Native American
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
During
construction
City of Palo Alto
PDS Department
Ensure that any historic or
prehistoric material identified in
At the time of
the find.
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N 13
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility Monitoring Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Monitor, and Archeological Monitor, of any finds
during grading or other construction activities. Any
historic or prehistoric material identified in the
project area during excavation activities shall be
evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California
Register of Historic Resources as determined by the
California Office of Historic Preservation. Data
recovery methods may include, but are not limited
to, backhoe trenching, shovel test, hand auguring,
and hand-excavation. The techniques used for data
recovery shall follow the protocols identified in the
approved treatment plan. Data recovery shall
include excavation and exposure of features, field
documentation, and recordation. All documentation
and recordation shall be submitted to the Northwest
Information Center, and the Director of Planning.
the project area during
excavation activities shall be
evaluated for eligibility for listing
in the California Register of
Historic Resources as determined
by the California Office of Historic
Preservation.
N O R T H V E N T U R A C O O R D I N A T E D A R E A P L A N F I N A L S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
C I T Y O F P A L O A L T O
MITIGATION MONTIORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
14 M A Y 2 0 2 4
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 1 of 19 0160145_20240530_ay16
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV)
District Regulations) and Amending Chapters 18.14 (Housing Incentives), 18.24 (Contextual
Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards), and 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing
Requirements) to Implement the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Chapter 18.29 (North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code is added to read as follows:
CHAPTER 18.29
NORTH VENTURA (NV) DISTRICT REGULATIONS
18.29.010 Purpose
18.29.020 Applicability of Regulations
18.29.030 Zoning Districts
18.29.040 Definitions
18.29.050 Permitted Uses
18.29.060 Development Standards
18.29.070 Parking and Loading
18.29.080 Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards
18.29.090 Housing Incentive Programs for NV District
18.29.100 Non-conforming Uses and Non-Complying Facilities
18.29.110 Transportation Demand Management Plan
18.29.010 Purpose
The purpose of the North Ventura district is to implement the vision and framework of the North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) through use regulations and development standards.
18.29.020 Applicability of Regulations
(a) The North Ventura districts shall apply to properties within the NVCAP and designated as North
Ventura Coordinated Area Plan within the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Where designated, the
regulations set forth in this chapter shall apply in lieu of the comparable provisions established by the
underlying zoning district regulations.
(b) Refer to the NVCAP for design guidelines related to streets and buildings in conjunction with the
regulations contained within this chapter.
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 2 of 19 0160145_20240530_ay16
18.29.030 Zoning Districts
The North Ventura districts shall apply to properties designated on the zoning map by the symbol “NV” in
front of the zoning district designation.
The following zoning districts are intended to create and maintain sites for residential, commercial and
mixed-use sites:
(a) Single Family Residential District (NV-R1)
The NV-R1 single family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for
detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording maximum privacy and
opportunities for outdoor living and children’s play. Minimum site area requirements are established to
create and preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide adequate open area, and to encourage
quality design. Accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units and accessory structures or
buildings are appropriate. Community uses and facilities are allowed to the extent no net loss of housing
would result.
(b) Two Family Residential District (NV-R2)
The NV-R2 two-family residential district is intended to allow a second dwelling unit, under the same
ownership as the initial dwelling unit, in areas designated for single-family use or NVCAP by the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, under regulations that preserve the essential character of single-family use.
Community uses and facilities are allowed to the extent no net loss of housing would result.
(c) Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential District (NV-R3)
The NV-R3 medium density multiple-family residential district is intended to create, preserve and enhance
neighborhoods for multiple-family housing with better transition to lower density residential districts.
Projects at this density are intended for larger parcels that will enable developments to provide their own
parking spaces and to meet their open space needs in the form of garden apartments or cluster
developments. While there is no maximum density in the NV-R3 residential district, the NVCAP anticipates
realistic development yields ranging from 16 to 30 dwelling units per acre based on the applicable
development standards.
(d) High Density Multiple-Family Residential District (NV-R4)
The NV-R4 high density multiple-family residential district is intended to create, preserve and enhance
locations for apartment living at the greater density deemed appropriate for NVCAP. The most suitable
locations for this district are along major transportation corridors which are close to mass transportation
facilities and major employment and service centers. While there is no maximum density in the NV-R4
residential district, the NVCAP anticipates realistic development yields ranging from 61 to 100 dwelling
units per acre based on the applicable development standards.
(e) Low Density Mixed-Use District (NV-MXL)
The purpose of the NV-MXL district is to allow for small-scale commercial and services with limited amount
of residential that is compatible with the surrounding development. While there is no maximum density
in the NV-MXL district, the NVCAP anticipates realistic development yields ranging from three to 17
dwelling units per acre.
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 3 of 19 0160145_20240530_ay16
(f) Medium Density Mixed-Use District (NV-MXM)
The purpose of the NV-MXM district is to allow for a compatible mix of residential and limited commercial.
While there is no maximum density in the NV-MXM district, the NVCAP anticipates realistic development
yields ranging from 31 to 70 dwelling units per acre.
(g) High Density Mixed-Use District (NV-MXH)
The purpose of the NV-MXH district is to allow for a mix of retail, restaurant, entertainment and
commercial uses on the ground floor with residential on the upper floors, while maintaining a pedestrian-
oriented streetscape. It is intended that the active ground floor retail space required will ensure
neighborhood-oriented retail and services are provided within walking distance of high density
residential. Ground floor active uses are required along El Camino Real. While no maximum density in the
NV-MXH district, the NVCAP anticipates realistic development yields ranging from 61 to 100 dwelling units
per acre.
(h) Public Facilities District (NV-PF)
The NV-PF public facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational,
and community service or recreational facilities. Within the North Ventura area, an approximate one-acre
portion of the NV-PF district may permit a 100% affordable housing project.
18.29.040 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Street yard” means a yard adjoining a street lot line and may also be a front lot line.
18.29.050 Permitted Uses
(a) The uses of land allowed by this chapter in each zoning district are identified in the following tables.
Land uses that are not listed in the tables are not allowed, except where otherwise noted. Where the last
column on the following tables ("Subject to Regulations in") includes a section number, specific
regulations in the referenced section also apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections not
specifically referenced may apply as well.
TABLE 1: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
TUP = Temporary Use Permit Required
— = Not Permitted
Page 4 of 19
ATTACHMENT F
LAND USE NV-
R1
NV-
R2
NV-
R3
NV-
R4
NV-
MXL
(1)(5)
NV-
MXM
(5)
NV-
MXH
NV-
PF
Subject to
Regulations In:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities
and activities
customarily
incidental to the
permitted use
P P P P P P P — 18.40
18.10.080
18.12.080
Accessory Dwelling
Unit & Junior
Accessory Dwelling
Unit when
accessory to
primary and
permitted
residential use
P P P P P P P — 18.09
Home Occupations,
when accessory to
permitted
residential use
P P P P P P P P 18.42
Horticulture,
Gardening, and
Growing of food
products for
consumption by
occupants of a site
P P P P P P P —
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES
Private Clubs,
Lodges, or Fraternal
Organizations,
excluding any such
facility operated as
a business for profit
— — — CUP CUP — — —
Private Educational Facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP P P —
Religious
Institutions
CUP CUP CUP CUP P P P —
OFFICE USES(2)
Administrative Office Services — — — — P P P — 18.29.050(a)
Medical Offices — — — — P P P — 18.29.050(a)
Professional and
General Business
Offices
— — — — P P P — 18.29.050(a)
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 5 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
Community Centers CUP CUP CUP CUP — — — CUP
(3)
Utility Facilities
essential to
provision of utility
services but
excluding
construction or
storage yards,
maintenance
facilities, or
corporation yards.
CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP —
RECREATION USES
Neighborhood Recreational
Centers
— — CUP CUP — — — CUP
(3)
Commercial
Recreation
— — — — CUP CUP CUP CUP
(3)
Outdoor Recreation Services CUP CUP CUP CUP — CUP CUP CUP
(3)
Youth Clubs — — — — — — — CUP
(3)
RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family P P — — — — — —
Two-Family P P — — — — — — 18.42.180
Multiple-Family — — P P P P P P(4)
Residential Care Homes P P P P P P P —
RETAIL USES
Eating and Drinking
Services, except
drive-in and take-
out services
— — P P P P P CUP
(3)
18.40.160,
18.29.050(c)
Personal Services
and Retail Services
of a neighborhood-
serving nature
— — P P P P P CUP
(3)
18.40.160,
18.29. 050(c)
Liquor stores — — — — — P P — 18.40.160, 18.29. 050(c)
SERVICE USES
Animal Care,
excluding boarding and kennels
— — — — P P P — 18.29. 050(c)
Convalescent Facilities — — — CUP P P P —
Day Care Centers CUP CUP CUP P P P P — 18.40.160
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 6 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
Large Family Day Care Homes P P P P P P P P(3)
Small Family Day Care Homes P P P P P P P P(3)
Large Adult Day
Care Homes
CUP CUP P P P P P P(3)
Small Adult Day Care Homes P P P P P P P P(3)
Financial Services — — — — P P P — 18.29.050(a) 18.29.060(b)
General Business
Services
— — — — P P P — 18.29. 050(a)
18.29.060(b)
Hotels — — — — — P P — 18.40.160, 18.16.060(d)
Personal Services — — — — P P P — 18.40.160,
18.29. 050(c)
18.29.060(b)
AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE USES
Park uses and uses
incidental to park operation
— — — — — — — P
All facilities owned
or leased, and
operated or used,
by the City of Palo
Alto, the County of
Santa Clara, the
State of California,
the government of
the United States,
the Palo Alto
Unified School
District, or any
other
governmental
agency, or leased
by any such agency
to another party
— — — — — — — P
Utility Facilities — — — — — — — CUP
TEMPORARY USES
Temporary Uses — — TUP TUP — — — — 18.42.050
Farmer’s Markets — — — — — CUP CUP —
Temporary Parking
Facilities, provided
that such facilities
shall remain no
— — — — — CUP CUP CUP
(3)
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 7 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
more than five years
Notes:
(1) For NV-MXL zoning district, the total floor area of non-residential uses permitted and conditionally
permitted on a lot shall not exceed 5,000 square feet.
(2) For office uses, total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 5,000 square feet.
(3) Provided such use is conducted on property owned by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa
Clara, the State of California, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School
District, or any other governmental agency, and leased for said uses.
(4) Only a 100% Affordable Housing Project is permitted. Development shall follow NV-R4 standards.
(5) Ground floor uses shall comply with the ground floor edge framework set forth in NVCAP section
2.3.
(a) Office Use Restrictions
(1) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office Medical, Professional,
and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless any of the following apply to such
offices:
(A) Have been continuously in existence in that space since DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP, and as of
such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter
18.30(I);
(B) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, neighborhood business service, retail services,
personal services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP
or thereafter;
(C) Occupy a space that was vacant on DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP; or
(D) Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after DATE OF ADOPTION OF NVCAP
if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, and personal
services does not decrease.
(E) Along El Camino Real, the office use has a consistent flow of in-person customers visiting the
business, such as a dentist or medical office.
(2) Size Restrictions on Office Uses in the NV District
(A) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 5,000 square feet.
(b) Late Night Use and Activities
Late Night Use and Activities requirements established in Section 18.42.040 shall apply to NV zoning
districts.
(c) Active Ground Floor Commercial Uses
The NVCAP requires active ground floor uses along the El Camino Real corridor and encourages active
ground floor uses on other designated streets. Active uses are activities and functions that promote social
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 8 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
engagement, vitality, and interaction within a community. Refer to NVCAP, Section 2.3 for detailed
requirements.
(1) Active ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, neighborhood
business service, and eating and drinking establishments. These may also include other active uses such
as daycare, building lobbies, spaces accessory to residential uses such as fitness rooms, workspaces,
leasing offices, bicycle facilities (Class I) with direct access to the sidewalk. Office uses may be included
only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations, are consistent with 18.29.080(a) and
have a regular flow of in-person customers.
(2) Ground floor commercial uses are required for properties with frontage along El Camino Real, as
shown in the NVCAP Section 2.3 (Ground Floor Edges).
(3) Ground floor commercial uses shall have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 14 feet.
(4) Retail or retail-like at the ground floor is required at the intersections of El Camino Real and Olive
Avenue, and El Camino Real and Portage Avenue.
(5) 100% affordable housing projects are exempt from providing ground floor commercial uses.
18.29.060 Development Standards
(a) The following tables specify the development standards that shall apply to NV district properties.
Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to Regulations in") includes a section number,
specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the development standard; however,
provisions in other sections may apply as well.
TABLE 1: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R1 NV-R2 Subject to
Regulations In:
Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special
setback map pursuant to Chapter
20.08 of this code may also apply
18.10.050
Street yard (ft) Pepper Ave: Olive Ave: 18.29.020(b)
10’ to create a 10’
12’ effective
sidewalk width
(1)
Olive Ave:
10’
Height (ft) 35’ 35’
Parking None None 18.29.070
Other development standards See regulations in Chapter 18.12 See regulations in Chapter 18.10
Notes:
(1) The effective sidewalk width includes the pedestrian clear zone and landscape/furniture zone as
described in PAMC 18.24.020.
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 9 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
TABLE 2: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL & MUTLI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R3 NV-R4 Subject to
Regulations
In:
Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
8,500
70
100
Minimum Setbacks
Street Yard (ft) Park Blvd.: 10’
Ash St: 5’
Acacia Ave: 5’
Portage Ave: 5’
Park Blvd.: 10’
Olive Ave.: 20’
Ash St.: 5’
Page Mill Rd:
sufficient to create a
12’ effective sidewalk width(2)(3)
18.29.020(b)
Interior Side Yards (ft) 5’ 5’
Interior Rear Yards (ft) 10’ 10’
Build-to-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback(1) 33% of side street built to setback(1)
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 45’ 65’ 18.29.100
Daylight Plane, for side and rear lot
lines for sites abutting any NV-R1 or NV-R2 district or abutting a site containing a single-family or two- family residential use in a mixed-use district
10’ initial height
45-degree daylight plane angle
Daylight Plane, for side and rear lot
lines for sites abutting any NV-R3, NV-R4, Planned Community, or mixed-use district that does not contain a single-family or two-family residential use
Refer to 18.24.050(b)(1)(C)
Maximum Lot Coverage (%)
Base 60 80
Additional area permitted to be
covered by covered patios or
overhangs otherwise in compliance
with all applicable laws
5 5
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Residential FAR 1.5:1 3.0:1
Maximum Non-residential FAR 0.15:1 0.15:1 18.29.050(c)
Total Mixed-Use FAR 1.5:1 3.0:1
Residential Density (net units per acre)
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 10 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-R3 NV-R4 Subject to
Regulations In:
Maximum units per acre None None
Minimum units per acre 16 61
Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage (%)(4) 30 10
Minimum Usable Open Space (ft2
per unit)
150 150
Minimum Common Open Space (ft2 per unit) 75 75
Minimum Private Open Space (ft2 per unit) 50 50
Landscape Requirements 18.40.130
Parking None Required 18.29.070
Notes:
(1) 25-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage.
(2) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet
adjoining the street property line of any required yard.
(3) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped
screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in
height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (4) Landscape coverage may be provided above the ground-floor.
TABLE 3: MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD NV-MXL NV-MXM NV-MXH Subject to Regulations
In:
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft)
None Required
Minimum Setbacks
Street Yard (ft) Ash St.: 5’ El Camino Park Blvd: 5’ 18.29.020(b)
Olive Ave.: 10’ Real: sufficient El Camino Real:
Portage Ave: 0’ to create a 12’ sufficient to
Pepper Ave: 10’ effective create a 12’
sidewalk
width(1)(2)
El Camino
effective
sidewalk width(1)(2)
Real: sufficient Oregon
to create a 12’ Expy/Page Mill
effective Rd: sufficient to
sidewalk
width(1)(2)
create a 12’
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 11 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD NV-MXL NV-MXM NV-MXH Subject to
Regulations In:
Pepper: 10’ effective
Olive Ave 10’ sidewalk(1)(2)
Ash St: 5’ Lambert Ave: 5’
Park Blvd: 10’ Acacia Ave: 5’
Lambert Ave: Portage Ave: 5’
5’
Portage Ave: 5’
Acacia Ave: 5’
Build-to-Lines None For properties abutting El Camino
Real:
50% of frontage built to setback(1)
33% of side street built to
setback(1)
Rear Yard (ft) 10’ 10’ for 10’ for residential
residential portion/ none for
portion/ none commercial
for commercial portion
portion
Rear Yard abutting
residential zone district
(ft)
10’ 10’ 10’
Interior Side Yard (ft) 10’ 5’ 5’
Build-to-lines None Required
Permitted Setback
Encroachments Refer to Section 18.40.070
Maximum Setback (ft) Not applicable El Camino Real: 10’ El Camino Real: 10’
Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 50 100 100
Minimum
Landscape/Open Space Coverage (%)
20 10 10
Usable Open Space
(Private and/or
Common) (ft2)
150 per unit 18.16.090
Maximum Height (ft) 18.29.100
Standard 35’ 55’ 65’
Ground Floor Height Refer to Section 18.24.060(c)(5)(A)
Daylight Plane for lot
lines abutting one or
more residential zoning
Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those
of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line
districts
Residential Density (net units per acre)
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 12 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD NV-MXL NV-MXM NV-MXH Subject to
Regulations In:
Maximum units per
acre
None Required
Minimum units per acre 3 31 61
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Residential
FAR
0.5:1 2.0:1 3.0:1
Maximum Non- residential FAR(4) 0.25:1 0.25:1 0.25:1 18.29.050(c) 18.29.060(c)
Minimum Mixed-Use
Ground Floor Commercial
FAR
0.15:1 0.15:1 0.15:1 18.29.050(c)
Total Mixed-Use FAR 0.5:1(4) 2.0:1 3.0:1
Parking None Required 18.29.070
Notes:
(1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet
adjoining the street property line of any required yard.
(2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped
screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in
height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.
(3) The 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the
Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set
forth in Chapter 18.76.
(4) As provided in 18.29.060(c), maximum FAR for hotels shall be 2.0:1. Hotel projects in the NV-MXL
zone may reach a Total Mixed-Use FAR of 2.0:1.
TABLE 4: PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(1)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-PF Subject to
Regulations In:
Minimum Setbacks
Street Yard (ft) Portage Ave: 0’
Park Blvd: 10’
Lambert Ave: 5’
18.29.020(b)
Rear Yard (ft) 10’ 18.40.140
Side Yard (ft) 5’
Maximum Site Coverage (%)
Multiple-Family Residential Use
Other Uses
100
20
Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage (%)
Multiple-Family Residential Use
Other Uses
0 Not applicable
Usable Open Space (Private and/or Common) (ft2) Multiple-Family Residential Use 150 per unit
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 13 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NV-PF Subject to
Regulations In:
Maximum Height (ft)
Multiple-Family Residential Use
Other Uses
65’
18.29.100
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Multiple-Family Residential Use
Other Uses
3.0:1
1.0:1
Parking 18.29.070
Notes:
(1) Residential standards in this table shall only be applicable to 100% Affordable Housing Projects. For
standards not listed in Table 4 for 100% Affordable Housing Projects in NV-PF, refer to applicable NV-
R4 development standards in PAMC 18.29.060, Table 2.
(b) Storefront Guidelines
Where active use and retail frontages are required or located within the NV district on the ground floor,
the following design standards shall apply:
(1) Exterior windows on the ground floor shall use transparent glazing to the extent feasible. Low-e
glass or minimal tinting to achieve sun control is permitted, so long as the glazing appears transparent
when viewed from the ground level.
(2) Window coverings are not permitted on the ground floor during typical business hours. Where
operations preclude transparency (e.g., theaters) or where privacy requires window coverings, sidewalk-
facing frontage shall include items of visual interest including displays of merchandise or artwork; visual
access shall be provided to a minimum depth of three (3) feet.
(3) No more than 10% of the total street-facing building façade or a maximum of 25 feet in width,
whichever is greater, shall be dedicated to mechanical equipment rooms, parking garage entrances, exit
stairs, and other facilities necessary for building operation.
(c) Hotel Regulations
(1) The purpose of these regulations is to allow floor area for development of hotels more than floor
area limitations for other commercial uses, to provide a visitor-serving use that results in an enhanced
business climate, increased transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenue, and other community and
economic benefits to the city.
(2) Hotels, where they are a permitted use, may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1, subject to the
following limitations:
(A) The hotel use must generate transient occupancy tax (TOT) as provided in Chapter 2.33 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code; and
(B) No room stays more than thirty days are permitted, except where the city council approves
longer stays through an enforceable agreement with the applicant to provide for compensating revenues.
(3) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to:
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 14 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
(A) No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use;
and
(B) No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted
to condominium use; and
(C) A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building(s); and
(D) Where residential condominium use is proposed, room stays for other hotel rooms shall not
exceed thirty (30) days.
(4) Violation of this chapter is subject to enforcement action for stays more than thirty days not
permitted under the provisions of this chapter, in which case each day of room stay more than thirty days
shall constitute a separate violation and administrative penalties shall be assessed pursuant to Chapters
1.12 and 1.16.
18.29.070 Parking and Loading
In accordance with Assembly Bill 2097 (2022), no minimum automobile parking is required for properties
within the NV Districts except for projects including transient lodging. There are no maximum parking
standards. Standards for transient lodging and other parking standards, such as bicycle parking, and
parking design standards are contained within PAMC Chapters 18.52 and 18.54.
18.29.080 Context-Based Design Criteria and Objective Design Standards
In addition to the development standards prescribed in 18.29.050, all Housing Development Projects shall
comply with the objective standards outlined in Chapter 18.24, as defined herein. All other developments,
and Housing Development Projects that elect to deviate from one or more objective design standards in
Chapter 18.24, shall meet the Context Based Design Criteria, as determined by the Director pursuant to
the Architectural Review process. In the event of any conflict between the development standards
established in this Chapter and those established in Chapter 18.24, the NVCAP standards shall prevail.
(a) Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria
Refer to Section 18.13.060 for the Context Based Design Criteria.
(b) Mixed-Use and Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria
Refer to Section 18.16.090 for the Context Based Design Criteria.
18.29.090 Housing Incentive Programs for NV District
(a) Housing development projects in the NV Districts may utilize any Housing Incentive Program or
Affordable Housing Incentive Program set forth in Sections 18.14.030 and 18.14.040.
18.29.100 Non-conforming Uses and Non-Complying Facilities
Any uses or facilities rendered non-conforming or non-complying by this Chapter shall be subject to
Chapter 18.70, including the schedules for required termination of non-conforming uses under Section
18.70.070.
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 15 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
18.29.110 Transportation Demand Management Plan
A transportation demand management plan shall be required for all new development projects or any
projects that meet the conditions listed in PAMC Section 18.52.030(i).
SECTION 2. Table 1 of Section 18.14.020 (Housing Element Opportunity Sites) of Chapter 18.14
(Housing Incentives) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows (additions underlined):
Table 1
Housing Element Opportunity Site Development Standards
(Residential and Commercial Mixed Use Districts)
Base Zoning
District
Maximum Far(1) Minimum
Landscape Coverage
Residential Density
(du/ac)(4)
Other
Development Standards
Residential Total Minimum Maximum
CC(2) 1.5 2.0 (3) 20 See base
district
See base district
regulations:
CC 1.25 1.25 (3) 20 regulation
s: 18.16.0
60
18.16.060
CS (El Camino
Real)
1.25 1.25 (3) 20
CS (Other) 1.25 1.25 (3) 20 See HE
Appendix
D
CN (El Camino 1.25 1.25 30%(3) 20 See base
Real) district
regulation
s: 18.16.0
60
CN (Other) 1.25 1.25 30%(3) 20 See HE
Appendix
D
CD-C 2.0 2.0 (2) (3) 20 See base See base district
district regulations:
regulation
s: 18.18.0 18.18.060
60
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 16 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
CD-N 1.5 1.5 (3) 20 See HE
Appendix
D
RP 1.25 1.25 (3) 25 None; 40
du/ac
anticipate d
See base district
regulations:
18.20.040
RM-40 1.5 1.5 (3) 31 See HE
Appendix
See base district
regulations:
RM-30 1.25 1.25 (3) 20 D
18.13.040
RM-20 1.25 1.25 See 18.13.0
40
20
NV-R3 See base district regulations: 18.29.060, except that maximum height shall be 50’,
maximum lot coverage shall be 70%, and minimum density shall be 25 du/ac.
Notes: (1) Nothing in this table increases the non-residential floor area permitted in any district. (2) FAR may be increased with transfer of development rights; see Chapter 18.18 for details. (3) Landscape coverage may be provided above the ground-floor. If standard is not specified, refer to
base district regulations. (4) Where no maximum density is provided in terms of du/ac, maximum density shall be determined by
estimating the realistic development capacity of the site based on the objective development standards applicable to the project. Where noted, refer to Housing Element Appendix D: Sites Inventory for specified
densities.
SECTION 3. Section 18.24.010 (Purpose and Applicability) of Chapter 18.24 (Contextual Design
Criteria and Objective Design Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows (additions underlined, and unchanged text omitted by bracketed
ellipses):
18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability
(a) Purpose
[. . .]
(b) Applicability of Regulations
These regulations apply to new construction and renovations of Housing Development
Projects (as defined in Gov. Code 65589.5, but excluding projects compromised of single- or
two-family uses with one or more ADUs), including supportive and transitional housing, and
residential mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds residential square footage. Regulations
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 17 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
apply both new construction and renovations, within the following zones and combining
districts:
(1) Chapter 18.12: R-1, for multiple-family uses only
(2) Chapter 18.13: RM-20, RM-30, RM-40
(23) Chapter 18.16: CN, CC, CC(2), CS
(34) Chapter 18.18: CD-C, CD-S, CD-N
(45) Chapter 18.20: MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), GM
(56) Chapter 18.28: PF
(7) Chapter 18.29: NV-N3, NV-R4, NV-MXM, NV-MXH
(68) Chapter 18.34: PTOD combining district
Housing Development Projects include multifamily housing with three or more units ("multiple-
family use" as defined in Section 18.04.030), supportive and transitional housing, and
residential mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds residential square footage shall meet the
objective design standards.
(c) Process and Alternative Compliance
[. . .]
SECTION 4. Section 16.65.030 (Basic affordable housing requirement - residential ownership
projects) of Chapter 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) of Title 16 (Building
Regulations) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, and unchanged text omitted
by bracketed ellipses):
16.65.030 Basic affordable housing requirement - residential ownership projects.
The provisions of this section shall apply to all residential ownership projects, including the
residential ownership portion of any mixed use project containing three or more units, except
for any residential ownership project exempt under Section 16.65.025.
(a) Unless an alternative is approved as described in Section 16.65.080, residential ownership
projects shall provide the following:
(1) For projects on sites of less than five acres, fifteen percent of the dwelling units in the
project shall be made available at affordable sales price to very low, low, and moderate income
households;
(2) For projects on sites of five acres or more and all townhome projects in the NV districts,
twenty percent of the dwelling units in the project shall be made available at affordable sales
price to very low, low, and moderate income households; and
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 18 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
(3) For projects that convert existing rental housing to condominiums, other residential
ownership or nonresidential space or that remove existing rental housing, twenty-five percent of
the dwelling units in the project shall be made available at affordable sales price to very low, low,
and moderate income households.
(4) Calculations of the number of affordable units required by this section shall be based
on the number of dwelling units in the residential project, excluding any density bonus units.
Projects shall not receive a credit for any existing dwelling units demolished as part of the project.
(b) The affordable units shall be made available at the following affordable sales prices:
[. . .]
SECTION 5. Section 16.65.040 (Basic requirement - mixed use, nonresidential and residential
rental projects) of Chapter 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements) of Title 16
(Building Regulations) is amended to read as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-
through):
16.65.040 Basic requirement - mixed use, nonresidential and residential rental projects.
(a) Unless the mixed use, nonresidential or residential rental project is exempt under
Section 16.65.025 or an alternative is approved as described in Section 16.65.080, all mixed use,
nonresidential and residential rental projects shall pay housing impact fees as specified in
Section 16.65.060 to mitigate the projects' impacts on the need for affordable housing; except:
(1) that theThe residential ownership portion of a mixed use project containing three or
more units shall comply with Section 16.65.030.
(2) In the NV districts, residential rental projects, including mixed use projects containing
residential rental units, shall provide fifteen percent of the dwelling units in the project
at rates affordable to lower income households.
SECTION 6. Pipeline Projects. This Ordinance and the NVCAP shall not apply to any project
application deemed complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Any project
completed pursuant to such application shall be deemed a legal non-conforming structure and/or
use, subject to the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.70.
SECTION 7. On XXXX, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. XXXX, certifying the NVCAP
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and making required findings, including a statement of
overriding considerations.
NOT YET APPROVED
Page 19 of 19
0160145_20240530_ay16
SECTION 8. 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 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date
of its adoption (second reading).
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
Attachment C:
Link to the Final Supplemental EIR:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-
services/north-ventura-cap/final-eir_nvcap-6-3-24.pdf
Link to the Draft Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program (MMRP):
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-
services/north-ventura-cap/nvcap-final-mmrp-6-3-24.pdf
Link to the Draft Supplemental EIR (appendices can be found under “Environmental
Documents” section of the project website)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-
services/north-ventura-cap/draft-seir-nvcap-march-2024.pdf
Link to the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, June 2024 (clean version):
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-
services/north-ventura-cap/finaldraft_nvcap_clean_2024_06_final_web.pdf
Link to the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, March 2024:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-
services/north-ventura-cap/nvcap_publicdraft_2024_03_web2.pdf
Attachment D: Summary of Preferred Plan
City Council endorsed 01/10/2022 & refined 11/14/2022 (or strikethrough)
Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan
Housing •530 housing units
•Emphasizes townhomes near
existing residential; mid-rise
residential/mixed-use on corridors
and elsewhere in plan area.
•Taller mid-rise residential/mixed-
use along Park Boulevard adjacent
to train tracks.
•530 housing units
•Emphasizes townhomes on cannery
property. Mid-rise residential/mixed-
use on corridors and elsewhere in the
plan. Affordable housing site adjacent
to public park site. Taller mid-rise
residential/mixed-use along Park
Boulevard adjacent to train tracks.
See also “Height/Density and Transitions”
Affordable
Housing
•Include 100% affordable housing
height limits based on the
minimum height necessary for a
five-story retail affordable housing
project (e.g., 55’) or a six story
non-retail affordable housing
project (e.g., 65’).
•Require 20% BMR for for-sale
townhomes, 15% for for-sale
condos, and for rental 15% BMR or
use in-lieu fee. (66% of units
affordable to households of 80-
100% area median income (AMI)
and up to 33% affordable to
households 100-120% AMI.)
•100% affordable housing height limits
determined by state density bonus
housing law (33’ above base zoning
height limit)
•Requires 20% BMR for for-sale
townhomes, 15% for for-sale condos,
and for rental 15% BMR or use in-lieu
fee. (66% of units affordable to
households of 80-100% area median
income (AMI) and up to 33%
affordable to households 100-120%
AMI.)
See also “Height/Density and Transitions”
Height/Density
and
Transitions
•Place higher heights and greater
densities on El Camino Real and
Page Mill Road, where multifamily
and residential mixed-use buildings
with ground floor retail would be
permitted. Transition between
higher density/height areas and
existing single-family homes
through height transitions.
•Expand Housing Incentive Program
or similar into other areas other
than El Camino Real corridor.
•Rezones proposed in the plan area to
transition from commercial, general
manufacturing and residential to
residential and residential mixed-use
(low, medium, and high density).
•Greater heights and densities are
located along corridors (El Camino
Real, Page Mill and Park Boulevard).
Height is limited for cannery building
adaptive reuse projects. Height
transitions will follow objective
standard requirements in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan
•Allow 45 feet transition on El
Camino
•Raise the height limit along Park
Blvd to 55 feet, for residential or
residential mixed-use without
increasing commercial FAR
•Request Staff to evaluate zoning
changes that would increase FAR
for housing on commercial sites
along Park Blvd. and Page Mill Rd.
•Height limits range from 30 to 65 feet.
•Increase FAR for residential for 395
Page Mill and Park Boulevard.
•Limits commercial FAR throughout the
plan area.
•Housing Incentive Program would
follow the Citywide Housing Incentive
Program (Chapter 18.14)
Open Space Parks, pedestrian and/or bike
connection, landscape setbacks and
buffers. Creek option #3, full
naturalization. Look for preferred park
locations (larger public spaces
desired). Park development based on
no less than 1.6 acres/1,000 residents
to 1.7 acres/1,000 residents.
•Includes creek option #3 for full
naturalization
•Identifies 2.25-acre public park
location adjacent to creek
Office •Allows existing large-format office
floor area to continue. Once
demolished, the office space may
not be rebuilt.
•Would allow new, ground-floor,
small, professional office (such as
dentist, etc.). (5,000 sf or less)
•Define a low-density R&D zone
limiting employment density. (not
clear on what this means)
•Define strict TDM
•Plan sites are rezoned and allow
limited office space (up to 5,000 sf)
per parcel.
•Existing office space to continue until
demolished, then parcel must conform
with underlying zoning requirements.
See also “Commercial Parking Ratio.”
Retail Would allow ground floor retail.
Encourages active-ground floor uses,
which can be retail or retail-like.
Required on ECR, consider on Park.
Deed restricted retail required to get
15’ first floor height incentive.
•Allows ground floor retail and
encourages ground floor active uses
along Park Boulevard. Requires ground
floor active uses along El Camino Real.
Requires ground floor retail along El
Camino Real at Portage and Acacia.
•Requires minimum ground floor
ceiling height to be consistent with
Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan
objective design standards (Chapter
18.24)
340 Portage
(Cannery)
Maintains the cannery building and
Ash Office Building and allows for 2
possible uses of the buildings: (1)
continued use as retail and office
space (2) adaptive re-use into housing
(transition to housing is a long-term
vision). Also permits the construction
of housing on remaining portions of
the parcel, specifically the two
remaining surface parking lots on the
property. Ash Building – Creative Arts
space (see concept plan, page 180)
Expanded setback needed due to
creek naturalization – easements
and/or acquisition needed.
65 feet for 100% affordable site at 340
Portage without retail, (to include 5
stories of residential, with one level
for parking)
Staff will review and return with
recommendation about designation of
340 Portage Rd as a historical resource
•Maintains the cannery building and
Ash Office Building and allows for 2
possible uses of the buildings: (1)
continued use as retail and office
space (2) adaptive re-use into housing
(transition to housing is a long-term
vision).
•Also permits the construction of
housing on remaining portions of the
parcel, specifically the two remaining
surface parking lots on the property.
•2.25-acre public park site identified
•100% Affordable housing site
identified adjacent to the public park
site to comply with development
standards for R-4, including the height
limit of 65’.
•Implementation measure to explore
within the first-year historic
designation of the cannery building
and the Ash building.
395 Page Mill
Rd (Cloudera)
Retain office, parking garage, swale,
etc. Allows multifamily housing at
moderate density on remaining
surface parking lot; allow internal
height of 55’.
Site is rezoned to high density residential.
Allow height up to 65 feet.
Residential
Parking Ratio
•1 space per bedroom, capped at 2
spaces per unit (existing
requirement).
•(Return to PTC to make
recommendations for analysis of
appropriate parking based on Fehr
and Peers study and other studies,
and encourage mechanisms to
discourage street parking)
•No parking minimums or maximums.
•Implementation measure to explore
TDM programs and evaluate parking
management within the area.
Component Preferred Plan Draft Plan
•No parking minimums &
maximums
•Define strict TDM and evaluate a
city initiated RPP district to protect
residential parking
Commercial
Parking Ratio
•Blended standard rate same as
Downtown Palo Alto: 1 space per
250 sf.
•Exempt first 1,500 sf of ground
floor commercial floor area from
parking requirement.
•No parking minimums &
maximums
•Define strict TDM
•No parking minimums or maximums.
•Implementation measure to explore
TDM programs and evaluate parking
management within the area.
Transportation
Improvements
•Follow concept plan, see
attachment A (page 34) from
6/2021 council report
•Evaluate removing the woonerf to
decrease congestion as an option
in the EIR
•Plan to follow preferred plan.
•EIR to evaluate woonerf impacts.
ATTACHMENT E – CONSISTENCY WITH NVCAP GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Consistency documents can be found at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/nvcap
Table 1: NVCAP Goals
Goals
Consistency
Housing and Land Use
Add to the City’s supply of multifamily
housing, including market rate, affordable,
“missing middle,” and senior housing in a
walkable, mixed use, transit-accessible
neighborhood, with retail and commercial
services, open space, and possibly arts and
entertainment uses.
Chapter 2 (Vision) illustrates the overall NVCAP
goals with different strategies. Section 2.2 (Land
Use) includes urban design and land use
frameworks that calibrate the optimal mix of
uses, and provides different types of multi-family
and mixed-use development. Section 2.2 also
specifies the land use program endorsed by the
City Council, which includes additional 530
dwelling units, a new park, and a net reduction of
nonresidential uses. The NVCAP envisions a
walkable neighborhood with better circulation
and community amenities along with mobility
framework (Section 2.4) and ecological
framework (Section 2.5).
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.
Section 2.4 (Mobility) of Chapter 2 (Vision)
emphasizes well-balanced and safe streets, with
pedestrian and bicycle facilities designed for all
ages and accessible paths to transit within the
plan area and beyond. Chapter 4 (Accessibility
and Mobility) includes gateway intersection
concept design and street design that would
support achieving these goals. Chapter 4 also
includes standards and guidelines for pedestrian
realm (Section 4.1), Bike Network (Section 4.2),
Transit Access (Section 4.5) and Vehicle
Circulation and Parking (Section 4.6), and TDM
Strategies (Section 4.7) to support the mobility
framework.
Connected Street Grid
Create a connected street grid, filling in
sidewalk gaps and street connections to
California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El
Camino Real where appropriate.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate development of
new community facilities and infrastructure
with private development, recognizing both
the community’s needs and that such
investments can increase the cost of housing.
To achieve the goal of carefully integrating new
community facilities and infrastructure with
private development, the plan incorporates
several key elements. Standards and guidelines
across Chapter 4 (Accessibility and Mobility) and
Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space) ensure new
developments seamlessly connect with planned
infrastructure like pedestrian paths, bicycle
facilities, a public park, and naturalization of
Goals
Consistency
Matadero creek. The mobility framework (Section
2.4) and ecological framework (Section 2.5)
further integrate these elements by strategically
placing them alongside private development.
Chapter 3 (Public Realm) provides additional
standards and guidelines that support the
community needs.
Balance of Community Interests
Balance community-wide objectives with the
interests of neighborhood residents and
minimize displacement of existing residents.
Section 2.2 (Land Use) describes different types
of land uses, development types, as well as
ground floor uses that should include commercial
uses. These include community serving retail and
commercial that would support additional
housing envisioned in the plan area. In addition,
Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space) includes
standards and guidelines that would guide
development of a new park and naturalization of
Matadero creek to provide outdoor and
recreational facilities.
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.
In addition to NVCAP zoning ordinance, the
NVCAP document also includes various sections
and chapters that would contribute to well-
balanced and human-scale development to
strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric:
• Chapter 2.6 (Urban Form)
• Chapter 3 (Public Realm),
• Chapter 4 (Accessibility and Mobility)
• Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space)
• Chapter 6 (Site and Building Design)
• Chapter 7 (Implementation)
Table 2: NVCAP Objectives
Objectives
Consistency
Data Driven Approach:
Employ a data-driven approach that considers
community desires, market conditions and
forecasts, financial feasibility, existing uses
and development patterns, development
The NVCAP was developed with numerous
technical and background reports, including but
not limited to:
• Existing Conditions Report
• Matadero Creek Renaturalization Report
Objectives
Consistency
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.
• Economic Feasibility Report by Strategic
Economics
• 340 Portage Ave Historic Resource
Evaluation
• NVCAP Windshield Survey and Preliminary
Historic Resource Eligibility Analysis
• Memoranda on VMT and Traffic Analysis
These technical and background reports are
available at the project website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/nvcap.
Comprehensive User-Friendly Document and
Implementation:
Create a comprehensive but user-friendly
document that identifies the distribution,
location and extent of land uses, planning
policies, development regulations and design
guidelines to enable development and
needed infrastructure investments in the
project area.
The overall document includes graphics, color,
tables organized for optimal readability. The
document is color coded for better navigation
and also includes a table of contents in the
beginning of the document as well as each
chapter to make the document user-friendly.
Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision
Makers:
Provide a guide and strategy for staff and
decision-makers to bridge the gap between
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan and individual development projects in
order to streamline future land use and
transportation decisions.
Chapter 2 (Vision) serves as the foundation,
outlining the NVCAP's overall framework,
including land use, mobility, and ecological
design. Chapter 7 (Implementation) then
provides a clear roadmap by detailing specific
actions and funding strategies that will translate
the vision into reality. In addition, individual
development projects may be able to utilize the
environmental analysis provided in the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to
streamline the entitlement process.
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.
Section 1.7 (The Community Process) of the
NVCAP describes the extensive community
engagement process that contributed to
development of the NVCAP. Information related
public engagement throughout the entire plan
process can be found at the project website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/nvcap.
Objectives
Consistency
Economic Feasibility:
A determination of the economic and fiscal
feasibility of the plan with specific analysis of
marketplace factors and incentives and
disincentives, as well as a cost-benefit analysis
of public infrastructure investments and
projected economic benefits to the City and
community.
An economic feasibility study was prepared in
November 2020 which assessed three land use
alternatives (Alternatives 1-3). In March 2021, a
supplemental economic feasibility study was
prepared to assess the shortfall or funding gap
for one of lower-density alternatives (Alternative
2) and the economic feasibility of increasing the
inclusionary requirement above 15% for
Alternative 3.
Environmental:
A plan that is protective of public health and a
process that complies with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act.
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
was prepared for the NVCAP. Impacts to
historical resources and air quality were found
significant and unavoidable. The statement of
overriding considerations was prepared
containing a list of the benefits that the project
will bring to the City consistent with General Plan
and NVCAP policies, and included in the
Resolution. In addition, the following sections of
the NVCAP supports environmental and
sustainable design of the neighborhood:
• Section 2.5 (Ecology and Sustainability)
• Section 3.3 (Green Infrastructure)
• Chapter 5 (Parks and Open Space)
• Section 6.5 (Sustainable Design)
PTC and ARB Comments on the Public Draft NVCAP
ID Comment Response
PTC Comments from May 31, 2023
PTC 1 Categorize office uses as neighborhood
serving
Included in the NVCAP Section 2.3
PTC 2 Encourage a mix of residential unit sizes Staff recommended modifications to
include information encouraging a mix of
residential unit sizes (Section 2.2, Page 34.
See Attachment G for more details)
PTC 3 Active uses: should be required, be clearer Included in the NVCAP Section 2.3 including
the revised figure 32
PTC 4 Describe height transitions between high
density residential/mixed use and low
density residential
NVCAP Section 6.1 includes building height
and massing; NVCAP Zoning Ordinance has
reference to Objective Standards related to
daylight plane
PTC 5 Clarify mobility plan for vehicles and
pedestrians
Included in the expanded Chapter 4
(Accessibility and Mobility)
PTC 6 Economic analysis to show shortfall No additional economic analysis was done
due to budget constraints
PTC 7 Describe consistency with Housing Element Staff report describes consistency between
NVCAP and Housing Element
ARB Comments from June 1, 2023
ARB 1 Place table captions above the table Table captions were moved above the table
throughout the document.
ARB 2 Encourage or require more green roofs
(maybe incentivize with additional FAR)
No incentive programs were considered but
green roofs are encouraged in the plan area
per Section 6.6.5.
ARB 3 Only include essential information in the
plan and refer to other documents when
necessary. Example: trees.
After reorganization of the document,
appropriate references were added.
ARB 4 2.1: Make exhibit more realistic Language added that no new or recent
development constructed during
preparation of NVCAP reflected in any
exhibits.
ARB 5 Ground floor height is 15’ too tall? Ground floor height changed to 14’ to be
consistent with Contextual Design Criteria
and Objective Design Standards
ARB 6 Sustainable design (subcommittee of the
ARB): 6.5.4 through 6.5.7.
No substantial recommendations were
provided to be implemented; new
ordinance is underway for bird safe design.
ID Comment Response
ARB 7 4.6.2 :Provide examples of permeable
pavement.
Updated the Figure 69 in Chapter 4.
ARB 8 2.5: Show more green roofs, solar panels.
Tell more of a story that includes green roof
and solar panels, connection with the open
spaces and creek.
Vertical green spaces
Conceptual figures for the plan added more
green roofs and solar panels but no
additional changes were made to the draft
zoning ordinance as the NVCAP ordinance
follows existing Title 18 requirements on
green roofs and open space requirements.
ARB 9 Figure 42: Provide more setback from
building near creek (see document for
where).
Noted but no changes were made to
graphics.
ARB 10 Figure 46 & 78: This seems inconsistent with
the preferred plan and other illustrative
exhibits because the creek improvement
would occupy portions of these building
envelopes. Shrink the building envelops to
be consistent with the diagram for the creek.
Figure 82 adjusted
ARB 11 3.3: Consider separating out topics The comment addressed by reorganization
of the document.
ARB 12 3.3: These are already in the code, should
refer to the code or master plan
The comment addressed by reorganization
of the document.
ARB 13 Figure 77: Replace this exhibit with one from
the Municipal Code 18.24.
Replaced.
ARB 14 2.4, figure 36: The legend mentions priority,
secondary and tertiary streets. Is this
supposed to be “primary,” etc.? Describe
more what these mean.
Removed legend items for priority
secondary and tertiary and replaced with
bike facility information.
ARB 15 6.4.1: Entries must be raised above
sidewalk grade. Is there any consideration
for ADA compliance when we require this?
Is this already in the zoning code.
No changes made; ADA compliance
required per building code.
ARB 16 Can we encourage exploration and reuse of
existing structures? For example for the
audi building and ash office?
Noted. No changes made.
ARB 17 consider adding a FAR bonus as well to
make projects more viable
No incentive program added; the draft
NVCAP ordinance has its own housing
incentive program but only for affordable
housing with extra height allowed. The
ID Comment Response
NVCAP already increased density and
height for the plan area.
ARB 18 ground floor uses packet page 85, office
edges are going to want to go near retail so
having office edge near residential edge
may not make so much sense.
No changes are needed. Limited office
allowed. Office edge removed (See the
updated Figure 32 in Chapter 2)
ARB 19 consider having a focused retail corridor.
The retail seems broken up and
unconcentrated now making it less likely to
be viable.
Figure 32 on Ground Floor Edges in Chapter
is updated to show required retail edges
along El Camino Real and encouraged active
edge along Park Boulevard
ARB 20 bird safe building design—UV coated glass
is not a preferred option
No changes made. The Citywide dark sky
and bird safe ordinance will supersede once
adopted.
ARB 21 Better way to refer to “egg-crate” design on
page 159
No changes made.
ARB 22 need clarifications on ground floor entries
(page 110), 4 active doorways every 200
linear feet
The requirement is specific to woonerf.
Revised the language to specify the
requirement is applicable “between park
and ash” on Portage Avenue.
ARB 23 Paseo between buildings—possibility to
connect greenbelt to the rest of the
neighborhood through paseos—would like
to see birdseye view of that
Figure was updated to remove paseos.
NVCAP June 2024 Clean Version
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/north-ventura-
cap/finaldraft_nvcap_clean_2024_06_final_web.pdf
*Please note that the printed copy of the June 2024 Clean Version is not included as part of the packet because it was provided to the
City Councilmembers on June 3, 2024 to provide sufficient time for review ahead of the staff report.
Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP
Updated: April 2024
Page 2 of 7
Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change
Ack. Chapter 1 Text Add: “City Council” in the first paragraph
Add: Former staff information into the Core Team
Add: A new Senior Transportation Planner to the
Core Team
Corrections
vii Chapter 1, Figures Text Change the title to Figure 10: “Conceptual
Tentative Map for the 340 Portage Avenue
Development”
Correction
6 Chapter 1,
Section 1.1
Text Text modification: “This planning effort was
initiated by Palo Alto Initiated by the City Council
to implement”
Correction/refinement
10 Chapter 1,
Section 1.2
Text Text modification: “… the Cloudera Galactic
Headquarters at 395 Page Mill Road and the
newly constructed building at 3045 Park
Boulevard.”
Correction
15 Chapter 1,
Spotlight: Palo
Alto Cannery
Text Text modification: “The former cannery site was
initially developed in April 1918, by Thomas Foon
Chew, the owner of Bayside Canning Company or
affectionately known in the press at the time as
"tThe aAsparagus kKing”.
Correction – capitalization
34 Chapter 2,
Section 2.2
Text The NVCAP land use framework is principally
focused on supporting a variety of housing
options, a diverse range of unit sizes and
bedroom configurations, and price points to
support Palo Alto residents at different stages of
life.
Addressing PTC comment received from a Study
Session on May 31, 2023. (PTC Comment #2 in
Attachment F)
36 Chapter 2, Section
2.2
Text Text modifications to the Maximum Height
columns and removal of the additional notes
regarding 100% affordable housing
Reflecting feedback from ARB/PTC and staff on
height limits. Corrections reflecting the changes
to the HIP program for the NVCAP (now
references to 18.14)
47 Chapter 2,
Section 2.4, Table 5
Text For Park Boulevard, Bike Facility is corrected to
“Buffered Separated Bike Lanes”
Correction of the bike facility type for Park
Boulevard
48 Chapter 2,
Section 2.4
Text Text modification: “Vehicles Circulation and
Parking”
Correction
Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP
Updated: April 2024
Page 3 of 7
Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change
74 Chapter 4,
Section 4.3
Figure Corrections on the Figures 56 and 57: For both
Gateway Intersections 2 and 3, the arrows
illustrating the direction of bicycle travel should
be flipped.
Showing the correct directions of bicycle travel
75 Chapter 4,
Section 4.3
Figure For Gateway Intersection 4: Lambert Avenue and
Ash Street, Figure 58 should be modified as
follows:
- Ash Street south of Lambert (near the
existing Boulware Park) is removed and
become green space for the park
- Add sidewalk along southside of Lambert
Avenue (abutting Boulward Park)
- Remove the sidewalk crossing and along
the Matadero Creek along existing Ash
Street
Making the Gateway Intersection concept
consistent with the Boulware Park and Birch
Street Property Renovation Project.
75 Chapter 4,
Section 4.3
Figure For Gateway Intersection 5, Park Boulevard and
Portage Avenue, Figure 59 should be modified as
follows:
- Show separated bike lanes, not buffered.
- Remove bike box
Making the bike facility consistent with Chapter 2
of the NVCAP. Internal discussion identified the
bike box would not be appropriate for this
particular location.
76 Chapter 4,
Section 4.3
Text For Gateway Intersection 5 (Park Boulevard and
Portage Avenue): remove the following text: “A
bike box on the northbound leg of Park
Boulevard will provide a space for bicyclists to
turn left onto the woonerf. “North Ventura”
gateway signage should be installed at the
entrance to the woonerf.”
Internal discussion identified that the bike box
would not be appropriate for this particular
location.
80 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (Park
Boulevard)
Text Add the following text: “4-4.5 Feet” to Table 7
Landscape/Furniture Zone row
Internal discussion identified that the bike
facilities need to be corrected to buffered bike
lanes, and would need a little more than 2’ buffer
shown in the section. Accommodating additional
distance that may be needed for the separated
bike lane.
Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP
Updated: April 2024
Page 4 of 7
Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change
80 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (Park
Boulevard)
Figure Modify Figure 60 to show separated bike lane
with bollards or plants
Making the bike facility consistent with Chapter 2
of the NVCAP
82 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (Olive
Avenue)
Text Text modification for Frontage/Setback row for
Olive Ave Street Design between Park Boulevard
and Ash Street: “Southern Edge: 12.5 10 Feet
from Property Line”
Text modification for Frontage/Setback row for
Olive Ave Street Design between Ash Street and
El Camino Real: “Northern Edge: 12.5 10 Feet
from Property Line
Southern Edge: 10 Feet from Property Line”
Reflection changes to the zoning ordinance per
ARB comments (no more than 10 feet for any
street yard setback)
82 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (Olive
Avenue)
Figure Modify Figures 61 and 62 to show setback
distance from 12.5’ to 10’
Reflection changes to the zoning ordinance per
ARB comments (no more than 10 feet for any
street yard setback)
82 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (Ash
Street)
Figure Flip the Figure 63 to have the shared path on the
eastern edge
The direction of travel for bicycles and the
proposed changes to the street sections requires
a change in the location of the shared path
89 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (Pepper
Avenue)
Figure Modify Figure 66 to:
- Change the distance of tree bed to 4.5’
for both side of the street
- Change the distance for clear walkway to
5 feet (from a total of 9’ – 4.5’ + 3.5’) for
both side of the street
Minimizing interruption to the private street and
making the sidewalk (clear walkway) at its
minimum at 5 feet (ADA requirement). The
distance for tree beds have been changed to 4.5
feet to accommodate the change.
88 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (Pepper
Avenue)
Text Modify Table 11 to:
- Change the frontage/setback to 10’
- Change the pedestrian clear zone to 5’
- Change the landscape/furniture zone to
4.5 feet for both northern/southern
edge
94 Chapter 4, Text Modify Landscape/Furniture Zone row of Table
13 to 9.5 feet from 7.5 feet
Correcting the landscape/furniture zone distance
to ensure the total street width is 27.5 feet
Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP
Updated: April 2024
Page 5 of 7
Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change
Section 4.4
(Lambert Avenue)
94 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4
(Lambert Avenue)
Figure Modify Figure 70 to show the clear walkway
distance to 8 feet (from 10 feet) and the tree bed
distance to 9.5 feet (from 7.5 feet)
Correcting distances to ensure the total street
width is 27.5 feet
95 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (El
Camino Real)
Figure Modify Figure 71 to replace tree bed with tree
grate without grass, similar to South El Camino
Real Design Guidelines, Page 24
Making El Camino Real consistent with other
sections
95 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (El
Camino Real)
Text Text modification for Frontage/Setback row:
Minimum 5 Feet
Maximum 10 Feet
0 - 10 feet to create an 8 - 12-foot effective
sidewalk width
Making consistent with the current El Camino
Real street yard setback and making it consistent
with the proposed NVCAP zoning ordinance
information
96 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (Page
Mill Road)
Text Text modification for Frontage/Setback row:
Minimum 5 Feet
Maximum 10 Feet
0 - 10 feet to create an 8 - 12-foot effective
sidewalk width
Making it consistent with the proposed NVCAP
zoning ordinance information
96 Chapter 4,
Section 4.4 (Page
Mill Road)
Figure Flip Figure 72 to have the building on the right
side
The street section illustration is showing the
flipped image of the actual conditions (building
on the right side)
102 Chapter 4, Section
4.6 Text Add the following text to 4.6.3:
“No more than 10 percent of new surface
parking shall be allowed within the plan area.
Where new buildings are not proposed, existing
surface parking spaces can remain to support
remaining commercial offices.”
While discouraging surface parking within the
plan area, providing some flexibility
117 Chapter 6,
Section 6.1 Figure The 55 feet height area on the Portage Avenue
side of the block between Ash Street, Lambert
Avenue, and Park Boulevard to be removed
The height area with 55’ height limit is a NV-PF
zone. It is reflecting the maximum height limit for
100% affordable housing projects in NV-PF zone.
Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP
Updated: April 2024
Page 6 of 7
Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change
117 Chapter 6,
Section 6.1 Figure Reflect the height increase:
- 35’ between Olive Ave and Portage Ave
to 45’
- 45’ to 55’
- 55’ to 65’
- Remove 55’ block abutting near the
green park area
Modified to accommodate the ARB feedback
(which had higher height for NV-R3 and NV-
MXM) but reduced to the staff recommended
changes to minimize impact to the abutting low
density residential areas.
72 Chapter 4,
Section 4.3 Text Add the following text to the past paragraph on
page 72:
“The NVCAP prioritizes well-designed gateway
intersections, but acknowledges specific design
details will be subject to future City-led efforts,
ensuring flexibility and integration with evolving
needs. Broader and more comprehensive
analyses and engineering of gateway
intersections is required to finalize design
recommendations. This includes, but may not be
limited to, an Intersection Safety and
Operational Assessment Process (ISOAP) to
identify the optimal design strategies for
intersection types, geometry, and traffic control
at gateway intersections.”
Modification to address a comment from
Caltrans on the Draft SEIR (Comment B.2)
43,
51,
and
107
Figure 36, Figure
42, and Figure 75 Figure Modified figure to show one creek crossing Modifications to address a comment from Santa
Clara Valley Water District on the Draft SEIR
(Comment D.19)
108 Chapter 5,
Section 5.1 Text Add the following text to Guidelines 5.1.7:
“5.1.7 Native Plantings
Where possible, pollinator friendly native plants
should be incorporated. Refer to Valley Water’s
Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near
Streams Chapter 4 (Design Guides for Guidelines
Modification to address a comment from Santa
Clara Valley Water District on the Draft SEIR
(Comment D.22)
Staff Recommended Modifications to Public Draft NVCAP
Updated: April 2024
Page 7 of 7
Page Chapter/Section Type Staff Recommended Change Reason for Change
and Standards) for the placement of native
plants along the creek.”
112 Chapter 5
Section 5.2 Text Modify the Standard 5.2.7 language:
“5.2.7 Floodwalls or Retaining Walls
Concrete floodwalls or retaining walls shall be
designed to allow for vegetation to the extent
feasible.”
Modification to address a comment from Santa
Clara Valley Water District on the Draft SEIR
(Comment D.24)
42-43 Chapter 2,
Section 2.4 Figure Figure updated to reflect the correct ½ mile
buffer on the map
Removed other buffers for clarity and corrected
the ½ mile buffer
North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan
Draft Plan: March 2024
June 2024 Clean Version
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
Acknowledgments
City staff along Working Group members and consultants started working on the North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) in 2018. Thanks to all the Working Group members, City Council,
boards and commission members, and members of the public who contributed their expertise,
guidance, ideas, and feedback towards this Plan. Staff looks forward to working together on the
implementation of this Plan.
NVCAP WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
Angela Dellaporta (Co Chair) Gail Price (Co Chair) Kirsten Flynn
Terry Holzemer Heather Rosen Lund Smith
Yunan Song Tim Steele Siyi Zhang
Alexander Lew Keith Reckdahl Doria Summa
Waldemar Kaczmarski Lakiba Pittman
CORE TEAM
Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Development Services
Kelly Cha Senior Planner, Project Manager, Planning and Development Services
Coleman Frick Principal Planner, Planning and Development Services
Claire Raybould Principal Planner, Planning and Development Services
Chitra Moitra Planner, Planning and Development Services
Sylvia Star-Lack Transportation Planning Manager, Office of Transportation
Shrupath Pate Transportation Planner, Office of Transportation
Charlie Coles Senior Transportation Planner, Office of Transportation
Jessica Setiawan Senior Business Analyst, Planning and Development Services
Rachael Tanner Assitant Director, Planning and Development Services (former)
Clare Campbell Long-Range Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services (former)
Elena Lee Project Manager, Planning and Development Services (former)
Sheldon S. Ah Sing Project Manager, Planning and Development Services (former)
SPECIAL THANKS TO SPECIAL THANKS TO
The City’s North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan was made possible with funding provided by Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA)’s Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Grant and private funds
from Sobrato Organization.
CONSULTANT AND CONTRIBUTORS
Perkins & Will, Primary Consultant
Arup, Mobility
Strategic Economics, Economic Study
BKF, Infrastructure
Plan to Place, Engagement
WRA, Environmental Consultants, Matadero Creek Study
Page & Turnbull, Historic Preservation Consultants
David J Powers and Associates, Environmental Consultants and Planners
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
4CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Context
1.2 The Plan Area
1.3 The Project Goals
1.4 The Project Objectives
1.5 Citywide Planning
1.6 Regional and Statewide Planning
1.7 The Community Process
28
114
CHAPTER 2: THE VISION
2.1 Preferred Plan
2.2 Land Use
2.3 Ground Floor Edges
2.4 Mobility
2.5 Ecology and Sustainability
2.6 Urban Form
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM
3.1 Sidewalk Zone
3.2 Traffic Lanes and Intersections
3.3 Green Infrastructure
3.4 Paving
3.5 Exterior Lighting
3.6 Wayfinding
3.7 Public Art
56
126
68
CHAPTER 5: PARKS
5.1 Public Park
5.2 Matadero Creek
CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS
6.1 Building Heights and Massing
6.2 Retail and Active Frontages
6.3 Portage Avenue Frontages
6.4 Residential Frontages
6.5 Sustainable Design
CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 Development Standards
7.2 Review Process
7.3 Implementation Actions
7.4 Funding and Financing Strategy
CHAPTER 4: STREETS
4.1 Pedestrian Realm
4.2 Bike Network
4.3 Gateway Intersections
4.4 Street Sections
4.5 Transit Access
4.6 Vehicle Circulation and Parking
4.7 Transportation Demand Management
APPENDIX
A1 Existing Conditions Memo
A2 Traffic Modelling
104
v North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Figures
Figure 1 Photograph of architect Mike Lyzwa hold-
ing a model of a proposed building at the
intersection of Page Mill Road and Park
Boulevard, circa 1984, xii. Credit: Palo Alto
Historical Association.
Figure 2 Photograph of the Cannery monitor roof
supergraphic on the former Fry’s site, 3. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 3 Bird’s eye photograph of the NVCAP
Plan Area circa 1957, 4. Credit: Palo Alto
Historical Association.
Figure 4 Priority Development Areas (PDA) in the Bay Area, 7.
Figure 5 Matadero Creek Existing Conditions, 8.
Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 6 Former Cannery Building Existing
Conditions, 8. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 7 Existing Conditions of the NVCAP
Plan Area, 9.
Figure 8 Existing Zoning Districts of the NVCAP, 11.
Figure 9 Photographs of recent development,
12. Credit: Premier Properties, Level 10
Construction.
Figure 10 Conceptual Tentative Map for the 340
Portage Avenue Development
Figure 11 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter
Packing Company. Credit: Fairchild
Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92,
Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by
Page & Turnbull, 14.
Figure 12 Gabled addition attached to the southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage
Avenue. View northeast. Credit: Page &
Turnbull, 14.
Figure 13 A portion of the southwest facade of the
former office building. Credit: Page &
Turnbull, 15.
Figure 14 Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his canning plant in Alviso. Credit: Our
Town of Palo Alto, 15.
Figure 15 Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Credit: Palo Alto
Historical Association, 15.
Figure 16 An illustrative example of low-cost buffered
bike lanes and intersection improvements,
17. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 17 Building 0 in San Francisco, CA, an
example of mixed-income multi-family
apartments next to a public park, 17. Credit:
Perkins&Will
Figure 18 A breakout discussion during the NVCAP
working group meeting, 19. Credit: City of
Palo Alto
Figure 19 Documenting feedback during a working
group design charrette, 19. Credit:
Perkins&Will
Figure 20 A worksession during the NVCAP working
group meeting, 24. Credit: City of Palo Alto
Figure 21 A sketching session and report back during
the NVCAP working group meeting, 26.
Credit: City of Palo Alto
Figure 22 A presentation during a community
workshop, 27. Credit: Perkins&Will
CHAPTER 2: THE VISION
Figure 23 The NVCAP Preferred Plan, 30.
Figure 24 NVCAP Land Use Framework, 32.
Figure 25 Example of High-Density Mixed Use
Development in Palo Alto, 34 Credit:
Steinberg Architects
Figure 26 Example of Medium Density Mixed Use
Development in Palo Alto, 34. Credit: BDE
Architecture
Figure 27 Example of Low-Density Mixed Use
Development, 35 Credit: WHA
Figure 28 Example of High-Density Residential
Development in Palo Alto, 35 Credit: Redfin
Figure 29 Example of Medium Density Residential Development in Palo Alto, 35. Credit:
Compass
Figure 30 Example of Low-Density Resident
Development, 35 Credit: Google
Figure 31 The Cloudera Galactic HQ is located at 395
Page Mill Road, 36. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 32 NVCAP Ground Floor Edges Framework, 38.
Figure 33 Building lobbies and other accessory
spaces to residential uses are considered
active uses, 40. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 34 Neighborhood-serving retail along major
boulevards like El Camino Real, 41. Credit:
Bruce Damonte
Figure 35 Residential stoops should be set back and
elevated to provide privacy for residents,
41. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 36 NVCAP Mobility Framework, 42.
Figure 37 NVCAP Pedestrian Network, 44.
Figure 38 View of the Bell Street Woonerf in Seattle,
Washington, 45. Credit: Puget Sound
Business Journal
Figure 39 Bike Facility Degree of Separation, 46.
Figure 40 NVCAP Bike Network Framework, 47.
Figure 41 NVCAP Vehicle and Parking Framework, 49.
Figure 42 NVCAP Ecology and Sustainability
Framework, 50.
Figure 43 A conceptual design for the future Public
park, 52.
Figure 44 An example of a restored creek in San Luis
Obispo, CA, 53. Credit: Food and Wine
Safari
Figure 45 An example of green infrastructure
integrated with street furnishings, 53.
Credit: AJ Landskap
Figure 46 NVCAP Urban Form Framework , 54.
Figure 47 Internal streets have height allowances
that are conducive with missing middle
housing like townhomes, 56.
Credit: Perkins&Will
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM
Figure 48 The Sidewalk Zone, 58.
Figure 49 Bioretention, 61. Credit: City of Palo Alto
Figure 50 Dark sky compliant exterior light fixtures
helps mitigate light pollution and the
health of both humans and wildlife, 62.
Credit: Edgar Zacarias via Foursquare.
Figure 51 Dark sky compliant exterior light fixtures
helps mitigate light pollution and the
health of both humans and wildlife, 63.
Credit: Edgar Zacarias via Foursquare.
Figure 52 Neighborhood map and directional
signage are effective wayfinding tools for
visitors to the NVCAP, 64.
Figure 53 An example of a recent public art installa-
tion, 65. Credit: Passages by Susan Zocco-
la.
vii North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan viii
CHAPTER 4: STREETS
Figures
CHAPTER 5: PARKS
CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS
CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 54 Map of Conceptual Gateway Intersection
Design Improvements, 72.
Figure 55 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road Con-
ceptual Intersection Design, 73.
Figure 56 El Camino Real and Olive Avenue Concep-
tual Intersection Design,74.
Figure 57 El Camino Real, Hansen Way, Portage Ave-
nue Conceptual Intersection Design, 75.
Figure 58 Lambert Avenue and Ash Street Conceptu-
al Intersection Design, 76.
Figure 59 Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue Con-
ceptual Intersection Design, 77.
Figure 60 Typical Park Boulevard Section, 81.
Figure 61 Typical Olive Avenue section between Park Boulevard and Ash Street, 83.
Figure 62 Typical Olive Avenue section between Ash
Street and El Camino Real, 83.
Figure 63 Typical Ash Street section between Page
Mill Road and Olive Avenue, 85.
Figure 64 Typical Ash Street section between Acacia
Avenue and Lambert Avenue, 85.
Figure 65 Typical Acacia Avenue Section, 87.
Figure 66 Typical Pepper Avenue Section, 89.
Figure 67 Typical Portage Avenue section between Park Boulevard and Ash Street, 91.
Figure 68 Typical Portage Avenue section between
Ash Street and El Camino Real, 91,
Figure 69 Streetscape elements like double row
of trees, textured pavement, pedestrian
scale lighting , and seating encourages
a low-carbon, welcoming neighborhood
environment, 93. Credit: SWA
Figure 70 Typical Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone
Section, 94.
Figure 71 Typical El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone
Section, 95.
Figure 72 Typical Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone
Section, 96.
Figure 73 Typical mid-block connetion section, 99.
Figure 74 Typical rear setback connection section, 99.
Figure 75 Location of Park Gateways and Circulation
Paths, 107.
Figure 76 An example of passive park programming,
109. Credit: Jennifer Tyner
Figure 77 An example of active park programming, 109. Credit: Daggett
Figure 78 The location of the Matadero Creek buffer,
circulation, and gateways, 111.
Figure 79 The Matadero Creek Channel is currently a
constrained concrete trapezoidal channel.,
112. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 80 A naturalized creek has the opportunity to
provide multi-use trails and habitat areas,
113. Credit: Food and Wine Safari
Figure 81 An example of a daylight plane
requirement for mixed-use development
stepping down to single family residential neighborhoods, 116.
Figure 82 Allowable Height Map, 117.
Figure 83 Retail ground floor provide adequate
floor to ceiling heights, transparency, and
signage, 118. Credit: David Baker Architects
Figure 84 Ground floors can create notches of
outdoor rooms to allow for lively spillover
of retail, 119 Credit: Bruce Damonte
Figure 85 Active ground floors provide openness,
transparency and a connection to the
street, 119 Credit: David Baker Architects
Figure 86 Ground floors treatments can emulate the
materiality, fenestration, and roof datum of
historic structures, 120. Credit: Connect CRA
Figure 87 Ground floor residential stoops can provide
privacy for residents, neighborhood
beautification, and stormwater
management, 121. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 88 Buidling roofs can be multi-purpose,
including providing additional outdoor
space for residents, 124. Credit: Kirstin
Bucher
Figure 89 Visible elements of sustainability can
include design features such as celebrating
secure bike parking, 125. Credit: Nelson /
Nygaard
Figure 90 NVCAP Zoning Map, as of March 2024, 129.
ix North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan x
Tables
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Table 1 Historical Population and Growth in Palo
Alto, 1980 - 2040, 7.
Table 2 Existing Zoning Designations, 10.
Table 3 Existing and Future Development Potential
by Land Use, 32.
Table 4 Proposed NVCAP Development Standards,
36.
Table 5 Bicycle Facility Classifications, 47.
CHAPTER 2: THE VISION
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM
Table 6 Allowed Features by Sidewalk Zone, 58.
CHAPTER 4: STREETS
Table 7 Park Boulevard Street Design, 80.
Table 8 Olive Avenue Street Design, 82.
Table 9 Ash Street Street Design, 84.
Table 10 Acacia Avenue Street Design, 86.
Table 11 Pepper Avenue Street Design, 88.
Table 12 Portage Avenue Street Design, 90.
Table 13 Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Design, 94.
Table 14 El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Design, 95.
Table 15 Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Design, 96.
Table 16 Mid-Block Paseo Design, 98.
Table 17 Rear Setback Pathway Design, 98.
Table 18 TDM Strategy Menu, 104.
CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION
Table 19 Implementation Actions in the NVCAP, 130.
Table 19 Implementation Actions in the NVCAP
(Continued), 132.
Table 20 Funding Source Categories and Examples,
135.
Table 21 Examples of Potential Regional or County
Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP
Improvements, 136.
Table 22 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding
Sources for NVCAP Improvements, 138.
Table 22 Examples of Potential State Grant
Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements
(Continued), 140.
Table 23 Examples of Potential Federal Grant
Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements,
140.
Table 24 Summary of Major District-Based Value
Capture Tools, 142.
Table 25 Infrastructure Improvements and
Applicable Funding Sources in the NVCAP,
144.
xi North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan xii
The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
(NVCAP) represents a rare opportunity within
the City of Palo Alto to plan proactively for a
transit-oriented, mixed-use, mixed-income,
and walkable neighborhood. The NVCAP sets
forth a vision that:
• Honors the storied history and unique character of the North
Ventura neighborhood;
• Understands the needs of current residents and puts forward
near-term solutions to current challenges;
• Establishes a long-term framework for desired growth so that
more people can call North Ventura home; and
• Invests in community infrastructure to support an equitable,
resilient, and sustainable Palo Alto.
Executive Summary
NVCAP is aligned with the goals and policies embedded in the
adopted City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, addressing
the eight major themes: Building Community and Neighborhoods;
Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character; Reducing
Reliance on the Automobile; Meeting Housing Supply Challenges;
Protecting and Sustaining the Natural Environment; Keeping Palo
Alto Prepared for Future Natural and Human-Caused Hazards;
Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs; and Providing
Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership.
Finally, this is a vision shaped by the Palo Alto community. This
Plan would not be possible without the guidance of stakeholders,
decision-makers, residents, and other community members, who
graciously volunteered their time as members of the Working
Group to thoughtfully consider the challenges and opportunities of
the Plan.
Figure 1 Photograph of architect Mike Lyzwa holding a model of a proposed building at the intersection of
Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, circa 1984.
xiii North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 1
Plan Organization
The plan document is organized
as follows:
Introduction provides an overview of the NVCAP
physical and regulatory context. The Plan is
shaped by the project goals and objectives,
adopted and in-progress City plans and policies,
recently enacted regional and state laws, and the
comprehensive community planning process.
The Vision provides an overview of the vision
for the future of NVCAP built and natural
environment. This includes urban design
frameworks that calibrate the optimal mix of
uses; support a multi-modal mobility framework
within the neighborhood and how it connects
to the rest of the city and the region; foster
a regenerative and ecological framework to
support the health of humans and wildlife while
supporting the implementation of City’s Climate
Action Plan; and the neighborhood’s context-
specific urban form.
Design Standards and Guidelines (Public
Realm, Streets, Parks, Buildings) include
requirements that govern the construction
and modification of horizontal and vertical
development, standards are quantifiable,
whereas guidelines are qualitative requirements.
Implementation outlines the necessary steps to
fulfill the vision of the Plan, including funding and
financing strategies, infrastructure improvements,
and capital investments.
Appendix contains information for reference
used to generate the NVCAP including existing
site conditions, market studies, and infrastructure
analysis.
Figure 2 Photograph of the Cannery monitor roof supergraphic on the former Fry’s site, 2022
Credit: Perkins&Will
2 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 3
1.1 Context
1.2 Plan Area
1.3 Project Goals
1.4 Project Objectives
1.5 Citywide Planning
1.6 Regional and Statewide Planning
1.7 Community Process
Introduction
1
Figure 3 Bird’s eye photograph of the NVCAP Plan
Area circa 1957.
Matadero Creek Sutter Packing Plant
Park Boulevard
El Camino Real
Southern Pacific Railroad
Stanford Industrial Park
1.1
Context
The purpose of the NVCAP is to capture the City’s vision for the North
Ventura neighborhood into a regulatory document that will guide
the future development of the 60-acre plan area, including land use,
development standards, and design guidelines.
Initiated by the City Council to implement
Comprehensive Plan Program L-4.10, wh
ich states the following,
Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan
for the North Ventura area and
surrounding California Avenue area.
The Plan should describe a vision for
the future of the North Ventura area as
a walkable neighborhood with multi-
family housing, ground-floor retail, a
public park, creek improvements, and
an interconnected street grid. It should
guide the development of the California
Avenue area as a well-designed mixed-
use district with diverse land uses and a
network of pedestrian-oriented streets.
The NVCAP aligns with the Comprehensive Plan
policy, however, the Plan Area focuses solely on
the North Ventura neighborhood.
On November 6, 2017, the City Council adopted
Resolution 9717, authorizing the filing of an
application to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission for a Priority Development Area
Grant for the North Ventura Coordinated Area
Plan. The Council expressed local support and
commitment of necessary matching funds and
assurance of the completion of the project.
City Policies
The Region
The Bay Area is expected to be home to an
additional 1.4 million households by 2050. It
is essential that housing, transportation, and
other types of land uses work together – as
part of a regional growth framework – create
an equitable, prosperous future for all Bay Area
communities and make the best use of available
resources. Priority Development Areas (PDA) are
a key piece of the Bay Area’s regional growth
framework.
Approximately 70% of the Plan Area is located
within the California Avenue PDA, which was
selected as a PDA based on excellent access to
transit, the proximity of the existing California
Avenue Business District, and the availability of
underutilized parcels of land.
Figure 4 Priority Development Areas (PDA)
in the Bay Area
Palo Alto Growth Projections
According to the City’s Housing Element Update,
the total population is projected to grow to
82,835 people by 2030 and 86,510 people by
2040.
Historically, the number of new homes built in
the Bay Area has not kept pace with demand,
resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices,
and exacerbating issues of displacement and
homelessness. The number of new homes in Palo
Alto increased 3.8 percent from 2010 to 2020,
which is below the growth rate for Santa Clara
County and below the growth rate of the region’s
housing stock during this time period. At the
same time, Palo Alto’s population increased 6
percent.
Table 1 Historical Population and Growth
in Palo Alto, 1980 - 2040
Sources: U.S. Census 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, California Department of Finance 2021
and ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 Projections
* Projections
Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.7: Use
coordinated area plan to guide
development
Comprehensive Plan (Program
L-4.10.1): Prepare a coordinated area
plan for the North Ventura area and
surrounding California Avenue area.
On November 6, 2017, the City Council
adopted a Resolution expressing
local support and commitment for the
preparation of the NVCAP.
Year Population Numerical
Change
Percent
Change
1980 55,225 741 1%
1990 55,900 675 1%
2000 58,598 2,698 5%
2010 64,403 5,805 10%
2020 68,145 3,254 6%
2030*82,835*15,178*22%*
2040*86,510*3,675*4%*
California Avenue PDA
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
6 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 7
For more information and history of the Palo
Alto Cannery, go to:
The Palo Alto Cannery Spotlight, Pages 14-15
Cloudera Galactic HQ
The Cannery
Matadero Creek Channel
California Avenue Caltrain Station
Boulware Park
Park Plaza Apartments
Cannery Office Building
Navan
Plan Area
The NVCAP plan area is approximately 60 acres, roughly bounded by
Oregon Expressway / Page Mill Road to the north, El Camino Real to
the west, Lambert Avenue to the south, and the Caltrain rail corridor to
the east. Nearby neighborhoods include the Evergreen neighborhood
to the west, the Midtown neighborhood to the north, and Barron Park
to the south.
Figure 7 Existing Conditions of the NVCAP Plan Area, 2020
1.2
Proximity to City Destinations
The plan area is within walking and biking
distance to several key destinations, including:
•The California Avenue Caltrain Station, which
is within a half mile of the plan area. Walking
access to the station is primarily along Park
Boulevard, a designated Bike Boulevard.
•El Camino Real, a regional commercial and
retail corridor. Opportunities for pedestrians
and bicyclists to cross Page Mill Road safely are
limited.
•California Avenue, a regional retail attraction
and social destination for the peninsula.
•Stanford University, one of the premier higher-
education institutions in the world.
•Stanford Research Park and California Avenue
Business District, accounting for almost 40% of
the City’s employment distribution.
•Signature Palo Alto open spaces such as Sarah
Wallis Park, Boulware Park, and J. Bowden Park.
Plan Area Notable Sites
Notable sites within the plan area include the
Matadero Creek Channel and the buildings
associated with the Cannery.
The portion of the Matadero Creek running
through the plan area is contained with a concrete
trapezoidal channel, which was built in 1990 from
El Camino Real to the Caltrain Tracks.
Figure 5 The Matadero Creek Channel is currently a
constrained concrete trapezoidal channel.
Figure 6 The former Cannery building site is 12.5
acres and located at the heart of the
NVCAP.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Project Boundary
Caltrain Station
Bus Stops
Traffic Signals
Existing Sidewalks
Major External Connections
Surface Parking
Parks
8 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 9
Figure 8 Existing Zoning Districts of the NVCAP
ROLM
GM
GM
GM
CS
CS
CS
CS
R-1
R-1
RM-30
RM-30
RM-30
PC
Land Use and Zoning
The North Ventura neighborhood is already
made up of a mix of multi-family and single-
family residential, office, service, and retail
uses. Service commercial uses are concentrated
along El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and
the southern segment of Portage Avenue.
Additionally, office uses are located primarily
along Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard,
the most notable anchors being the Cloudera
Galactic Headquarters at 395 Page Mill Road
and the newly constructed building at 3045 Park
Boulevard.
About 70% of residential units in North Ventura
are single-family detached homes, most built
before 1950. Single-family homes occupy about
10 percent of the Plan Area and are generally
found along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue.
The Park Plaza Apartments is the most notable
multi-family residential development within
the Plan Area, situated at the corner of Park
Boulevard and Page Mill Road.
1.2
Table 2 Existing Zoning Designations
Zoning Map
Designation District Name
R-1 Single-family residence district
RM-30 Medium density multiple-family residence district
CS Service commercial district
ROLM Research, office and limited manufacturing district
GM General manufacturing district
CN Neighborhood commercial district
PC Planned community district
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
10 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 11
Recent Development
The Plan Area is experiencing significant change
and new investment in mixed-use development.
A few new developments include:
Under Construction or Completed
441 Page Mill Road: a three-story mixed use
building with one level of underground parking.
The project includes Class-A office space, ground
floor retail, and 16 apartments.
3045 Park Boulevard: a two-story shell
commercial building with underground parking.
3225 El Camino Real: a mixed-use development
with two distinct buildings. The first building
is four stories with ground floor retail and
apartments/condos on the upper floors. The
second building is two stories with ground
floor retail and office on the upper floor. The
development includes underground and podium
parking.
The 340 Portage Avenue
Development Agreement
In October 2023, the City approved a
development agreement with the Sobrato
Organization, LLC for the redevelopment of the
14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue,
3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street
and 278 Lambert Avenue (Ordinance #5595).
The project site, comprised of five reconfigured
parcels, is located centrally within the boundary
of the NVCAP. The development agreement
includes:
•Partial demolition of a commercial building
(formerly Bayside Cannery) deemed eligible for
the California Register of Historical Resources
and retrofit of the remaining portion of the
building (340-404 Portage) to retain and restore
key historic features (Parcel 1)
•Construction of (74) new three-story townhome
condominiums replacing approximately 84,000
square feet (sf) of the historic cannery building
at 200-404 Portage Avenue (Parcel 1)
•Demolition of a building containing commercial
recreation use at 3040 Park Boulevard (Parcel 1)
•Dedication of approximately 3.25 acres
of land to the City for future affordable
housing (approximately 1 acre) and parkland
(approximately 2.25 acres) uses (Parcel 2)
1.2
Figure 9 Photographs of recent development
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
•Retention of existing research and development
(R&D) uses in the remaining portion of the
former cannery building (Parcel 3)
•Construction of a two-level parking garage
(Parcel 3)
•Retention of office use in the existing building at
3201-3225 Ash Street (Parcel 4)
•Conversion of automotive use at 3250 Park
Boulevard to R&D use (Parcel 5)
•Contribution of $5 million for future park
improvements and contributions to the City’s
affordable housing fund.
•Development of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program for the R&D and
office uses.
When the terms of the agreement end,
conformance with the NVCAP will be required of
all new projects in the affected area.
Figure 10 Conceptual Tentative Map for the 340 Portage Avenue Development
12 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 13
Spotlight:
Palo Alto Cannery
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 73: 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Subject property outlined in
orange. Office building outlined in blue. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92,
Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Figure 72. Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 38 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1972 Bemiss & Jason Corp, shipping, receiving, paper products manufacturing 300 Portage Avenue 1962 Tubes & Cores Inc, paper products 1976 Ceilcote Company Inc, distribution office 303 Portage Avenue 1961-1965 Advance Transformer Co 1961-1976 James R W Packaging, packing, crating, and shipping 340 Portage Avenue 1985 Basket Galleria, Inc. ca. 1990-Present Fry’s Electronics 370 Portage Avenue 2002-2004 Lyncean Technologies
380 Portage Avenue
2006 Danger, Inc.
2016 – Present: Playground Global, technology
Select Owner and Occupant Biographies
The following biographies have been researched for longer-term owners and occupants.
Thomas Foon Chew (1887-1931) and the Bayside Canning Company (1918-1936)
Thomas Foon Chew was born in
China around 1887, likely in the
Loong Kai District of Guangdong
Province, and became one of the
richest and most influential Chinese-
Americans in California. His father,
Sai Yen Chew, emigrated to San
Francisco when Thomas was a child,
where he founded a small canning
operation, Precinta Canning, around
1890. According to family members,
Chew brought his son, Thomas,
from China to San Francisco
sometime around 1897, where he
gained his first introduction to the
canning business. Precinta Canning
was located near Broadway and
Sansome in San Francisco’s old Chinatown. The small cannery was equipped with a single 40-
Figure 76: Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his
canning plant in Alviso. Source: Our Town of Palo Alto.
https://ourtownofpaloalto.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/histor
y-of-mayfields-chinatown/
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 73: 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Subject property outlined in orange. Office building outlined in blue. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Figure 72. Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
The southeast corner of the parcel
contains a one-story wood frame
building. The building, located on
Ash Street next the former cannery
building, is used as an office. The
building appears to have been initially
built as a dormitory for the cannery
employees sometime between 1918
and 1925 and was moved to its current
location in 1940. The building features
a front-gabled roof, wraparound porch
with a shed roof, and wood lap siding.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 13 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 23. The loading platform or cooling
porch converted into a patio with replacement
aluminum frame garage door window. View
northeast.
Figure 24. Rooftop parapet and small gabled
roof in middle section of northwest façade.
View northeast.
Figure 25. Gabled addition attached to the
southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage
Avenue. View northeast.
Figure 26. Close-up of the gabled and flat-
roofed additions. View northeast.
Figure 27. A portion of the concrete loading
platform or cooling porch with its shed awning
and wood post-and-beam supports in the
middle section of the northwest façade. View
northeast.
Figure 28. Outlines of shallow gabled roofs are
visible along the concrete platform. View
southeast.
Figure 11 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing
Company. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight
C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara.
Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Figure 12 Gabled addition attached to the southernmost
monitor roof of 340 Portage Avenue. View northeast. Source: Page & Turnbull
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 20 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 57. A portion of the southwest façade of
the former office building. View northeast.
Figure 58. The rear portion of the southwest
façade of the former office building. View
northwest.
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD
The subject property is located in the Ventura neighborhood, which is surrounded by the Evergreen
Park, St. Claire Gardens, Charleston Meadow, Barron Park, Neal, and College Terrace
neighborhoods in Palo Alto. The immediate surroundings of the subject property consist of office
and commercial buildings, several of which appear to have been influenced by the industrial
architecture of the property at 340 Portage Avenue, and parking lots associated with these properties
(Figure 59 to Figure 62). Single-family residential buildings along Olive Avenue border the subject
property to the west (Figure 63).
Figure 59. A neighboring property on Park
Boulevard to the east of Matadero Creek. View
southeast.
Figure 60. An office building at 3101 Park
Boulevard. View northeast.
The former cannery site was initially
developed in April 1918, by Thomas
Foon Chew, the owner of Bayside
Canning Company or affectionately
known in the press at the time as “The
Asparagus King”. This was intended
to be Mr. Chew’s second cannery; the
first cannery was built nearby in Alviso,
California. The Palo Alto cannery
was strategically located alongside a
railroad spur of the Southern Pacific
Railroad’s Los Gatos branch, which
facilitated shipments, and Matadero
Creek for a ready water supply.
The cannery was expanded over
the next several decades. The site
operated as the Bay Side Cannery and
then as the Sutter Packing Company in
1929. The cannery continued to grow
through World War II and was closed
in 1949.
Although the building has undergone
some exterior alterations throughout
the expansion, aerial photos show
that from 1965, the building continues
to have the same shape and general
form as now. Following the closure of
the cannery, the site has been occupied
by an anchor retailer Maximart and
other retail and office uses. The next
significant and largest tenant, Fry’s
Electronics, continued to occupy the
site until the end of 2019.
Figure 13 A portion of the southwest facade of the former
office building. Source: Page & Turnbull
Figure 14 Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his canning
plant in Alviso. Source: Our Town of Palo Alto.
Figure 15 Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto
Historical Association
1.2
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Some of the most distinctive features
include the monitor roofs, capped with
composition shingles and clad with
corrugated metal, wood clerestory
ribbon windows and wire glass
skylights.
At the heart of the NVCAP is the 12.5-
acre 340 Portage Avenue property.
What appears to be one large
building on the parcel is composed
of approximately ten buildings that
were constructed at various times
between 1918 and 1949. The building
is surrounded by a narrow parking lot
to the north and a larger parking lot
to the south bounded by Matadero
Creek. The rectangular former cannery
building features walls that are
concrete, corrugated metal or wood
siding, with a variety of roof shapes.
14 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 15
Project Goals
On March 5th, 2018, the City Council approved the following goals to
guide the NVCAP. A project goal refers to the desired outcome of a
project. The following goals are high-level statements that provide an
overall context for the aims and accomplishments of the project.
Housing and Land Use
Add to the City’s supply of multi-family housing,
including market rate, affordable, “missing
middle” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed-
use, transit-accessible neighborhood, with retail
and commercial services, open space, and
possibly arts and entertainment uses.
Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Connections
Create and enhance well-defined connections
to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities,
including connections to the Caltrain Station,
Park Boulevard, and El Camino Real.
Connected Street Grid
Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk
gaps and street connections to California Avenue,
the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where
appropriate.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate development of
new community facilities and infrastructure
with private development, recognizing both the
community’s needs and that such investments
can increase the cost of housing.
Balance of Community Interests
Balance community-wide objectives with the
interests of neighborhood residents and minimize
displacement of existing residents.
Urban Design, Design Guidelines, and
Neighborhood Fabric
Develop human-scale urban design strategies,
and design guidelines that strengthen
and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill
development will respect the scale and character
of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment, while
addressing the principles of sustainability.
1.3
Figure 16 (left) An illustrative example of low-cost buffered bike lanes and intersection improvements.
Figure 17 (top) Building 0 in San Francisco, CA, an example of mixed-income multi-family apartments next
to a public park.
Throughout the document, applicable
project goals are included in insets.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
16 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 17
Project Objectives
On March 5th, 2018, the City Council approved the following objectives
to guide the NVCAP. Project objectives describe the optimal process
and set the goalposts for a successful plan. Project objectives are
measurable and achievable.
Data-Driven Approach
Employ a data-driven approach that considers
community desires, market conditions and
forecasts, financial feasibility, existing uses and
development patterns, development capacity,
traffic and travel patterns, historic/cultural and
natural resources, need for community facilities
(e.g., schools), and other relevant data to inform
plan policies.
Comprehensive User-Friendly Document and
Implementation
Create a comprehensive but user-friendly
document that identifies the distribution,
location and extent of land uses, planning
policies, development regulations, and design
guidelines to enable development and needed
infrastructure investments in the project area.
Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision
Makers
Provide a guide and strategy for staff and
decision-makers to bridge the gap between the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
and individual development projects in order to
streamline future land use and transportation
decisions.
Meaningful Community Engagement
Enable a process with meaningful opportunities
for community engagement, within the defined
timeline, and an outcome (the coordinated area
plan document) that reflects the community’s
priorities.
Economic Feasibility
A determination of the economic and fiscal
feasibility of the plan with specific analysis
of marketplace factors and incentives and
disincentives, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of
public infrastructure investments and projected
economic benefits to the City and community.
Environmental
A plan that is protective of public health and a
process that complies with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
1.4
Figure 18 (left) A breakout discussion during the NVCAP working group meeting,
Figure 19 (top) Documenting feedback during a working group design charrette
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
18 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 19
Citywide Planning
The standards and guidelines in this document are informed and in
conformance with the following foundational city plans and policies.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
The City adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
in November 2017, which is the primary tool
for guiding preservation and development in
Palo Alto. The Plan reflects community values
and provides a collective vision that guides
preservation, growth, and change. The Plan
Area is a part of the California Avenue Multi-
Neighborhood Center. A multi-neighborhood
center is defined as retail shopping centers or
districts that serves more than one neighborhood
with a diverse mix of uses, including retail, service,
office, and residential. Program L-4.10.1 directs
staff to prepare a coordinated area plan for the
North Ventura area and surrounding California
Avenue area. The plan should describe a vision
for the future of the North Ventura area as
a walkable neighborhood with multi-family
housing, ground-floor retail, a public park, creek
improvements, and an interconnected street grid.
It should guide the development of the California
Avenue area as a well-designed mixed-use
district with diverse land uses and a network of
pedestrian-oriented streets.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The City adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan in July 2012, which
strategically guides public and private
investments in non-motorized transportation
facilities and related programs. The plan
identifies several streets within the Plan Area as
critical bicycle streets, including Portage Avenue
as an enhanced bikeway as part of the Bay to
Ridge Trail and Park Boulevard as a major north-
south Bicycle Boulevard.
Housing Element 2023-2031
The Housing Element update, one of the
State-mandated components of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, represents the City of Palo
Alto’s sixth Housing Element and plans for the
years 2023 through 2031. In total, approximately
6,700 housing units are needed to accommodate
the 2023-2031 growth for all income groups as
part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) process. The Plan Area includes 15
properties identified by the Housing Element as
opportunity sites that could help the City meet its
housing needs (unit yield of approximately 300).
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 19.10:
Coordinated Area Plans
This chapter establishes the procedures for the
preparation of coordinated area plans (CAP).
The chapter’s sections outline the purpose of a
CAP, the procedures needed to be performed
throughout the planning process, the contents
of the plan document, and the requirements for
permitting and development once the CAP has
been adopted.
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.32:
Affordable Housing Incentive Program
The affordable housing incentive program is
intended to promote the development of 100%
affordable rental housing projects located within
one-half mile of a major transit stop or one-
quarter mile of a high-quality transit corridor.
Due to the Plan Area’s proximity to transit
and everyday needs, the NVCAP is a strong
candidate to support the City’s goal of adding
more affordable housing units to support a wider
range of incomes.
1.5
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.24:
Contextual Design Criteria and Objective
Design Standards
To comply with California’s recently adopted
legislation (Senate Bill (SB) 35 and SB 330) to
address the housing shortage within the state,
Palo Alto adopted objective design standards
to review new multi-family and mixed-use
residential housing projects. The development
standards and design guidelines included in
the coordinated area plan are intended to
be complementary to the objective design
standards.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and
Recreation Master Plan
Adopted in September 2017, the Parks Master
Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo
Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space, and
recreation system. The plan identifies the entire
Plan Area as an urban canopy target area,
emphasizing the need for new green streets
and parks. Additionally, Policy 1.B.10 states the
following, ‘develop a creek walk along Matadero
Creek that links parks and creates open
space and a habitat corridor’. Finally, the plan
designates Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard
as ‘Pollinator Pathways,’ which are intended
to provide connectivity for natural systems
through the integration of green stormwater
infrastructure. The future public park and the
renaturalization of the creek can serve as an
integral component of the City’s larger regional
habitat connection concept, connecting people
and wildlife from the foothills to the Baylands.
Urban Forest Master Plan
Adopted in February 2019, the Urban Forest
Master Plan establishes long-term management
goals and strategies to foster a sustainable
urban forest in Palo Alto. The urban forest
includes street trees, park trees, forested
parklands, and trees in many private ownership
settings. NVCAP is aligned with the master plan’s
goals and policies including:
•Goal 1: A well-developed contiguous, healthy,
and ecologically resilient citywide urban forest;
and
•Goal 2: Re-generated native woodland and
riparian landscapes as the key ecological
basis of the urban forest with a focus on native
species and habitat.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan
Completed in 2019, the Green Stormwater
Infrastructure (GSI) Plan provides a guidance
framework to integrate GSI measures into the
City’s urban landscape to properly manage and
treat stormwater at its source, decreasing water
quality impacts to local creeks, the Baylands,
and the San Francisco Bay. Integration of GSI
measures is critical for the Plan Area to address
the current lack of open spaces, and high
amount of imperviousness. Chapter 4 of the
GSI specifies in the Developed Project Location
Prioritization Criteria, that projects located within
one of the key development areas should receive
a higher priority than projects located outside
one of these areas.
Public Art Master Plan
Completed in November 2016, the mission of
the plan is to ensure that new public art reflects
Palo Alto’s people, diverse neighborhoods, the
innovative and global character of its businesses
and academic institutions, and the beauty of
its natural environment. Several of the plan’s
objectives are applicable to NVCAP including:
•Objective 1: Locate art in unexpected places,
such as alleys to provide an element of surprise
and whimsy to everyday life.
•Objective 2: Integrate impactful, permanently-
sited public art projects in business areas.
•Objective 3: Install public art in neighborhoods
for residents to enjoy on a daily basis.
•Objective 4: Use art to promote environmental
stewardship and sustainability. Create
partnerships with Environmental Services and
local regional agencies to integrate public art
into environmental projects.
•Objective 5: Commission artists or artist/design
teams to create specific public art plans for
areas of Palo Alto where development is taking
place.
20 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 21
Regional and Statewide Planning
Approximately 70% of the Plan Area is located within the California
Avenue PDA, which was selected based on excellent access to transit,
the proximity of the existing California Avenue Business District, and
the availability of underutilized parcels of land. Therefore, NVCAP is
subject to both regional and state legislation, developed and adopted
to ensure new development within PDAs are supporting compact,
equitable transit-oriented communities.
Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s)
regional Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC)
policy update seeks to support the region’s transit
investments by creating communities around
transit stations and along transit corridors that
not only support transit ridership, but that are
places where Bay Area residents of all abilities,
and income levels, and racial and ethnic
backgrounds can live, work and access services,
such as education, childcare, and healthcare. The
TOC policies would apply to PDAs that are served
by fixed-guideway transit such as the California
Avenue Station (Caltrain). PDAs that comply with
these TOC policies are eligible for grant funding
administered by the MTC. Jurisdictions adopting
these policies would be required to implement
the following:
•New Residential Development: a minimum
density of 50 units/net acre or higher and an
allowable maximum density of 75 units/net acre
or higher.
•New Commercial Office Development: a
minimum density of 2 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or
higher and an allowable maximum density of 4
FAR or higher.
•Parking Management Requirements: no
minimum parking requirement allowed.
At the time of plan adoption, the City has not
adopted the TOC policy.
Assembly Bill 2097 (AB2097)
The California State Legislature passed, and the
Governor signed, Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 that
eliminates minimum parking requirements for all
uses/development, (except hotels) within a half-
mile of public transit. This bill affects all properties
within the NVCAP. The new requirements went
into effect on January 1, 2023, ahead of the
adoption of the NVCAP.
1.5 1.6
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Adopted in June 2023, the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) is a comprehensive
document laying out the City’s strategy to
achieve ambitious carbon reduction goals,
while improving natural environment, adapting
to climate impacts, and increasing livability for
Palo Alto residents. The S/CAP establishes the
goals of reducing carbon emissions 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030 (the “80 x 30” goal)
and achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. Several
of the plan’s goals are applicable to NVCAP
including:
•Energy: Reduce GHG emissions from the direct
use of natural gas in Palo Alto’s building sector
by at least 60% below 1990 levels (116,400 MT
CO2e reduction)
•Mobility: Reduce total vehicle miles traveled
12% by 2030, compared to a 2019 baseline, by
reducing commute vehicle miles traveled 20%,
visitor vehicles miles traveled 10%, and resident
vehicle miles traveled 6%
•Mobility: Increase the mode share for active
transportation (walking, biking) and transit from
19% to 40% of local work trips by 2030
•Natural Environment: Restore and enhance
resilience and biodiversity of our natural
environment throughout the City
•Natural Environment: Increase tree canopy to
40% city-wide coverage by 2030
•Natural Environment: By 2030, achieve a
10% increase in land area that uses green
stormwater infrastructure to treat urban water
runoff, compared to a 2020 baseline
Relationship Between the
NVCAP and Other City Plans and
Ordinances
The NVCAP implements the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and provides more detailed
programs and policies for the specifically
defined NVCAP. These policies and programs are
consistent with those found in the Comprehensive
Plan but address the unique characteristics of
NVCAP.
To implement the NVCAP, Palo Alto made
changes to Title 18, Zoning, in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC). This new code section
outlines specific development standards for
projects within the plan area. While many
of these are detailed in the plan itself, the
regulations in the NVCAP section of Title 18 take
precedence. If the NVCAP doesn’t specifically
change or replace zoning standards, the
established PAMC requirements apply. However,
if there’s a conflict between the development
standards of NVCAP and PAMC, NVCAP
standards will be followed.
Regulatory Compliance
The Plan was prepared in accordance with CEQA,
and any state applicable law. The NVCAP guides
all development within the Plan Area and will
require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
to ensure consistency and to implement
the development regulations and land uses
established in this CAP. The CAP is adopted under
the authority of the City’s Zoning Ordinance,
which designates Coordinated Area Plans as
a tool to guide land use and development
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
22 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 23
The Community Process
The NVCAP was informed by a multi-year planning process, which
prioritized a robust and authentic community process, and invited
a diversity of voices from both city departmental agencies and
community stakeholders to shape the future of the Plan Area. 2
The City of Palo Alto conducted:
Spotlight:
Community
Workshops
17
NVCAP Working
Group Meetings
2
Online Surveys
6
Stakeholder Group
Meetings
Meetings with
Decision-Makers
City Council
Historic Resources Board (HRB)
Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC)
Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC)
Architectural Review Board
(ARB)
1.7
Figure 20 A worksession during the NVCAP working group meeting
Over the course of the planning process, City staff
and consultants conducted extensive community
outreach, providing numerous opportunities
for public engagement and meaningful input.
Stakeholders, decision-makers, residents, and
other community members have volunteered
their time to thoughtfully consider the challenges
and opportunities afforded by this project and
contribute to the evolving plan ideas.
As part of the planning process, three draft
alternatives were developed for the NVCAP. The
draft alternatives take into account feedback
provided by: (1) the NVCAP Working Group, (2)
feedback from community members provided
at community workshops, (3) analyses and
information provided by the City’s consultant
team to City staff and leadership. City Council
deliberated and selected a preferred scenario.
This community process led to the development
of the draft plan including the vision and design
framework included in Chapter 2.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
24 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 25
The NVCAP Working Group
Consistent with PAMC 19.10.030 and to ensure
significant and meaningful community
engagement, the City Council appointed a
14-member Working Group (WG). The WG was
made up of 14 individuals and two alternates.
The group’s composition represented a diversity
of interests and expertise, including homeowners
and renters, people of different ages and cultural
backgrounds. The WG included:
•Residents (renters and property owners) living
within the Plan Area boundaries or the greater
North Ventura neighborhood.
•Business owners and local employees working
or owning a business within the Plan Area
boundaries or nearby (mix of small and larger
businesses).
•Property owners (large and small properties).
•City residents with expertise in urban design,
housing development, environmental planning,
transportation, or land economics.
•Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
member.
•Architectural Review Board (ARB) member.
•Parks and Recreation Commission member.
Over the course of 17 meetings held from 2018 to
2020, the WG reviewed and provided feedback
on existing conditions, planning alternatives, and
other information related to the planning area.
The WG created a vision statement for the Plan
Area which is summarized below:
‘The Working Group envisions the Plan
Area to replicate a European square
with open plaza, colorful public art,
beautiful landscaping with green open
spaces and lots of public amenities such
as benches, trails, and bike paths. The
building designs should fit well within the
existing context, between three and six
stories, interconnected with pedestrian
and bicycle paths. The bustling plaza
should have lots of local-serving retail
uses such as cafes, small local markets,
and theaters, which encourage lively
foot traffic. The Plan Area also should
provide diverse housing opportunities,
with minimum intrusion from automobile
traffic.’
City Department Partnerships
The planning process was informed by
representatives from the City of Palo Alto to
ensure the plan was aligned with foundational
city plans, projects, and programs. The
departments represented include Planning &
Development, Transportation, Public Works,
Utilities, and Community Services.
The Community Workshops
Two community workshops were held to share
ideas, respond to study results, and weigh in on
the vision and emerging policies of the plan. The
first community workshop was held in February
2019. The community feedback helped to frame
the basis of the proposed draft plans. The
City hosted the second community workshop
on February 27, 2020. The workshop solicited
input on the three draft plan alternatives and
endeavored to identify community priorities on
various topics.
Community Surveys
Staff prepared two online community surveys
(April 2020 and October 2020) to solicit input
from the members of the community. The surveys
aimed to reach community members unable to
attend the workshops. An online questionnaire
on the draft alternatives was created by staff
to solicit input from the community at-large in
October 2020. About 30 community members
responded. The majority of the participants
preferred Alternative 3, supporting higher
residential densities and heights, allowing small
office footprints. There was general agreement
on the proposed transportation improvements,
and parks and open space proposals. Opinions
varied over preservation of the cannery building.
Some preferred removal of old cannery building
for better and efficient use of the existing space,
while others supported partial retention.
Project Website
To augment the community engagement
efforts, the city hosted a robust project website
that served as the primary online portal for
community engagement. It included information
on project updates, upcoming events, updated
summaries of workshops and staff reports.
Public Noticing / Mailing List
Notices of all public hearings and WG meetings
were published in accordance with the
regulations set forth by the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and City regulations. Additionally, an
extensive emailing list consisting of over 430
interested community members was developed
and maintained by City staff and used for
disseminating information to all interested
individuals.
Stakeholder Group Meetings
Stakeholder groups including property owners,
commercial tenants, area residents, Palo Alto
Unified School District and affinity groups/
advocates (affordable housing representatives,
bicycle groups, environmental representatives,
etc.) were identified early in the NVCAP process
and their input was gathered through a series
of six meetings. Staff also presented to the
Palo Alto Unified School District Committee on
December 2018, on February 20, 2020, and on
October 15, 2020. Palo Alto Unified School District
Board Members indicated an interest to site a
new school to serve new families conceived in
the draft alternatives. The City is supportive of
working together to understand student yield
from proposed typologies and suitable sites.
During the development and public review of
alternatives, City staff have continued discussions
with stakeholders, such as property owners and
affordable housing advocates to gather their
feedback on evolving policy ideas and aspects of
the alternatives.
Decision Maker Meetings
Since the initiation of the NVCAP planning
work in October 2018, City staff have provided
several updates to the following boards: City
Council, Historic Resources Board (HRB), Parks
and Recreation Commission (PRC), Planning
and Transportation Commission (PTC), and the
Architectural Review Board (ARB).
1.6
Figure 21 A sketch session and report back during the NVCAP
working group meeting
Figure 22 A presentation during a community workshop
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
26 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 27
Vision
2
2.1 Plan Concept
2.2 Land Use
2.3 Ground Floor Edges
2.4 Mobility
2.5 Ecology and Sustainability
2.6 Urban Form
The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan sets forth
a flexible, aspirational vision to guide growth and
investment to support a transit oriented, mixed-use,
mixed-income, and walkable neighborhood.
The vision frameworks described in the following pages illustrates the desired physical form delivered incrementally over time which:
•Honors the storied history and
unique character of the North Ventura neighborhood;
•Understands the needs of current residents and puts
forward near-term solutions to
current challenges;
•Establishes a long-term
framework for desired growth so more people can call North
Ventura home; and
•Invests in community
infrastructure to support
an equitable, resilient, and
sustainable Palo Alto.
2.1
Plan Concept
Figure 23 The NVCAP Concept at Potential Full Build-out
GREEN STORMWATER
INFRASTRUCTURE
SEAMLESS CONNECTION
TO CALTRAIN
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
FRIENDLY STREETS
ENHANCED
URBAN FOREST
ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDINGS
COMMUNITY
OPEN SPACE
CELEBRATING
HISTORY
NATURALIZED MATADERO CREEK
ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS
AND HABITAT RESPECTING EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMESENHANCED MULTI-MODAL
INTERSECTIONS STREET-ACTIVATING BUILDINGS
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPTIONS
The Plan Concept illustrates the
vision of the full build-out of the
NVCAP as reflected in the plan.
The actual development within the plan area will
vary based on each parcel’s project goals and
constraints. The conceptual build-out reflected
in Figure 23 does not incorporate development
projects recently approved or constructed.
30 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 31
2.2
Land Use
Development Potential
by Land Use
NVCAP aims to achieve the following targets for
these land uses within the plan area:
•Allow up to 530 new dwelling units;
•Approximately 2 acres of public open space;
•16,600 square feet of commercial development
including existing and new local retail and
professional services.
Table 3 Existing and Future Development Potential by Land Use
Land Use Existing Future
Residential
(units)
142 units 672 units
Parks (acres)0 acres 1.9 acres
Office (sq.ft.)744,000 sq.ft.466,000 sq.ft.
Retail (sq.ft.)111,200 sq.ft.103,700 sq.ft.
Figure 24 NVCAP Land Use Framework
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
32 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 33
2.2
Residential
The NVCAP land use framework is principally
focused on supporting a variety of housing
options, a diverse range of unit sizes and
bedroom configurations, and price points to
support Palo Alto residents at different stages of
life. Residential density will depend on its location
within the Plan Area. For example, mixed use
midrise development will be encouraged along
commercial corridors whereas townhomes will
be encouraged adjacent to existing residential
development.
The land use designations listed below are
calibrated for a wide range of multi-family
housing typologies:
High-Density Mixed Use
The high-density mixed-use designation is
located along the southern segment of El Camino
Real. The designation is intended to support
five- to six-story mid-rise apartment buildings.
This designation requires active uses for ground
floor frontages with retail requirements at specific
nodes along El Camino Real, to support its role as
a regional commercial corridor. The designation
requires that upper stories be residential.
Medium-Density Mixed Use
The medium-density mixed-use designation is
located on the northern segment of El Camino
Real and Page Mill Road. The designation is
intended to support four- to five-story mid-rise
apartment buildings. This designation requires
active uses for ground floor frontages with retail
requirements at specific nodes along El Camino
Real, to support its role as a regional commercial
corridor. The designation requires that upper
stories be residential.
Project Goals
Housing and Land Use
Add to the City’s supply of multi-
family housing, including market rate,
affordable, “missing middle,” and senior
housing in a walkable, mixed-use, transit-
accessible neighborhood, with retail and
commercial services, open space, and
possibly arts and entertainment uses.
Balance of Community Interests
Balance community-wide objectives
with the interests of neighborhood
residents and minimize displacement of
existing residents.
Low-Density Mixed Use
The low-density mixed-use designation serves
as a transition between the high-density mixed-
use area and the low-density residential areas
located in the interior of the plan area. The
designation area is also located along Ash
Street and Portage Avenue, to support mid-
to-low-rise multi-family development near the
proposed public park. Active ground floor uses
are encouraged but not required. Residential is
required on the upper floors.
High-Density Residential
The high-density residential designation is
located on the large 395 Page Mill Road site and
is targed towards development on the surface
parking lots.
Medium-Density Residential
The medium-density residential designation
is located at the 340 Portage Avenue site to
support the long-term goal of supporting
additional housing in the plan area. The
designation requires that both the ground
floor and upper floors are residential use. The
designation is intended to support a mix of
townhouses and mid-rise apartments. Allowable
heights are calibrated to support sensitive
structures such as the Cannery building.
Figure 25 Example of High-Density
Mixed Use in Palo Alto
Figure 26 Example of Medium-Density
Mixed Use in Palo Alto
Figure 27 Example of Low-Density
Mixed Use in Palo Alto
Figure 28 Example of High Density
Residential in Palo Alto
Figure 29 Example of Medium Density
Residential in Palo Alto
Low-Density Residential
The low-density residential designation is
calibrated to both facilitate new housing
development while also being sensitive to the
existing single-family neighborhood fabric -
located along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue.
This area of existing single-family homes has
been designated as an area of stability and will
not experience a significant degree of change.
Figure 30 Example of Low Density
Residential in Palo Alto
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
34 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 35
2.2
Figure 31 The Cloudera Galactic HQ is
located at 395 Page Mill Road
Land Use Classification Anticipated
Density (DU/AC)
Maximum
Height (FT)FAR Allowed Zoning
Districts
High-Density Mixed Use 61-100 3.0:1 NV-MXH
Medium-Density Mixed-Use 31-70 55 2.0:1 NV-MXM
Low-Density Mixed Use 3-17 35 0.5:1 NV-MXL
High Density Residential 61-100 65 3.0:1 NV-R4
Medium Density Residential 16-30 45 1.5:1 NV-R3
Low Density Residential 1 or 2 units/lot 35 0.45:1 NV-R2
NV-R1
Public Facilities and Open Space n/a n/a n/a NV-PF
Table 4 Proposed NVCAP Development Standards
Affordable Housing
To bolster the City’s affordable housing program,
new townhome ownership projects across the
plan area would provide 20% inclusionary below
market rate (BMR) units. For all other housing types,
both ownership and rental, a 15% inclusionary BMR
requirement would apply. In accordance with the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), in-lieu fees may
be paid in certain circumstances.
Proposed 100% below-market-rate (BMR) projects
in the NVCAP are eligible for an additional height
bonus through either the State Density Bonus or the
City’s Housing Incentive Program.
Open Space
This land use designation is located in the
southeastern corner of the plan area. This will
include the approximately 2 acre public open space
as well as the re-naturalization of the Matadero
Creek between Park Boulevard and Lambert
Avenue.
Existing Uses
Existing land uses are permitted to remain in
place and continue operations. Existing buildings
or land uses which become nonconforming
as a result of the new zoning and land use
classifications are governed by the provisions
in the Zoning Code regarding nonconforming
buildings and uses. Certain limits are established
for repairs, additions, restoration, expansion, and
occupancy after an extended vacancy. See PAMC
18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying
Facilities) for applicable requirements.
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
36 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 37
2.3
Ground Floor Edges
The street level is the most
important interface between a
building and the public realm. Each
development should define and
animate the street level, exploring
active uses, transparency, and
engaging design.
Figure 32 NVCAP Ground Floor
Edges Framework
For design standards and guidelines, go to: Chapter 5: Site and Building Design
REQUIRED
RETAIL EDGE
REQUIRED
RETAIL EDGE
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
38 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 39
2.3
Active Ground Floor Uses
To create a pedestrian-friendly environment and
visual interest on the ground floors of buildings,
new development within within designated areas
of high-density and medium-density mixed-use
designations will provide active uses on frontages
facing a public right-of-way, greenway, or park,
to the degree feasible. Retail or retail-like uses are
required at specific frontages facing El Camino
Real and encouraged along Park Boulevard.
By requiring ground floor commercial uses at
select nodes along prominent corridors, NVCAP
is supporting the ability for residents to walk to
everyday services and subsequently reduce the
number of cars on the road. See Figure 32 on
Page 38-39 for locations of the designated active
use areas.
Active uses include but are not limited to the
following:
•Neighborhood-serving retail which provides
goods and services that people would
frequently use to take care of their personal and
household needs. Examples include grocery
stores, drug stores, restaurants, dry cleaners, hair
salons, etc.
•Office use, limited to no more than 5,000 sq. ft.
for the parcel. Office use may include General
Business, Medical, and Professional; use should
be neighborhood serving.
•Public Uses including a community room and
daycare.
•Building lobbies.
•Spaces accessory to residential uses, such as
fitness rooms, workspaces, leasing offices,
shared kitchens, and mail rooms.
•Building frontage for mechanical equipment,
transformer doors, parking garage entrances,
exit stairs, and other facilities necessary to the
operation of the building are excluded from this
requirement.
Retail Frontage
Where ground floor retail is required within the
Plan Area, an urban edge should be created to
foster healthy street life. This includes storefronts
with tall floor to ceiling heights to foster visibility
and transparency for homegrown businesses.
Traditional retail such as food and beverage
establishments are a subset of active uses.
Residential Frontage
Residential stoops, porches, patios, terraces,
and frontage courts create a social edge to a
neighborhood street. When set back by a small
distance and vertically above the sidewalk grade,
they can also ensure privacy at a comfortable
social distance for a residential unit.
Figure 34 Neighborhood-serving retail along major
boulevards like El Camino Real.
Figure 33 Building lobbies and other accessory spaces to residential uses are considered active uses.
Figure 35 Residential stoops should be set back and elevated
to provide privacy for residents.
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
40 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 41
2.4
Mobility
The envisioned mobility framework
for the NVCAP will provide an array
of high-quality mobility options
on safe, low-stress, and visually
interesting streets.
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be designed
for people of all ages and abilities, and accessible
paths to transit will include wayfinding signage
and other amenities. Streets and intersections
will be designed to prioritize local circulation and
access and to encourage low vehicle speeds. The
planned improvements will be fully integrated into
the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure seamless
connections for all users.
Figure 36 NVCAP Mobility Framework
For design standards and guidelines, go to:
Chapter 3: Public Realm
Chapter 4: Accessibility and Mobility
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
42 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 43
2.4
Pedestrian Realm
A well-designed, integrated pedestrian network
is a vital component of the NVCAP. The mobility
framework prioritizes a fully connected, ADA-
accessible sidewalk network throughout the
neighborhood. Wide, tree-lined sidewalks will
foster a people-first environment, where all ages
and abilities can move safely and conveniently
throughout the neighborhood.
Portage Avenue, Park Boulevard, and Olive
Avenue will become priority walking routes to the
California Avenue Caltrain Station and the bus
stops along El Camino Real to ensure convenient
alternatives to driving.
In addition to established public sidewalks, the
Plan envisions publicly accessible private paths to
bridge existing gaps.
Project Goals
Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Connections
Create and enhance well-defined
connections to transit, pedestrian, and
bicycle facilities, including connections to
the Caltrain Station, Park Boulevard, and
El Camino Real.
Connected Street Grid
Create a connected street grid, filling in
sidewalk gaps and street connections to
California Avenue, the Caltrain Station,
and El Camino Real where appropriate.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate development
of new community facilities and
infrastructure with private development,
recognizing both the community’s needs
and that such investments can increase
the cost of housing.
Spotlight:
The Portage Avenue Woonerf
Central to the vision for a re-imagined North
Ventura neighborhood is a shared street, or
“woonerf,” along Portage Avenue.
Woonerf (“street for living”) is a Dutch term
for an integrated, common space shared by
pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed motor
vehicles. They typically have no curbs or
sidewalks, and vehicles are slowed by trees,
Figure 37 NVCAP Pedestrian Network
Publicly accessible shared path on private
property
Pedestrian path
Woonerf
External pedestrian connections
Project Boundary
planters, parking areas, and other traffic
calming devices in the street. In addition to
becoming a great space for walking and
bicycling, the Portage Avenue woonerf can
provide a placemaking space for community
gatherings, events, retail, and other flexible
uses.
Figure 38 View of the Bell Street Woonerf in Seattle, Washington
Legend
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
44 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 45
Street From To Bike Facility
El Camino Real Page Mill Road Lambert Avenue Separated and/or Buffered
Bike Lane along segment
Ash Street
Page Mill Road Olive Avenue Shared Use Path
Acacia Avenue Lambert Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
Park Boulevard Page Mill Road Lambert Avenue Separated Bike Lanes
Page Mill Road El Camino Real Park Boulevard Separated or Buffered Bike
Lanes
Olive Avenue El Camino Real Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard with Wide
Sidewalks
Portage Avenue
El Camino Real Ash Street Shared Use Path or Bicycle
Boulevard
Ash Street Park Boulevard Woonerf or Shared Use Path
Bike Network
The NVCAP will feature a high-quality, “low-
stress” bikeway network that will be comfortable
for people of all ages and abilities to use. The
proposed network will be integrated into the
citywide network to ensure safe, convenient
connections to the adjacent neighborhoods. This
will be achieved by selecting bicycle facilities that
prioritize safety and comfort based on vehicle
speeds and volumes, and with intersections
that have appropriate bike-specific crossing
treatments and traffic control. Wayfinding
signage and ample bicycle parking are also
integral elements of the network. The bicycle
network will support a range of users, including
the future integration of scooters, e-bikes, and
other micromobility devices.
The low-stress bike network will include
separated bicycle lanes on busier streets, bicycle
boulevards on calmer neighborhood streets,
and well-designed intersections throughout the
project Plan.
Shared-Use Paths are off-street, two-way
bikeways physically separated from motor vehicle
traffic and used by people bicycling, walking, and
other non-motorized users.
Separated Bike Lanes are dedicated bikeways
that combine the user experience of a multi-
use path but are located on a street. They
are physically distinct from the sidewalk and
separated from motor vehicle traffic by physical
objects such as parked vehicles, a curb, green
stormwater infrastructure, or posts.
2.4
Buffered Bike Lanes provide dedicated on-street
space for bicyclists delineated with a designated
buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the
adjacent motor vehicle travel lane.
Bicycle Boulevards are streets with low vehicle
volumes and speeds, designated and designed
to prioritize bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards use
signs, pavement markings, and speed and
volume management measures to discourage
vehicle cut-through trips and include safe,
convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterials.
The 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan includes a potential future grade-separated
pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Caltrain/
Alma Street, either near Matadero Creek/
Park Boulevard or between Margarita and
Loma Verde Avenues. This project is outside of
the NVCAP boundary but will close the gap
between existing crossings and greatly improve
east-west connectivity in conjunction with other
improvements.
Gateway Intersections
The intersections surrounding the Plan Area will
be enhanced to improve access, safety, and
connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. This is
particularly important for pedestrian and bicycle
safety, as the current intersections’ designs largely
prioritize vehicular speed and access. New design
guidance and signal technology advancements
offer options for improved intersection
interactions between people walking, biking,
and driving. In particular, intersections on the
bicycle network with a high potential for conflicts
between bicycles and vehicles must be designed
thoughtfully.
Figure 39 Bike Facility Degree of Separation
Figure 40 NVCAP Bike Network Framework
Table 5 Bicycle Facility Classifications
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
Separated
Bike Lane
Publicly Accessible
Shared Paths on
Private Property
Woonerf
Bike Boulevard
External Bike
Connections
Project Boundary
Legend Shared Paths
46 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 47
2.4
Transit
The success of transit is strongly dependent
upon the level of convenience that is offered
to the patron. Currently, the North Ventura
neighborhood contains two transit stops: a mid-
block stop located at El Camino Real and Portage
Avenue and a far-side stop located at El Camino
Real and Page Mill Road. The mobility framework
focuses on designing intuitive, accessible, and
safe routes to transit through priority pedestrian
and bike streets, wayfinding signage to navigate
to Caltrain, enhanced bus stop amenities for
passengers, and a mobility hub along Portage
Avenue.
Vehicles Circulation and Parking
The mobility framework serves the needs of
existing and future development with vehicle
and parking strategies aimed to prioritize local
circulation and access, encourage low speeds,
and determine right-sized parking capacity.
To support local access and mitigate cut-through
traffic, the Plan proposes to convert Ash Street
from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue into a one-
way southbound street. Olive Avenue from Ash
Street to El Camino Real will remain a two-way
street.
Vehicular traffic on the woonerf on Portage
Avenue is permitted but should be discouraged.
Vehicle circulation in this area will be primarily
for access to buildings located on the woonerf.
Acacia Avenue from Ash Street to Park Boulevard
will be a private aisle for accessing residential
frontage on Acacia Avenue for parking and
unloading.
In compliance with AB-2097, no parking
minimums are to be set as the neighborhood
is near a Caltrain Station. However, there
will also be no parking maximums, allowing
the neighborhood to follow a market-based
regulatory approach. No new surface parking
is proposed, and new parking supply should be
implemented on the ground or basement levels
of new buildings. Where new buildings are not
proposed, existing surface parking spaces are
to remain to support remaining commercial
offices. Street parking is to remain in front of
single-family homes on Pepper Avenue and Olive
Spotlight:
Mobility Hub
Mobility hubs are places in a community that
bring together public transit, bike share, car
share and other sustainable transportation
modes. The MTC Mobility Hub Program has
identified the North Ventura neighborhood
as a candidate for a mobility hub. This
neighborhood’s proximity to the proposed
public park, the California Avenue Caltrain
Station, and bus stops on El Camino Real
provides important connections to regional
transit and micromobility pathways. The
neighborhood mobility hub is proposed at the
intersection of Portage Avenue and El Camino
Real. This location is ideal given its proximity
to varying active frontage uses as well as the
proposed woonerf. Proposed amenities could
include:
• Transit shelters and waiting areas.
• Bicycle parking facilities.
• Shared mobility (bike share, scooter share, etc.) access points.
• Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
• Designated parking for car share services.
• Real-time travel information signage and interactive displays.
• Area maps and bulletins promoting local amenities and events.
• Monitoring systems to measure ridership, mobility, security, and public life metrics.
• Digital and physical wayfinding tools.
Avenue, with no new street parking proposed
along new developments. Street parking near
intersections should be restricted to ensure
large vehicles and emergency vehicles are
able to safely make turns. To support the new
ground-floor retail and active use frontage in
new buildings, short-term parking should be
implemented on the ground or basement levels
of the new developments.
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Strategies
TDM strategies can be effective at encouraging
fewer trips made by single-occupancy vehicles
(SOV). An effective TDM Plan ensures that
alternative modes of transportation, such as
walking, bicycling, public transit, or other forms
of shared mobility, are made available to site
occupants and nearby community members.
TDM enhancements have additional benefits
beyond reducing SOV trips, including:
•Improving the environment by reducing traffic
congestion and air quality impacts produced by
new development.
•Improving transportation circulation and safety
conditions for community members.
•Quality of life enhancements that improve the
public realm.
Figure 41 NVCAP Vehicle Movement and Parking Framework
Major Intersection
Improvements
Minor Intersection
Improvements
Traffic Signals
Project Boundary
Vehicular Movement
Vehicular Street on Private Property
Surface Parking
Vehicular Street
Legend
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
48 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 49
2.5
Ecology and Sustainability
NVCAP’s ecological framework
takes direct inspiration from the
City’s Sustainability and Climate
Action Plan, putting forward
design strategies that collectively
expands the definition of
sustainability.
This framework goes beyond mitigation,
adaptation, and resilience, but grounded in
regeneration – identifying opportunities for
renewal, restoration, carbon sequestration, and
growth of the natural environment.
The future streets, parks, natural areas, and
buildings will restore and enhance habitat
and pollinator pathways, flood protection and
stormwater management, cleaner air and
cleaner water, and healthier habitats for current
and future generations.
Figure 42 NVCAP Ecology and Sustainability Framework
For design standards and guidelines, go to:
Chapter 3: Public Realm
Chapter 4: Accessibility and Mobility Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space
Chapter 6: Site and Building Design
GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
ENHANCED
URBAN FOREST
ENERGY EFFICIENT
BUILDINGS
COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE
CELEBRATING
HISTORY
NATURALIZED
MATADERO CREEK
ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS AND HABITAT
POLLINATOR
PATHWAYS
GREEN
ROOFS TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
50 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 51
2.5
Public Park
Located in the southeast corner of the Plan
Area, NVCAP proposes to transform a surface
parking lot into a new public park that is
approximately two acres. The potential future
naturalization of Matadero Creek between Park
Boulevard and Lambert Avenue serves as the
organizing framework for the park’s design and
neighborhood destination, inviting Palo Alto
residents, employees, and visitors to enjoy access
to recreational activities, habitat, and inclusive
community programming. Shared multi-use
pathways weave through the park, providing
access to the Creek and seamless connections
to the citywide pedestrian and bicycle network,
ensuring that the park is a beloved city asset that
can be enjoyed by the entire community.
The primary entrance to the park is along the
proposed Portage Avenue woonerf directly
across from the historic Palo Alto Cannery,
creating an iconic activity node. The design of
the proposed Portage Avenue woonerf supports
a natural extension of the park to the renovated
Cannery building.
Project Goals
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment,
while addressing the principles of
sustainability.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate development
of new community facilities and
infrastructure with private development,
recognizing both the community’s needs
and that such investments can increase
the cost of housing.
Matadero Creek
NVCAP proposes future re-naturalization of
a section of the Matadero Creek, removing
the existing U-shaped concrete channel and
replacing it with a widened, natural channel.
The goals of a renaturalization project are to
provide community benefits, re-establish riparian
ecosystem habitat, and avoid adverse impacts
on hydraulic performance and flood risks. The
NVCAP supports a widened natural corridor with
an area available for riparian plantings, creative
landscape architecture design, and increased
recreation access. This concept includes replacing
the Lambert Avenue bridge with a longer
span and widening the creek channel from
approximately 30 feet wide to 100 feet wide.
Green Stormwater Infrastructure
As an integral part of the Plan Area’s ecological
and sustainability framework, the public realm
consists of a coordinated network of multi-
functional landscapes that effectively manage
stormwater, create pollinator pathways, mitigate
the urban heat island effect, and create usable
public spaces for all to enjoy.
Figure 44 An example of a restored creek in San Luis Obispo, CA.
Figure 45 An example of green stormwater infrastructure integrated with street furnishings.
Figure 43 A conceptual design for the future public park
SAFE CONNECTION
TO BOULWARE PARK
COMMUNITY
GARDENS
MULTI-USE OPEN SPACE
ACTIVE ZONES
OBSERVATION DECK
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
52 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 53
2.6
Urban Form
NVCAP’s Urban Form framework
champions the design of
buildings that are respectful
neighbors, human-scaled,
and embrace the street. New
development will respond to
the surrounding context such
as building up to El Camino
Real while creating a gentle
transition to quieter residential
portions of the neighborhood.
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
For design standards and guidelines, go to:
Chapter 6: Site and Building Design
Project Goals
Urban Design, Design Guidelines, and Neighborhood Fabric
Develop human-scale urban design
strategies, and design guidelines that
strengthen and support the neighborhood
fabric. Infill development will respect the
scale and character of the surrounding
residential neighborhood.
The Urban Form framework was developed
taking into account the existing neighborhood
in the plan area, including the existing
residential neighborhoods. In addition to
creating a well-connected neighborhood
accessible by all modes of transportation,
the framework also evaluated transitions
between the future development and existing
neighborhoods, as well as between private
development and the public realm. This
informed the building standards and site
design standards for the plan area.
The design standards and guidelines for
the public realm, public park, and buildings
are laid out in the subsequent chapters.
The standards and guidelines will create a
complete and well-connected neighborhood
that is respectful of the existing urban fabric
and achieve the goals of the plan.
Figure 47 Urban form design standards requires setbacks and stepbacks for new development that is adjacent to single family zoning.
Design for living
― Residential
Figure 46 Internal streets have height allowances that
are conducive with missing middle housing like
townhomes.
54 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 55
3.1 Sidwalk Zone
3.2 Traffic Lanes and Intersections
3.3 Green Infrastructure
3.4 Paving
3.5 Exterior Lighting
3.6 Wayfinding
3.7 Public Art
Public Realm
3
The public realm is a connective tissue of streets, parks,
plazas, and natural spaces that weaves throughout the
neighborhood, serving as an organizing framework for
future development while fostering inclusive, experience-
rich spaces for the entire Palo Alto community.
Building on the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan’s Urban Design Vision, the Plan
Area’s public realm will ‘serve as centers
for public life with gathering places,
bicycle and pedestrian access, safety-
enhancing night-time lighting and clear
visual access, and, in some cases, small-
scale retail uses such as cafes.’
The standards and guidelines layout
a planned, intentional, well-designed
public realm network that works in
unison to achieve multiple goals:
•Aesthetically pleasing, context-
appropriate streets that enhance
residents’ quality of life and Palo Alto’s
reputation as ‘a gracious residential
community.’
•A comprehensive multi-modal
network that provides equitable
access to clean, safe, and reliable
mobility options and seamlessly
connects to the larger citywide
transportation network.
•Open spaces that blend people
places with green stormwater
infrastructure to provide new social
gathering outdoor rooms while
showcasing climate-positive design.
3.2
Traffic Lanes and Intersections
The neighborhood is bounded on the west and
north by two major vehicular roads: El Camino
Real, a major arterial, and Oregon Expressway,
an street designed to move higher volumes of
vehicles quickly and efficiently.
However, most streets within the Plan Area are
classified in the Comprehensive Plan as local/
collectors, designed to calm traffic and give
pedestrians priority in terms of scale and facility.
The plan is aligned with the recommendations of
the National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO) which states that narrower lane
widths such as 10 feet are appropriate in urban
areas and have a positive impact on street safety
without impacting traffic operations.
Standards:
The regulations that govern the requirements
for traffic lanes and intersections are mentioned
below. The information described here provides
a general overview of requirements and is not
intended to replace the regulations referenced.
3.2.1 Local Street Traffic Lane Width
All vehicle traffic lanes on local streets shall have
a width of 10 feet.
3.2.2 California Fire Code
All roadway configurations shall comply with the
California Fire Code. This includes the following:
•Roadway widths shall accommodate aerial
fire apparatus set up at strategic locations
for buildings over 27 feet tall.
• Walkable pathways shall be a minimum of 16
feet wide and support fire apparatus weights
if vehicle traffic circulation is being restricted.
3.2.3 Crosswalk Treatments
All crosswalk surfacing and treatments shall
follow the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
specifications.
3.2.4 Intersection Enhancements
All intersection enhancements shall select from
the following toolbox:
•High visibility marked crosswalks.
•Raised crosswalks.
•Advance stop bars and yield lines.
•Daylighting to improve sightlines by
removing parking adjacent to the
intersection.
•ADA-accessible, bi-directional curb ramps.
•Curb extensions or bulb-outs.
•Bicycle detention and markings to indicate
the position and path for bicyclists to cross
the intersection.
•Traffic signals.
•Accessible pedestrian signals at intersections
with clear markings, audio, and braille
messaging.
•Leading pedestrian intervals at signalized
intersections for pedestrians to establish their
presence in the crosswalks before vehicles
proceed.
•Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Guidelines:
3.2.5 Artful Intersections
To enhance the aesthetics and vibrancy of
the roadway, key intersections and crosswalks
should be evaluated for the inclusion of public
art, such as unique pavers, intersection murals,
or crosswalk artwork, where appropriate. For
additional information, refer to the Public Art
Program provisions and Public Art Master Plan.
3.1
Sidewalk Zone
Sidewalk Zone design is important for creating
a safe, accessible, and attractive urban
environment that caters to the needs of
pedestrians and cyclists.
The City has established design guidelines and
required standards for sidewalk improvements
outlined in PAMC Section 18.24.020 that are
applicable to development in the NVCAP.
The design elements apply to the three distinct
sidwalk zones: Frontage, Sidewalk, and Street.
Below is description of the zones and objective
design standards. For additional information
please refer to the respecitve PAMC section.
Project Goal
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate
development of new community
facilities and infrastructure with private
development, recognizing both the
community’s needs and that such
investments can increase the cost of
housing.
Figure 48 The Sidewalk Zone
PU
B
L
I
C
R
E
A
L
M
Frontage Sidewalk Street
Building
Setback Frontage Area Pedestrian Clear
Zone
Landscape/
Furniture Zone Vehicle/Bike Lanes
Mixed-Use
•Sidewalk Dining
•Outdoor Displays
•Public Art
•Seating
•Trees/Planting
Residential
•Stoops
•Porches
•Front Yards
•Trees/Planting
•Sidewalk •Street Trees/Planting
•Street Lighting
•Seating
•Bike Parking
•Public Art
•Outdoor Dining
•Bus Shelters
•Utilites (e.g., hydrants)
•Street Parking
•Bike Lanes
•Drop-off Zones
•Parklets
•Bus Stops
Table 6 Allowed Features by Sidwalk Zone
For more information on street
dimensions, go to: Chapter 4:
Accessibility and Mobility
58 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 59
3.3
Green Infrastructure
Project Goal
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment,
while addressing the principles of
sustainability.
As an integral part of the Plan Area’s ecological
network, the public realm will consist of a
coordinated network of green stormwater
infrastructure intended to implement the
Comprehensive Plan’s vision to “provide
ecological and health benefits and a source of
beauty for residents. Palo Alto will strive for clean
air and clean water.” Inspired by natural systems,
the following standards and guidelines for
green stormwater infrastructure and the urban
forest are aimed at creating multi-functional
landscapes that:
•Effectively manage stormwater.
•Create pollinator pathways.
•De-pave unnecessary hardscaped areas to
mitigate the urban heat island effect.
•Create usable outdoor rooms which are an
extension of parks and plazas.
PU
B
L
I
C
R
E
A
L
M
The regulations that govern the requirements
for green stormwater infrastructure and tree
protection are mentioned below. The information
described here provides a general overview of
requirements and is not intended to replace the
regulations referenced.
3.3.1 Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Green stormwater ifrastructure is built into
our urban environment to collect, slow, and
clean stormwater runoff through the use of
natural processes. Development is subject to
the requirements of the regional permit (San
Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit) and local regulations. For details
on local requirements, see the Green Stormwater
Infrastructure (GSI) Plan and PAMC 16.11,
Stormwater Pollution Prevention.
3.3.2 Street Trees
Palo Alto boasts a large population of trees
and has been acknowledged by both the
State of California and the National Arbor Day
Foundation as a Tree City-USA. Preserving and
enhancing the City’s urban tree canopy is key
consideration for all development, especially for
vision of the new neighborhoods within NVCAP.
For tree preservation requirements, PAMC
Chapter 8, Trees and Vegetation, provide
standards for both public and privately owned
trees. These requirements apply to all trees
and landscaping within the public right of
way. For privately owned trees, specific native
mature trees are subject to the tree protection
requirements. Please refer to the PAMC for more
details.
For new development requiring street trees,
property owners shall consult with the City’s
Urban Forestry division to determine the
appropriate street tree. Tree species should
be selected based on a combination of their
aesthetics and their ecological performance
benefits and contextual placement. Where space
allows, either on private setbacks or within the
sidewalk zones, the planting of a second row of
street trees is encouraged.
3.3.3 Pollinator Pathways
The adopted Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space, & Recreation Master Plan identifies
Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard as Pollinator
Pathways.
Street design for these streets shall integrate
native plantings (e.g. riparian, grassland, or oak
woodland), and specific habitat plantings to
support pollinators such as hummingbirds and
butterflies. Figure 49 Bioretention
60 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 61
3.5
Exterior Lighting
Adequate exterior lighting should be provided in
all dedicated open spaces and along all streets
and greenways to ensure clear wayfinding and
safe pedestrian passage. Lighting design also has
an opportunity to support habitat and mitigate
light pollution, allowing current and future
generations to be able to look up and clearly see
the night sky.
The information described here provides a
general overview of requirements and is not
intended to replace established relevant
regulations unless specifically noted.
Standards:
3.5.1 Light Fixtures within Right-of-Way
All exterior light fixtures in the right-of-way shall
meet City of Palo Alto standards per PAMC 12.08
and be approved by the City.
3.5.2 Fully-Shielded Fixtures
All exterior light fixtures shall be fully shielded to
minimize glare, light trespass, and light pollution
throughout the neighborhood.
3.5.3 Dark Sky Compliant
Exterior light fixtures shall meet or exceed
applicable energy-efficiency standards while
adhering to recommended kelvin temperature
specified by the International Dark Sky
Association (2700) to prevent negative health
impacts on humans and wildlife except where
otherwise required for safety. This standard shall
be applicable until the City adopts the Citywide
ordinance on Dark Sky standards.
3.5.4 Key Pedestrian Routes and Scale
Lighting shall reinforce key active transportation
streets and all lighting shall be scaled to the
pedestrian and bicycle experience.
3.5.5 Safety
Lighting shall allow facial recognition along paths
of travel. Lighting shall not create glare or “hot
spots” that would inhibit visual accessibility.
Guidelines:
3.5.6 Habitat Areas
If lighting is appropriate in the proposed public
park adjacent to the Creek and sensitive habitat
areas, light fixtures should be equipped with
motion sensors or timers to not disrupt the
circadian rhythms of wildlife.
3.5.7 Retail / Active Use Areas
Lighting on private property along El Camino
Real and Portage should incorporate signature
fixtures and a variety of special lighting types
such as catenary string lights to reinforce an
experience-rich street life. See PAMC 18.40,250,
Lighting, for more detail.
Figure 51 Dark sky compliant exterior light fixtures helps
mitigate light pollution and the health of both humans
and wildlife.
Credit: Edgar Zacarias via Foursquare
PU
B
L
I
C
R
E
A
L
M
3.4
Paving
Paving is a key component that will help define
the character, connectivity, and identity of the
North Ventura neighborhood’s varied streets and
open spaces. A hierarchy of paving materials
on streets like El Camino Real, Portage Avenue,
and Park Boulevard can help create clear
wayfinding and contributes aesthetically to the
neighborhood.
Standards:
3.4.1 City Standards
All street paving shall meet City of Palo Alto
Sidewalk Standards per PAMC 12.08 and be
approved by the city engineer or designate.
3.4.2 Solar Reflectance Index (SRI)
Materials that reduce the urban heat island
effect by using pavement with a Solar
Reflectance Index (SRI) of 29 or higher shall be
selected for use.
3.4.3 Portage Avenue Special Paving
The Portage Avenue Woonerf shall incorporate
a special paving pattern. The use of contrasting,
tactile, and high-quality paving that distinguishes
the bike lanes and vehicle lanes with a curbless
street that prioritizes pedestrians, gathering and
spill-over activities is encouraged.
Guidelines:
3.4.4 Responsible Material Use
Paved areas should be made of sustainable
paving materials, including recycled, local,
and sustainable sourced materials. Consider
opportunities for the reuse of demolition waste
from the site.
3.4.5 Accent Paving at Intersections
Street improvement projects should install accent
paving at key intersections and raised crossings. .
3.4.6 El Camino Real Special Paving
In coordination with Caltrans and VTA,
the segment of El Camino Real within the
neighborhood should incorporate a special
paving pattern that reflects its position as a
Grand Boulevard. The paving material should
extend into the private setback along active
ground floor uses to create a more comfortable
and welcoming public space for adjacent
businesses.
3.4.7 Pervious Paving for Green Stormwater
Infrastructure
Large hardscaped areas such as parking areas,
sidewalks, and driveways could utilize types of
pervious pavements to reduce ponding, recharge
groundwater, and prevent stormwater pollution.
Figure 50 Light colored pavement reduces the
urban heat island effect.
For more information on
intersections go to: Chapter 4: Accessibility and Mobility
62 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 63
3.7
Public Art
Building on the City’s legacy of commissioning
iconic public art within urban centers like
Downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue, the
integration of new and diverse public art can
contribute significantly to the sense of place
within the neighborhood. This plan is aligned
with the City of Palo Alto’s Public Art Master Plan’s
guiding principles which state that Palo Alto’s
public art will:
•Be distributed citywide, focusing on areas where
people gather and in unexpected places that
encourage exploration;
•Represent a broad variety of artistic media and
forms of expression;
•Enhance City infrastructure, transportation
corridors, and gateways;
•Include both permanent and temporary
artworks;
•Strive for artistic excellence;
•Be maintained for people to enjoy.
Guidelines:
3.7.1 Location of Public Art
Public art should be located at major social
engagement areas such as the proposed
public park and the Cannery Building, along
transportation corridors such as El Camino Real,
Portage Avenue, and Park Boulevard, and at
major gateway moments announcing that you
are entering the neighborhood.
Figure 53 The location of public art such as Passages
by Susan Zoccola should be located at the
public park, major transportation corridors
and major gateways.
PU
B
L
I
C
R
E
A
L
M
3.6
Wayfinding
The design and integration of wayfinding
is an effective tool that can celebrate the
neighborhood’s history, foster a sense of place,
and support clear and predictable navigability
for residents, employees, and visitors.
Standards:
3.6.1: Caltrans Standards
Roadway signage shall comply with the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD), and California Sign
Specifications.
3.6.2: City Standards
Active Transportation signage shall adhere to
the Design Standards included in the City of Palo
Alto’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan;
the regulations in Sign Ordinance, PAMC 16.20
may also apply.
Guidelines:
3.6.3: Shared Use Signage
Curbless streets such as Portage Avenue
Woonerf should have signage that indicates the
delineation of the right of way for pedestrians,
bicycles, and vehicles. Shared trails within the
public park should include signage indicating the
shared use area at pedestrian and bicycle eye
level.
3.6.4: Celebrate the Cannery and Other
Landmarks
Signage and wayfinding should take cues from
neighborhood landmarks like the Cannery
by correlating graphically and emulating a
consistent color and material palette.
3.6.5: Neighborhood Maps and Directional
Signage
Area-specific maps and directional signage that
highlights nearby destinations along pedestrian
pathways should be installed at major gateways
into the neighborhood.
3.6.6: Mile Markers and Educational Placards
The use of mile markers and educational and
interpretive placards can be placed along the
trails along Matadero Creek to inform visitors
about the re-naturalization process and
subsequent ecological benefits.
Figure 52 Neighborhood map and directional
signage are effective wayfinding tools for
visitors to the area.
64 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 65
4.1 Pedestrian Realm
4.2 Bike Network
4.3 Gateway Intersections
4.4 Street Sections
4.5 Transit Access
4.6 Vehicle Circulation and Parking
4.7 Transportation Demand Management
Accessibility and Mobility
4
Vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, and visually interesting
streets will be the setting for the future of the North
Ventura neighborhood. With generous and active
sidewalks, traffic calming devices, and low-stress bicycle
facilities, the street network will provide a variety of
options to travel safely and conveniently through the
neighborhood.
Building on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan, and Grand Boulevard Palo Alto
Safety Study, the plan supports the
implementation of the City’s vision
to ‘build and maintain a sustainable
network of safe, accessible and
efficient transportation and parking solutions for all users and modes,
while protecting and enhancing the
quality of life in Palo Alto. Programs
will include alternative and innovate
transportation processes, and the
adverse impacts of automobile traffic
on the environment in general and
residential streets in particular will be
reduced.
Streets will be safe, attractive and
designed to enhance the quality and
aesthetics of Palo Alto neighborhoods.
Palo Alto recognizes the regional
nature of its transportation system,
and will be a leader in seeking
regional transportation solutions,
prioritizing Caltrain service improvements and railroad grade
separations.’
The following street sections, which
include street design standards and guidelines, are intended to illustrate
the long term vision of the NVCAP
mobility network. The design of the
new streets will be built out over time.
The NVCAP aims to create a fully connected,
accessible, and prioritized network of wide,
tree-lined sidewalks with regular maintenance,
promoting walkability, safety, and connections for
all residents.
Portage Avenue, Park Boulevard, and Olive
Avenue will be prioritized as walking routes to
the California Avenue Caltrain Station and bus
stops along El Camino Real, offering convenient
alternatives to driving. Establishing publicly
accessible private paths to bridge existing gaps
will further ensure a fully connected pedestrian
network within the plan area.
Standards:
4.1.1 Pedestrian-Friendly Street Design
The NVCAP shall feature a fully connected,
ADA-accessible sidewalk network with enhanced
intersections promoting pedestrian safety and
accessibility while collaborating with local
disability organizations to ensure inclusive design
throughout.
4.1.2 First/Last Mile Transit Connections
To create safe and accessible walking routes to
the California Avenue Caltrain Station and the
bus stops along El Camino Real, routes along
Park Boulevard shall be enhanced. The following
are some design options that can be considered
to meet this requirement:
•Pedestrian-scaled lighting
•Wider sidewalks
•Wayfinding signage
•Buffered bike lanes
•Collaborating with developers to restrict
new curb cuts, close old ones, and design for
activated ground floor frontages.
A signalized crosswalk at Page Mill Road/ Ash
Street can be considered to open another
accessible route to the Caltrain Station.
MO
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Bike Network
The NVCAP will implement a high-quality, “low-
stress” bike network, seamlessly integrated
with the citywide system. This bike network,
incorporating separated lanes for busier streets,
boulevard treatments for calmer areas, and
well-designed intersections, will prioritize safety
and comfort for all users, including cyclists,
future micromobility devices, and pedestrians.
Wayfinding signage and ample parking will
complete this network, encouraging travel by
bike throughout the plan area and beyond.
Pedestrian Realm
Project Goal
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.
Standards:
4.2.1 Bicycle Facilities
The standards for bike facilities vary depending
on the streets within NVCAP. Table 5 in Chapter
2 on page 47 outlines the specific bike facility
improvements required for each street section.
These improvements range from shared use paths
and buffered bike lanes to bike boulevards.
4.2.2 Compliance with Other Standards
The bicycle network within the plan area shall
comply with Citywide standards, including,
but not limited to, the Bicycle + Pedestrian
Transportation Plan. For El Camino Real,
additional consideration shall be given to
standards established by other relevant agencies.
4.1 4.2
4.1.2 Woonerf
A woonerf shall be developed on Portage
Avenue between Ash Avenue and Park
Boulevard, designed in accordance with
the Portage Avenue Street Section Design
Standards and Guidelines outlined in Section
4.4 and consider the following:
•A row of street trees on either side of the
main travel way to designate pedestrian
priority areas adjacent to building frontages.
•Signage emphasizing the presence of
pedestrians and bicyclists.
•Textured or permeable pavement designed
to slow vehicle speeds and provide
stormwater management benefits.
•Pedestrian-scale lighting
•Seating areas
•Landscaping and Green Stormwater
Infrastructure
•Design elements that highlight the
community’s vision or character.
Guidelines:
4.1.3 Publicly Accessible Private Path
As indicated in the NVCAP Pedestrian Network
(Figure 37 in Chapter 2), publicly accessible and
shared private paths should be estsablished
to contribute to the overall pedestrian network
within the plan area.
Project Goal
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.
Guidelines:
4.2.3 Bicycle Support Facilities
Facilities that support bicycle travel should be
incorporated at various locations throughout the
NVCAP. These include:
•Wayfinding signage along the bicycle
network that provides information on routes,
destinations, and distances.
•Bicycle parking: expand the availability of
sidewalk bicycle parking, secure long-term
bicycle parking, and install end-of-trip
facilities at transit stops along El Camino Real
and at the California Avenue Caltrain Station.
These may be in the form of outdoor bicycle
racks, indoor or outdoor bicycle lockers, or
indoor bicycle parking cages for each tenant.
•Shower facilities and lockers at places of
employment.
70 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 71
Gateway Intersections
4.3
Figure 54 Map of Conceptual Gateway Intersection Design Improvements
Recognizing the need to enhance the safety
and experience for all users, the NVCAP will
implement new design strategies for its gateway
intersections. These crucial entry and exit points
often face challenges in balancing the needs of
pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. By prioritizing
safety at these intersections, the plan aims
to create a more welcoming and accessible
environment for everyone entering and
leaving the plan area and to provide seamless
connection to the rest of the city.
NVCAP will pursue enhancements to the five
gateway intersections listed:
1. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road
2. El Camino Real and Olive Avenue
3. El Camino Real and Portage Avenue /
Hansen Way
4. Lambert Avenue and Ash Street
5. Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue
Details regarding each intersection are provided
in the following pages. For improvements to
intersections along streets not owned and
controlled by the City, specifically El Camino Real
and/or Page Mill Road, approval from Caltrans
and or the County is required. The City will work
closely with other partnering agencies to further
the goals and vision of the plan area, as well as
adhere to the design standards and guidelines of
partnering agencies.
The NVCAP prioritizes well-designed gateway
intersections, but acknowledges specific design
details will be subject to future City-led efforts,
ensuring flexibility and integration with evolving
needs. Broader and more comprehensive
analyses and engineering of gateway
intersections is required to finalize design
recommendations. This includes, but may not be
limited to, an Intersection Safety and Operational
Assessment Process (ISOAP) to identify the
optimal design strategies for intersection types,
geometry, and traffic control at gateway
intersections.
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Draft Document: January 2023
7
Daylighting to improve sightlines by removing parking adjacent to the intersection
ADA-accessible, bi-directional curb ramps
Curb extensions or bulb-outs
Bicycle detection and markings to indicate the position and path for bicyclists to cross the intersection
Traffic signals
Accessible pedestrian signals at intersections with clear markings, audio, and Braille messaging
Leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections for pedestrians to establish their presence in the crosswalks before vehicles proceed Site-specific recommendations are provided for each intersection.
1. El Camino Real/Page Mill Road
The intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road will be redesigned with specific transit, pedestrian and bicycle elements. The eastbound right turn slip lane from Page Mill Road to El Camino Real will be demolished, tightening the turning radius, and thereby reducing vehicular turn speeds and pedestrian crossing distances. Separated bicycle lanes will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on El Camino Real, and they will also receive dedicated signal phasing to reduce conflicts with right-turning vehicles when crossing Page Mill Road. Red pavement markings will also indicate that buses can use the right-turn lanes to proceed forward across the intersection to far side bus stops with new transit boarding islands.
Gateway Intersection 1:
El Camino Real and Page Mill Road
The intersection of El Camino Real and Page
Mill Road will be redesigned with specific transit,
pedestrian and bicycle elements.
At built-out, the eastbound right turn slip lane
from Page Mill Road to El Camino Real would
be removed, tightening the turning radius, and
thereby reducing vehicular turn speeds and
pedestrian crossing distances. In the near-term,
the County has a plan to enhace this intersection
without removal of the right-turn pork chop at
the Palo Alto square corner.
Separated bicycle lanes will provide dedicated
space for bicyclists on El Camino Real, and they
will also receive dedicated signal phasing to
reduce conflicts with right-turning vehicles when
crossing Page Mill Road. Red pavement markings
will also indicate that buses can use the right-turn
lanes to proceed forward across the intersection
to far side bus stops with new transit boarding
islands.
Figure 55 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road Conceptual Intersection Design
ADA Ramp
Bus Lane
Sidewalk
Bicycle Lane
Legend
El Ca
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
72 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 73
Gateway Intersection 2:
El Camino Real and Olive Avenue
The intersection of El Camino Real and Olive
Avenue would be redesigned with high visibility
marked crosswalks and bicycle elements would
be painted across all approaches. While a traffic
signal is not proposed for this intersection, other
strategies should be explored to ensure improved
pedestrian and bicycle access and safety across
El Camino Real.
Figure 56 El Camino Real and Olive Avenue Conceptual Intersection Design
ADA Ramp
Sidewalk
Bicycle Lane
Legend
Gateway Intersection 3:
El Camino Real and Portage Avenue / Hansen Way
Figure 57 El Camino Real, Hansen Way, Portage Avenue Conceptual Intersection Design
ADA Ramp
Sidewalk
Bicycle Lane
Legend
Both slip lanes entering and exiting Hansen
Way from El Camino Real would be closed and
redesigned to include a dedicated bicycle cut-out
to cross El Camino Real. Separated bicycle lanes
will provide dedicated space to cyclists along El
Camino Real.
The existing northbound bus stop would be
relocated to the far side of Portage Avenue with
dedicated boarding islands separating transit
users from cyclists. All existing crosswalks would
be repainted to be high visibility, and the existing
crosswalk at Portage Avenue will be straightened
across El Camino Real.
Portage Avenue is currently proposed to be
bicycle boulevard and woonerf. Alternatively, a
two-way bikeway on Portage Avenue from Park
Boulevard to El Camino Real may be included in
the final design of this intersection.
74 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 75
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Gateway Intersection 4:
Lambert Avenue and Ash Street
A raised crosswalk with advance yield lines would
be located on the east side of the intersection.
This will provide a direct connection for the
proposed path along Matadero Creek between
John Boulware Park and the proposed park
on the NVCAP site. The segment of Ash Street
adjacent to Boulware Park is being removed and
will become a part of the park.
Figure 58 Lambert Avenue and Ash Street Conceptual Intersection Design
ADA Ramp
Sidewalk
Matadero Creek
Legend
Gateway Intersection 5:
Park Boul vard and Portage Avenue
This intersection is the primary access point
into the woonerf along Portage Avenue. The
intersection would be stop-controlled and have
high visibility crosswalks on all approaches.
“North Ventura” gateway signage should be
installed at the entrance to the woonerf.
Figure 59 Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue Conceptual Intersection Design
ADA Ramp
Sidewalk
Bicycle Lane
Legend
76 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 77
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Other Intersection Improvements
Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard
Page Mill Road/Park Boulevard was recently
redesigned as part of the construction of
adjacent development. While vehicle volumes
are currently quite low there today, they are
projected to increase over time.
To support the transition to a more pedestrian
and bicycle-friendly neighborhood, additional
safety treatments such as leading pedestrian
intervals, advance stop bars, and a “bike box” for
northbound Park Boulevard may be considered.
Page Mill Road and Ash Street
A hybrid beacon or full traffic signal and a
marked crosswalk should be installed at this
location to support pedestrians and bicyclists
crossing Page Mill Road. Coordination with Santa
Clara County would be needed to determine if a
signal or crossing is feasible.
This page is intentionally left blank
78 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 79
Street Sections
Park Boulevard
Park Boulevard is a priority north-south bicycle
and pedestrian street that connects the NVCAP
Plan Area to the California Avenue Caltrain
Station and terminates at the California Avenue
Business District. The street emphasizes multi-
modal transportation with wide pedestrian
sidewalks, bi-directional buffered bike lanes, and
a two-way flow of vehicles is maintained. Park
Boulevard is designated as a citywide pollinator
pathway, the design of the street prioritizes
a connected canopy of trees and a lush,
landscaped streetscape to support the health
and comfort of both people and wildlife.
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Building Entries New development shall provide
a primary entry or entries on Park Boulevard.
Frontage / Setback Western Edge: 20 Feet from
Property Line
Eastern Edge: 5 Feet from
Property Line
Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture Zone 4-4.5 Feet
Bicycle Facility Separated Buffered Bike Lanes
5 Feet Bike Lane
2-3 Feet Buffer
Parking / Loading No On-Street Parking
Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet
One Lane in Each Direction
4.4.1 Street Design
Guidelines:
4.4.2 Widen the Pedestrian Throughway
Streetscape elements should include:
•Street trees that can create a connective
canopy at full maturity
•Lighting and wayfinding that provides a
neighborhood branding/identity opportunity
•Seating/rest areas for residents and
commuters
•Green Stormwater Infrastructure in the
setbacks, landscape/furniture zone, and if
space allows, the separated buffered bike
lane.
Standards:
Figure 60 Typical Park Boulevard Section
Table 7 Park Boulevard Street Design
western edge eastern edge
4.4
The following street sections, which include street design standards and guidelines, are intended to
illustrate the long term vision of the NVCAP mobility network. The design of the new streets will be built
out over time.
80 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 81
Olive Avenue
Olive Avenue is a priority east-west pedestrian
and bicycle street that creates a direct link
between the commercial activity on El Camino
Real with the multi-modal mobility on Park
Boulevard. Olive Avenue has two distinct street
designs:
Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street, the
street is configured to accommodate comfortable
sidewalks and two-way vehicle travel lanes. Due
to the low traffic volumes and speeds on Olive
Avenue, the street is designated as a bicycle
boulevard which allows cyclists to ride with traffic.
The setback on the northern edge of the street is
20 feet to protect the existing green stormwater
infrastructure along the 395 Page Mill Road
property.
1
2
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Building Entries New development shall provide a
primary entry or entries on Olive
Avenue except for properties that
are abutting Park Boulevard or Ash Street.
Frontage / Setback Northern Edge: 20 Feet (Existing
Bioswale)
Southern Edge: 10 Feet from
Property Line
Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture Zone Northern Edge: 3 Feet
Southern Edge: 4 Feet
Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard
10 Feet
Parking / Loading 2 Lanes of On-Street Parking
Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet
1 Lane in Each Direction
Building Entries New development shall provide a
primary entry or entries on Olive
Avenue except for properties that
are abutting El Camino Real or Ash Street.
Frontage / Setback 10 Feet from Property Line
Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Northern Edge: 3 Feet
Southern Edge: 4 Feet
Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard
10 Feet
Parking / Loading 2 Lanes of On-Street Parking
Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet
1 Lane in Each Direction
4.4.3 Street Design
Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street Between Ash Street and El Camino Real12
Standards:
Figure 61 Typical Olive Avenue section between Park Boulevard and Ash Street
Figure 62 Typical Olive Avenue section between Ash Street and El Camino Real
1
2
Table 8 Olive Avenue Street Design
northern edge southern edge
Between Ash Street and El Camino Real, the
street remains a two-way street. Due to the low
traffic volumes and speeds on Olive Avenue, the
street is designated as a bicycle boulevard which
allows cyclists to ride with traffic. The on-street
parking on both sides of the street is maintained.
northern edge southern edge
82 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 83
Ash Street
Ash Street is a quiet, predominately residential
street, which provides a critical north-south
connection throughout the Plan Area. A desired
pedestrian connection across Olive Avenue to
Acacia Avenue will provide seamless access
from Page Mill Road to public park, Matadero
Creek, and existing community amenities such as
Bouleware Park. Ash Street has two distinct street
designs:
Between Page Mill Road and Olive Avenue,
the street is converted from a two-way street
to a one-way southbound street. This change
prevents northbound traffic on El Camino Real
from using the neighborhood as a cut-through to
travel eastbound on Page Mill Road. The western
edge of the street features a wide shared-use
path for pedestrians and northbound cyclists.
Setback
5’8’
Clear Walkway
4’
Tree BedSetbackSetbackSetback
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
5’5’10’5’12’
Shared Path Shared LaneTree Bed
8’
Clear Walkway
Ash Street (Between Page Mill and Olive, Looking towards North)
10’5’10’
Clear Walkway Shared Lane Shared Lane
Ash Street (Between Olive and Lambert, Looking towards North)
5’
40’40’
Tree Bed
8’
1
2
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Building Entries New development shall provide
a primary entry or entries on Ash
Street except for properties that are abutting Page Mill or Olive
Avenue.
Frontage / Setback Western Edge: Maximum 5 Feet from Property Line
Eastern Edge: Maximum 5 Feet from Property Line
Pedestrian Clear Zone Eastern Edge:
Shared Use Path: 12 Feet
Western Edge: 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Western Edge: 5 Feet
Eastern Edge: 5 Feet
Bicycle Facility Southbound:
Bicycle Boulevard
10 Feet
Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet
1 Southbound Lane
Building Entries New development shall provide
a primary entry or entries on Ash
Street except for properties that are abutting Portage Avenue,
Lambert Avenue or Acacia Avenue.
Frontage / Setback Maximum 5 Feet from Property
Line
Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Western Edge: n/a
Eastern Edge: 4 Feet
Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard: 10 Feet
Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet
1 Lane in Each Direction
4.4.4 Street Design
Between Page Mill Road and Olive Avenue Between Acacia Avenue and Lambert Avenue12
Standards:
Figure 63 Typical Ash Street section between Page Mill Road and Olive Avenue
Figure 64 Typical Ash Street section between Acacia Avenue and Lambert Avenue
1
2
Table 9 Ash Street Street Design
western edge eastern edge
western edge eastern edge
Between Olive Avenue and Lambert Avenue, the
street segment is designed with bi-directional
sidewalks and vehicle lanes. The vehicle travel
lanes are also designated as bicycle boulevards,
where cyclists share the road with vehicles.
84 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 85
Acacia Avenue
Acacia Avenue is an east-west street, primarily
serving as service street for the Plan Area. The
street extends from El Camino Real to Ash Street,
at which point it becomes a private driveway for
the 340 Portage site. The street design for the
segment between Ash Street and El Camino Real
consists of bi-directional pedestrian sidewalks
along with two-way vehicle lanes. On-street
parking is maintained on the southern edge of
the street.
10’8’10’
Clear Walkway Drive Lane Drive Lane
8’
Clear Walkway
8’
On-Street Parking
48’
Setback SetbackTree Bed
4’
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
5’5’
Acacia Street (Looking towards East)
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Building Entries New development shall provide
a primary entry or entries on Acacia Avenue except for
properties that are abutting El
Camino Real or Park Boulevard.
Frontage / Setback Maximum 5 Feet from Property
Line
Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Northern Edge: 4 Feet
Southern Edge: n/a
Bicycle Facility n/a
Parking / Loading Southern Edge: 1 Lane of On-
Street Parking
Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet
1 Lane in Each Direction
4.4.5 Street Design
Standards:
Between Ash Street and El Camino Real
Figure 65 Typical Acacia Avenue Section
Table 10 Acacia Avenue Street Design
northern edge southern edge
86 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 87
Pepper Avenue
Pepper Avenue is a slow residential street,
extending from El Camino Real to Ash Street.
The street design supports existing residents with
wide, tree-lined sidewalks and two-way traffic
lanes. On-street parking is maintained on either
side.
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Building Entries New development shall provide
a primary entry or entries on Pepper Avenue except for
properties that are abutting Ash Street.
Frontage / Setback Maximum 10 Feet from Property
Line
Pedestrian Clear Zone 5 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Northern Edge: 4.5 Feet
Southern Edge: 4.5 Feet
Bicycle Facility n/a
Parking / Loading 2 Lanes of On-Street Parking
Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet
1 Lane in Each Direction
4.4.6 Street Design
Standards:
Between Ash Street and El Camino Real
Figure 66 Typical Pepper Avenue Section
Table 11 Pepper Avenue Street Design
northern edge southern edge
88 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 89
Portage Avenue
Portage Avenue is a priority east-west bicycle
and pedestrian street which becomes a critical
citywide link from Park Boulevard connecting the
California Avenue Caltrain and Business District to
the existing bicycle infrastructure on Hansen Way
to the Stanford Research Park. Portage Avenue
has two distinct street designs:
Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street is the
Portage Avenue woonerf, ‘the front door’ for
the public park and the Cannery building. The
woonerf, which will be a publicly accessible
private street is an integrated, curbless street,
shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-
speed vehicles. The street incorporates outdoor
furnishings such as trees, planters, green
stormwater infrastructure and seating to ensure
this space fosters community gatherings, events,
retail, and other flexible uses. The city may
consider a shared-use path on Portage Avenue.
Between Ash Street and El Camino Real,
Portage Avenue takes on a more typical street
configuration. The street design includes two
1
2
Setback Setback
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
10’8’10’
Clear Walkway Shared Lane Shared Lane
8’
Clear Walkway
15’
Tree Bed
Portage Avenue(Between Ash and ECR, Looking towards East)
8’
On-Street Parking
59’
5’5’
10’8’10’
Clear
Walkway Shared Lane Shared Lane
8’
Clear
Walkway
15’
Tree Bed /
Outdoor rooms
Portage Avenue (Between Ash and ECR, Looking towards East)
8’
Street Life /
Flower beds
59’
Setback
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
5’
sidewalks with a wide furnishing zone on the
northern edge of the street. Two-way traffic
lanes are retained with on-street parking on the
southern edge of the street. Due to the low traffic
volumes and speeds, this segment of Portage is
designated as a bicycle boulevard, where cyclists
share the road with vehicles.
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Building Entries New development shall provide
a primary entry or entries on Portage Avenue except for
properties that are abutting Park Boulevard.
Frontage / Setback Northern Edge: Maximum 5 Feet
from Property Line
Southern Edge: n/a
Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Northern Edge: 15 Feet
Southern Edge: 8 Feet
Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard
10 Feet
Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet
Building Entries New development shall provide a
primary entry or entries on Olive Avenue except for properties that
are abutting El Camino Real.
Frontage / Setback Maximum 5 Feet from Property Line
Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Northern Edge: 15 Feet
Southern Edge: n/a
Bicycle Facility Bicycle Boulevard
10 Feet
Parking / Loading Southern Edge: 1 Lane of On-
Street Parking
Vehicle Travel Lanes 10 Feet
1 Lane in Each Direction
4.4.7 Street Design
Standards:
Between Park Boulevard and Ash Street Between Ash Street and El Camino Real12
Figure 67 Typical Portage Avenue section between Park Boulevard and Ash Street
Figure 68 Typical Portage Avenue section between Ash Street and El Camino Real
1
2
Table 12 Portage Avenue Street Design
northern edge southern edge
northern edge southern edge
90 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 91
Guidelines:
4.4.8 Streetscape Elements
Streetscape elements of the Portage Avenue
woonerf include:
•A row of street trees on either side of the main
travel way to designate pedestrian priority areas
adjacent to building frontages
•Signage emphasizing the presence of
pedestrians and bicyclists
•Textured or permeable pavement designed to
slow vehicle speeds and provide stormwater
management benefits
•Pedestrian-scale lighting
•Seating areas
•Landscaping and green stormwater
infrastructure
•Design elements that highlight the community’s
vision or character
•Public art that will enhance the pedestrian
experience and reflect the community’s unique
character.
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Figure 69 Streetscape elements like double row of trees, textured pavement, pedestrian scale lighting , and
seating encourages a low-carbon, welcoming neighborhood environment. 92 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 93
Lambert Avenue
Lambert Avenue is the southern edge of the
plan area. Lambert Avenue is improved on the
northern half of the existing street to enhance
the pedestrian experience along the edge of
the NVCAP site boundary. The existing vehicular
travel lane is narrowed, and on-street parking is
eliminated to make space for a wider pedestrian
thoroughfare and generous furnishing zone for
enhanced bio-retention area and dense canopy
trees.
El Camino Real
El Camino Real is a regional arterial street as
well as the western edge of the plan area. El
Camino Real is improved on the eastern half
of the existing street. New development is
required to setback by 5 feet in order to provide
a wider pedestrian sidewalk and furnishing
zone to support a more comfortable pedestrian
experience.
The configuration of the roadway will be
determined in coordination with Caltrans
independently of the NVCAP.
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Building Entries New development shall provide
a primary entry or entries on
Lambert Avenue except for
properties that are abutting Park
Boulevard or El Camino Real.
Frontage / Setback Northern Edge:
Maximum 5 Feet
Pedestrian Clear Zone 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Northern Edge:
9.5 Feet
Vehicle Travel Lanes Westbound Lane
10 Feet
4.4.9 Street Design
Standards:
Between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real1
Building Entries New development shall provide
a primary entry or entries on El
Camino Real.
Frontage / Setback 0 - 10 feet to create an 8 - 12-foot
effective sidewalk width
Pedestrian Clear Zone Eastern Edge: 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Eastern Edge: 4 Feet
4.4.10 Street Design
Standards:
Between Page Mill Road and Lambert Avenue1
Figure 70 Typical Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Section Figure 71 Typical El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Section
Table 13 Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Design Table 14 El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Design
94 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 95
East
West
No
r
t
h
So
u
t
h
Park Boul
e
v
a
r
d
Ash Stree
t
Ash Street Oliv
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Aca
c
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Por
t
a
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Pep
p
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
El Camin
o
R
e
a
l
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Page Mill Road
Page Mill Road is one of arterial streets in the City
as well as the northern edge of the plan area.
Page Mill Road is improved on the southern half
of the existing street to enhance the pedestrian
experience along the edge of the NVCAP Plan
Area boundary. New development will provide
a wider pedestrian sidewalk and furnishing
zone to support a more comfortable pedestrian
experience. In order to provide a consistent width,
the setback for new development will vary based
on existing site conditions.
The configuration of the roadway will be
determined in coordination with Santa Clara
County.
Building Entries New development shall provide a
primary entry or entries on Page
Mill road except for properties
that are abutting Park Boulevard
or El Camino Real.
Frontage / Setback 0 - 10 feet to create an 8 - 12-foot
effective sidewalk width
Pedestrian Clear Zone Southern Edge: 8 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Southern Edge: 4 Feet
4.4.11 Street Design
Standards:
Between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real1
Figure 72 Typical Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Section
Table 15 Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Design
ST
R
E
E
T
S
This page is intentionally left blank
96 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 97
Publicly Accessible Private Connections
New publicly accessible connections on private
property are intended to support greater porosity
and walkability throughout the Plan Area. These
connections can break up large ‘super-blocks’
and provide alternative routes for residents to
move through the Plan Area. These connections
include mid-block paseos in between the
Cannery building, pedestrian pathways within
the rear setback of new development along El
Camino Real, and pedestrian pathways through
the 395 Page Mill property.
Building Entries New development shall provide
a secondary entry or entries on
mid-block paseos.
Pedestrian Clear Zone Shared Use Path: 20 Feet
Landscape / Furniture Zone 3 Feet
Vehicle Travel Lanes 26 Feet
Emergency Vehicle Access
Building Entries New development shall provide
a secondary entry or entries on
real setback pathways.
Frontage / Setback Rear Setback:
Minimum 22 Feet
Pedestrian Clear Zone Shared Use Path: 20 Feet
Landscape / Furniture
Zone
Rear Green Buffer : 10 Feet
4.10.1 Street Design
Guidelines:
Mid-Block Paseo Rear Setback Pathway12
ST
R
E
E
T
S
Exis
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Rig
h
t
o
f
W
a
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
Setback
10’7.5’10’
Clear Walkway Drive LaneTree Bed
Lambert St. (Looking towards East)
27.5
3’20’
Shared Path Planter Bed
26’
3’
Planter Bed
Publically Accessible Private Streets
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
10’16’
Shared Path Green Setback
5’
22’
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Rig
h
t
o
f
W
a
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
Setback
10’7.5’10’
Clear
Walkway Drive LaneTree Bed
Lambert St. (Looking towards East)
27.5
3’20’
Shared Path
Planter
Bed
26’
3’
Planter
Bed
Publically Accessible Private Streets
Exi
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
10’16’
Shared Path Green Setback
5’
22’
Figure 73 Typical mid-block connection
section
Figure 74 Typical rear setback connection section
Table 16 Mid-Block Paseo Design Table 17 Rear Setback Pathway Design
98 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 99
The North Ventura neighborhood offers
diverse transit options, including two bus stops
located at El Camino Real/Portage Avenue and
Page Mill Road/El Camino Real. Additionally,
residents within a 15-minute walking distance
can access services from four transit operators,
including VTA, AC Transit, Caltrain, and Stanford
Marguerite.
Future plans prioritize designing user-friendly,
accessible, and safe routes to enhance transit
accessibility within the neighborhood.
MO
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Transit Access Project Goal
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.
4.5
Guidelines:
4.5.2 Wayfinding Signage
Wayfinding signage throughout the North
Ventura neighborhood should clearly and
concisely display major designation and
their distances, available transit services
and other available transportation options.
The signage should be designed to be clear,
easy to understand, and visually appealing,
as well as reflective of a unique North
Ventural neighborhood aesthetic, potentially
incorporation landmark desgination.
4.5.2 Mobility Hub
The North Ventura mobility hub should be
located along Portage Avenue between El
Camino Real and the intersection of Portage
Avenue and Ash Street. The mobility hub will
serve as a central location within the plan
area, providing access to various sustainable
transportation options and promoting mode
shift away from single-occupancy vehicles.
The mobility hub should be designed in
coordination with transit operators like AC
Transit and VTA to integrate their services and
ensure a seamless user experience. It will be
designed in accordance with the MTC’s Mobility
Hub Implementation Playbook and the City’s
design guidelines, which includes:
•Sustainable access and mobility to encourage
mode shift. Proposed amenities include:
•Transit shelters and waiting areas
•Bicycle parking facilities
•Shared mobility (bike share, scooter share, etc.)
access points
•Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure
•Designated parking for car share services
Additional improvements relating to information
access can also improve the customer experience.
The proposed amenities should be considered to
improve information access:
•Real-time travel information signage and
interactive displays
•Area maps and bulletins promoting local
amenities and events
•Monitoring systems to measure ridership,
mobility, security, and public life metrics
•Digital and physical wayfinding tools
Standards:
4.5.1 Bus Stop Amenities
Bus stops shall be designed in accordance with
agency-wide standards established by VTA and
AC Transit, incorporating the latest industry best
practices. Coordination with the appropriate
agency is required.
In accordance with AC Transit’s Multimodal
Corridor Guidelines and VTA’s Better Bus Stop
Program, the contextually appropriate bus stop
enhancements and amenities include:
•Bus shelters protecting riders from the
elements
•Energy-efficient lighting to ensure visibility and
enhance safety
•Comfortable seating
•Digital signage with real-time information
informing riders of available service
•Posted information with route information
and service schedules, available in English,
Spanish, and other locally prevalent
languages as well as braille placards
•Audio capabilities to communicate real-time
information to hearing-impaired riders
100 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 101
TDM strategies can be effective at encouraging
fewer trips made by single-occupancy vehicles
(SOV). An effective TDM plan ensures that
alternative modes of transportation, such as
walking, bicycling, public transit, or other forms
of shared mobility, are made available to site
occupants and nearby community members.
While reducing SOV trips is a key goal, TDM
enhancements offer additional benefits like
environmental improvements, safer streets, and
a more enjoyable public realm. Beyond local
planning alignment, regulations like BAAQMD
Rule 1 and SB 743 mandate TDM plans for specific
developments. NVCAP’s TDM plan should comply
with the City’s VMT regulations and program
recommendations, and utilize standard metrics
like those from the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) for evaluation and
VMT calculations.
Standards:
4.7.1 VMT Reduction
All employers and major residential
developments within the plan area shall achieve
a 30 percent minimum reduction below ITE
rates in peak hour motor vehicle trips, using the
Example TDM Strategies Menu in Table 21.
4.72 Palo Alto Transportation Management Association
All employers and major residential
developments within the plan area shall be
members of the Palo Alto Transportation
Management Association (PATMA).
MO
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Transportation Demand
Management
4.7
Vehicular Circulation and Parking
The North Ventura Mobility Framework aims to
create a vibrant and sustainable neighborhood
by prioritizing local traffic circulation,
discouraging cut-through traffic, and providing
diverse and efficient parking solutions. This
framework balances the needs of residents,
businesses, and visitors through a combination of
street design strategies, parking regulations, and
innovative solutions like woonerfs and private
access aisles.
Standards:
4.6.1 One-Way Street
Ash Street from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue
shall be one-way southbound to help prevent
northbound traffic on El Camino Real from using
the neighborhood as a cut-through to travel
eastbound on Page Mill Road.
4.6.2 Minimum Parking
No minimum parking requirements shall be
established for the plan area in accordance with
California Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097).
4.6.3 Surface Parking
No more than 10 percent of new surface parking
shall be allowed within the plan area. Where
new buildings are not proposed, existing surface
parking spaces can remain to support remaining
commercial offices.
4.6.4 Street Parking
No new street parking shall be constructed along
new developments. In addition, street parking
shall be restricted near intersections to ensure
safe turning movements for large vehicles and
emergency vehicles. Street parking shall be
maintained in front of single-family homes on
Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue.
Guidelines:
4.6.5 Traffic Calming
As a traffic calming measures, the following
strategies are recomended:
•Olive and Lambert Avenues: speed humps
and raised crosswalks to maintain low vehicle
speeds
•Pepper Avenue: A chicane, which is an offset
curve to the road
•Portage Avenue woonerf: Vehicle entrances
should be only wide enough to accommodate
one vehicle at a time. Trees or landscaping
is recommended to create this bottleneck to
restrict the flow of vehicles.
4.6.6 Vehicles on Woonerf
Vehicular traffic on the woonerf on Portage
Avenue should be permitted but discouraged.
Acacia Avenue from Ash Street to Park
Boulevard will be a private aisle for accessing
residential frontage on Acacia Avenue for
parking and unloading.
4.6.7 Short-Term Parking
Short-term parking to support new
ground-floor retail and active uses in new
developments should be located on the ground
or basement levels of these developments.
4.6.8 Parking Management Strategies
In addition, the following parking management strategies could be implemented to mitigate parking impacts:
•Parking time limits
•Unbundled Parking
•Shared parking locations
•Carshare memberships and designated
parking spots
4.6.9 Driveways
Driveways should be located along side-streets
and/or consolidated wherever possible and as
redevelopment occurs to minimize conflicts with
bicyclists and pedestrians
4.6
102 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 103
MO
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Strategy Description Responsible Entity
Active Transportation
Shared bike or scooter service Conventional or electric,
docked or dockless bikes and
scooters can increase first-/
last-mile connections and offer
alternative transportation
Third party operators
City staff to determine
regulations, applicable geo-
fencing
Bicycle support facilities Supportive facilities such
as short-/long-term bicycle
parking, showers, and
lockers that increase active
transportation trips
Developer
Major employers or residential
tenants
Shared Mobility
Car share For people who do not own
cars, car share can offer vehicle
access without significantly
increasing GHG emissions and
necessary parking.
Vehicles can be provided to
tenants of certain buildings, or
through designated parking
spaces such as dedicated
on- street spots noted with
signage.
Third party operators
City staff to determine
regulations
Shuttle service and new
stops
With increased residential
and employment density,
additional shuttle stops may
be necessary. Major employers
or residential developments
in the area may also operate
shuttle service that would serve
the neighborhood.
The upcoming City on-
demand shuttle service may
also necessitate additional
designated stops.
Stanford shuttle operator
City shuttle operator
Major employers or residential
tenants offering shuttles
Parking
Electric vehicle charging
facilities
Encourage electric vehicle
usage to decrease GHG
emissions by providing
necessary charging facilities
Developer
Table 18 Example TDM Strategies Menu
Strategy Description Responsible Entity
Transportation Program Coordination
Membership in the Palo Alto
Transportation Management
Association (PATMA)
Joining the PATMA can provide
developers, major employers,
or residential tenants with
access to transportation
resources available for
community members. The
PATMA also works closely with
the City to offer events and
other relevant programming.
Developer and/or tenants
(employers, residential)
Carpool resources Resources for organizing
neighborhood carpools to
nearby major activity centers
Developer and/or tenants
(employers, residential)*
Active transportation
incentives
Resources such as bike/
scooter share coupons, or
bicycle purchase subsidies
can encourage active
transportation
Developer and/or tenants
(employers, residential)*
Shared mobility incentives Resources such as rideshare
discounts, carshare discounts,
free or subsidized transit passes
can decrease trips made by a
single occupancy vehicle
Developer and/or tenants
(employers, residential)*
Promotional materials on
transportation offerings
(flyers, emails, websites, etc.)
Resources advertising
alternative modes of
transportation can raise
awareness to people who
primarily rely on their car
Developer and/or tenants
(employers, residential)*
Bulletin boards or kiosks
displaying transportation
alternatives
Participation in City-
wide events encouraging
alternative modes of
transportation
Encouraging major employers,
residential developments,
and community members to
participate in City-wide events,
such as the annual Bike to
Wherever Day, can expose
people to alternative modes of
transportation
Developer and/or tenants
(employers, residential)*
*If responsible entities decides
to join, PATMA can be a facility/
resource provider.
104 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 105
5.1 Public Park
5.2 Matadero Creek
Parks and Open Space
5
NVCAP’s ecological framwork takes direct input from
the community and working group who advocated for
the need for more reacreational space for residents in
the community and places to be outdoors and gather.
In addition, the ecological framework takes inspiration
from the City’s Sustanability and Climate Action Plan,
identifying opportunities for renewal, restoration, carbon
sequestration, and growth of the natural environment.
The future streets, parks, natural areas,
and buildings will restore and enhance habitat and pollinator pathways,
and provide flood protection and
stormwater management, cleaner
air and cleaner water, and healthier habitats for current and future
generations.
In addition, the future parks and
natural areas will provide much
needed recreational and outdoor
space where the community can
gather.
The Ecological Framework includes
the following:
•Public Park
•Matadero Creek
5.1
Public Park
Located in the southeast corner of the plan
area, approximately two acres of public open
space is proposed. The proposed naturalization
of Matadero Creek between Park Boulevard
and Lambert Avenue will serve as the
organizing framework for the park’s design and
neighborhood destination, inviting Palo Alto
residents, employees, and visitors to enjoy access
to recreational activities, habitat, and inclusive
community programming. Bounded by the
proposed Portage Avenue woonerf and Park
Boulevard, the proposed public park is seamlessly
integrated into the adopted citywide Pedestrian
and Bicycle Plan. The design of the proposed
Portage Avenue woonerf supports a natural
extension of the park, directly connecting to the
Cannery Building.
Standards:
5.1.1 Park Acreage and Dimensions
An approximately two-acre public park is
proposed in the plan. The details of the public
park and open space will be fully developed
in the future when it becomes a project, with a
public process. The concept of the public park is
included in the plan and is generally described in
Figure 71.
5.1.2 Circulation
All multi-use paths should form a continuous
path connecting all points of entry as illustrated
in Figure 71.
Programmed spaces should connect to the plan
area mobility network via multi-use paths.
The multi-use paths network would create a safe
connection across Lambert Street to Boulware
Park.
The minimum width of the multi-use path will be
12 feet.
5.1.3 Park Gateways
The park could accommodate five points of entry
to connect with the pedestrian and bike mobility
network around the park. The character of these
gateways to the park is further outlined in Figure
71.
5.1.4 Utilities
Electrical service, potable water, and sewer
supply should be provided to accommodate
varied events such as movie nights, festivals to
serve small park structures; and along the park
trails and the Picnic Area.
5.1.5 Design Approval
Once the park becomes a project, the design
of the park would be subject to the typical City
review process including review by the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
Figure 75 Conceptual Plan of Location of Park Gateways and Circulation Paths
Park Gateways
Access to park
SAFE CONNECTION TO BOULWARE PARK
COMMUNITY GARDENS
MULTI-USE
OPEN SPACE
ACTIVE ZONES
OBSERVATION DECK
Viewing shed
Legend
Project Goals
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment,
while addressing the principles of
sustainability.
Balance of Community Interests
Balance community-wide objectives with
the interests of neighborhood residents
and minimize displacement of existing
residents.
PA
R
K
S
106 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 107
Guidelines:
5.1.6 Programming
Active Park programming may include but is
not limited to a dog park, outdoor fitness area,
natural habitat area, community garden, or
amphitheater.
In addition to active programming, park design
should accommodate passive uses such as
reading and picnicking.
When siting park elements, consider types of
activity, periods of use or vacancy, availability of
sun or shade, and the differing needs of a diverse
range of visitors such as small children, adult
athletes, and dog owners.
The park should include amenities to support the
commercial environment on Portage Avenue such
as flexible seating areas, social gathering spaces,
play spaces, and public art.
Surrounded by development on more than one
side, the program elements should be designed
to be protected from wind and down-drafts
from buildings with strategic tree planting and
thoughtful siting of passive programming.
5.1.7 Native Plantings
Where possible, pollinator friendly native plants
should be incorporated. Refer to Valley Water’s
Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near
Streams Chapter 4 (Design Guides for Guidelines
and Standards) for the placement of native
plants along the creek.
Figure 76 An example of passive park programming
Figure 77 An example of active park programming
PA
R
K
S
108 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 109
5.2
Matadero Creek
The Plan envisions the full naturalization of
Matadero Creek between Park Boulevard and
Lambert Avenue. The flood channel is widened to
a maximum of 100 feet riparian corridor serving
maximum geomorphic form and ecological
function. Leading with resilience in mind, the
design offers the creek the capability to convey
100-year flood events.
The full details of the renaturalization of the creek
will be developed in the future when it becomes
a project. Appropriate City review process,
including a public process and coordination with
applicable agencies will be required.
Standards:
5.2.1 Creek Buffer
The creek section between Park Boulevard
and Lambert Avenue is buffered by a 100-foot
riparian corridor, at maximum. To determine the
defined parameters for the buffer floodwalls,
further City coordination is required.
5.2.2 Coordination
Coordination with Santa Clara Valley Water
District shall be required to ensure the
renaturalization of the creek implement
adequate measures and standards to reduce
impact to the existing channel.
5.2.3 Circulation
The riparian corridor shall maintain public access
on both sides of the creek front and be designed
to embrace the Matadero creek as a central
feature.
Lambert Avenue bridge is recommended to be
replaced with a new bridge spanning 100 feet.
The recommended location shown in Figure
74 will connect Portage Avenue and Lambert
Avenue.
5.2.4 Wind Protection
As the riparian corridor is 10 feet lower than the
surrounding terrain, it should be designed to
be protected from wind and down-drafts from
surrounding areas with strategic tree planting
and thoughtful design of the shared trail routes.
5.2.5 Ecology
Impervious surfaces shall be discouraged in the
100 foot buffer as per Figure 74.
Plant selections shall reinforce the native and
surrounding ecology and promote habitat
development.
PA
R
K
S
Figure 78 Conceptual Plan of the Matadero Creek buffer, circulation, and gateways
100 FEET RIPARIAN
CORRIDOR
10 FEET
GRADE DROP
NATURALIZED CREEK
Riparian Corridor Gateways
NO IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
IN 100 FEET BUFFER
Shared Path
PUBLIC ACCESS
ALONG CREEK
Riparian Corridor Buffer Boundary
Legend
Project Goals
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate development
of new community facilities and
infrastructure with private development,
recognizing both the community’s needs
and that such investments can increase
the cost of housing.
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment,
while addressing the principles of
sustainability.
110 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 111
PA
R
K
S
Figure 79 The Matadero Creek Channel is currently a constrained concrete trapezoidal channel.Figure 80 A naturalized creek has the opportunity to provide multi-use trails and habitat areas.
5.2.6 Gateways
Gateways to the corridor shall be recommended
at the following key intersections. See Figure 74.
Sloped walks, terraces, stairs, or ramps for bicycle
and pedestrian circulation shall be a key feature
at these gateways, integrated with the flood
wall designed to connect across the 10 feet
grade change between the public park and the
Matadero creek riparian corridor. This will ensure
that pedestrians and bicyclists can access both
the park and the riparian trail.
Gateway access to multi-use paths should be
designed to be ADA accessible to traverse the 10
feet grade change from the public park to the
creek.
5.2.7 Floodwalls or Retaining Walls
Concrete floodwalls or retaining walls shall be
designed to allow for vegetation to the extent
feasible.
5.2.8 Utilities
Electrical service and potable water shall be
provided along the trails.
Guidelines:
5.2.9 Public Art
Gateways, bridge, and other park amenities may
integrate public art/structures to indicate major
entry points, when appropriate.
5.2.10 The Matadero Creek Bridge
Observation areas should be integrated with the
design of the new bridge.
Educational placards should inform the public on
the re-naturalization of Matadero Creek.
112 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 113
6.1 Building Heights and Massing
6.2 Retail and Active Frontage
6.3 Portage Avenue Frontage
6.4 Residential Frontage
6.5 Sustainable Design
Site and Building Design
6
NVCAP’s urban form framework champions the design of
buildings that are respectful neighbors, human-scaled,
and embrace the street. New development will respond
to the surrounding context such as building up to El
Camino Real while creating a gentle transition to quieter
residential portions of the neighborhood.
This chapter provides guidance on
the desired future built form and sets
aspirations for how new buildings
will contribute to the character of the NVCAP as it continues to be
developed incrementally over time.
The key factors that contribute to good
building architecture: building mass
and bulk appearance; pedestrian-
friendly design of the ground level, and
visual interest created by architectural articulation, the materiality of the
building, and sustainable design.
The standards and guidelines have
been organized to address these
key elements under the following headings:
•Building Heights and Massing
•Building Frontages
•Sustainable Design
114 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 115
6.1
Building Heights and Massing
Building form and massing have a crucial role
in forming NVCAP’s built environment as a
framework for a comfortable and exciting public
realm. Massing strategies reflected in NVCAP’s
architecture make associated building uses more
legible and well-organized. Massing regulations
such as allowable building heights and stepbacks
will support the gradual transition from taller
buildings along El Camino Real to quieter,
residential parts of the neighborhood.
Standards:
6.1.1 Building Heights
All new development shall conform to Figure 78
for maximum allowable building heights.
6.1.2 Affordable Housing Height Bonus
Through the City’s Housing Incentive Program
or the State Density Bonus, 100% below market
rate projects shall be eligible for additional bonus
height (up to 33 feet).
6.1.3 Stepdown to Single-Family Residential
Based on the development standards of a
adjacent zoning district, new development shall
stepdown to existing single family residential.
Refer to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as setback
and stepback requirements on side or rear lot
lines shall vary based on zoning. Daylight plane
height and slope shall be identical to those of the
most restrictive residential zoning district abutting
the lot line.
6.1.4 Utilities
Overhead public utilities shall be undergrounded
for buildings with roof edge heights over 27 feet
tall.
Guidelines:
6.1.5 Cannery Building Roof Datum
Any adaptive re-use projects directly adjacent
to the Cannery may be allowed to match the
structure’s 36 foot roof datum. The consideration
of this additional 12 inches of height above what
is permitted will be part of the development
project’s discretionary review.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
Figure 82 Allowable Height Map
Figure 81 An example of a daylight plane
requirement for mixed-use development
stepping down to single family residential
neighborhoods.
116 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 117
6.2
Retail and Active Use Frontage
Ground floor retail and other active uses enliven
and activate streetscapes, enhancing the
public interface between new buildings and
the sidewalk. Within the Plan Area, the highest
concentration of retail and active uses are
located along El Camino Real. These ground
floor spaces are designed to accommodate a
wide variety of commercial spaces including local
shops, cafes, maker spaces, co-working spaces,
and professional services.
Active uses are listed on page 40 of Section 2.3
(Ground Floor Edges).
Standards:
6.2.1 El Camino Real Active Frontage
Ground floor active uses shall be required along
all new development fronting El Camino Real.
Refer to Section 2.3 for a map of ground floor
edges.
6.2.2 Ground Floor Retail Height
Ground floor retail floor to ceiling height shall be
a minimum of 14 feet.
6.2.3 Objective Standards
For Corner Conditions, Primary Entries, Façade
Design, and Transparency, new development
shall adhere to Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Chapter 18.24 Contextual Design Criteria and
Objective Design Standards.
Guidelines:
6.2.4 Park Boulevard
Ground floor active uses should be encouraged
for new development fronting Park Boulevard.
6.2.5 Storefront Frontages
Storefronts should create a fine grain of variety
along each street frontage, expressing the unique
identity of each tenant. Where active uses or
retail frontages are required or located, the
following design standards shall apply:
•Exterior windows on the ground floor
shall use transparent glazing to the extent
feasible. Low-e glass or minimal tinting to
achieve sun control is permitted, provided
the glazing appears transparent when
viewed from the ground level.
•Window coverings are not permitted on the
ground floor during typical business hours.
Where operations preclude transparency
(e.g., theaters) or where privacy requires
window coverings, sidewalk-facing frontage
shall include items of visual interest including
displays of merchandise or artwork; visual
access shall be provided to a minimum
interior depth of 3 feet.
6.1.5 Outdoor Rooms
Outdoor rooms notched into the ground floor
should be lined with active retail uses and have
ample space for spillover for outdoor dining,
murals, and retail displays.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
Figure 83 Retail ground floors provides adequate floor to ceiling
heights, transparency, and signage.
Figure 84 Ground floors can create notches of outdoor rooms
to allow for lively spillover of retail.
Figure 85 Active ground floors provide openness, transparency and a connection to the street.
118 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 119
6.3 6.4
Portage Avenue Frontage Residential Frontage
Portage Avenue is a designated focal point for
the plan area due to its adjacency to the historic
Cannery building, new park, and the planned
woonerf.
The Portage Avenue park frontage zone will be
designed as a vibrant, human-scaled pedestrian
environment. Active programming throughout
this area will enliven both the woonerf and
the adjacent public park. Businesses along
this frontage are ideal candidates for outdoor
dining spaces, creating a lively backdrop for park
activities.
Standards:
6.3.1 Ground Floor Entries
Entries shall be flush at sidewalk grade and shall
have a minimum of four (4) active doorways per
200 linear feet.
Guidelines:
6.3.2 Balconies and Terraces
The inclusion of balconies and terraces should
be encouraged along the streetwall above
the ground floor in the park frontage zone to
take advantage of views of the public park
and to allow greater programmatic and visual
connection between uses in the buildings and
the park.
6.3.2 Respect the Cannery
Development along Portage Avenue adjacent to
the Cannery should emulate the Cannery, taking
cues from the materiality and fenestration, and
roof datum.
The residential ground floor level is characterized
by the lower intensity of activity, generally
fronting onto streets that are quieter in character,
and serves to foster neighborhood connection.
Individual residential entries and stoops are an
effective way to activate the street and create
greater opportunities for social interaction. At
the same time, they should provide a sense of
privacy and comfortable social distance from the
sidewalk.
Standards:
The following standards are in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.24.020
(Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design
Standards):
6.4.1 Ground Floor Entries
Entries must be raised above sidewalk grade
based on the setback condition from the
property line.
Ground floor residential units shall have entries
with direct, individual access onto a public right
of way, open space, or easement.
Guidelines:
6.4.2 Stoops
Residential units should provide a stoop to create
a social distance from the street; home office
units are not required to have stoops and may be
entered at grade.
The design of stoops should balance the need to
create privacy for the unit occupant and allow
visual connection with the street.
Areas between stoops should be planted and
can be an opportunity to integrate Green
Stormwater Infrastructure.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
Figure 86 Ground floors treatments can emulate the
materiality, fenestration, and roof datum of historic
structures.
Figure 87 Ground floor residential stoops can provide privacy
for residents and neighborhood beautification and
Green Stormwater Infrastructure.
120 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 121
Sustainable Design
Palo Alto has long been a leader in sustainability,
making impressive progress towards reducing
its carbon impacts, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and resource consumption. In October
2022, Palo Alto City Council passed an ambitious
carbon neutrality by 2030 goal, building on
the City’s existing goal of cutting emissions
80% below 1990 levels by 2030. The following
standards and guidelines are intended to support
the City’s larger climate action goals to ensure a
sustainable and resilient future.
Standards:
6.5.1 California Green Building (CALGREEN)
Standards Code
New development shall adhere to Chapter
16.14 California Green Building Standards Code.
As stated in the code, all newly constructed
residential buildings must meet CALGREEN Tier 2
requirements.
6.5.2 Bird-Safe Glass Design
All new mixed-use development that has facades
exceeding 30 percent glazing shall utilize bird-
safe design strategies. Applicants shall choose
from the following materials list:
A. Fritted Glass - Ceramic dots or ‘frits’ can be
silk-screened, printed, or otherwise applied to
the glass surface. This design element, useful
primarily for new construction, can also improve
solar heat gain control and reduce glare.
B. Etched Glass – Glass etching on the surface of
the glass can be achieved through acidic, caustic,
or abrasive substances. The etched markers
should be on the outside surface.
C. Permanent Stencils or Frosting - Frosted
glass is created by acid etching or sandblasting
transparent glass. Frosted areas are translucent,
but different finishes are available with different
levels of light transmission. An entire surface can
be frosted, or frosted patterns can be applied.
D. Exterior Apparatus - Fixed exterior screens,
grilles, netting, louvers, fins or mullions can
effectively reduce visible reflections, provide
insulation from strike impact, reduce solar
heat gain, reduce glare and provide weather
protection.
E. UV Coated Glass – Some birds can see into
the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum of light, a range
largely invisible to humans. UV-reflective and/
or absorbing patterns (transparent to humans
but visible to birds) are frequently suggested as
a solution for many bird collision problems. This
approach is not appropriate for situations where
the glazing is back lit.
The City is in the process of developing the
Citywide bird-safe design standards. Once
adopted, the Citywide standards shall supersede
the standards outlined in 6.5.2.
Guidelines:
6.5.3 Minimize Heat Gain
Building facades should be designed to balance
solar access with the need to control heat gain.
This could include the following:
•Shade windows with architectural features
that add visual interest by creating textural
variations.
•Architectural elements that should be used on
south-facing facades.
•Fixed shading features, which are designed with
a range of projection and spacing dimensions
that minimize heat gain and composed with
visually pleasing rhythms to avoid monotonous
building facades.
•Perforated horizontal overhang
•Awnings that are well integrated with the overall
building façade, especially for retail on the
ground floor.
•Sliding and folding perforated panels/shutters
that double as privacy screens for outdoor
private spaces such as balconies and terraces
overlooking El Camino Real.
•Trellis, Vegetation on windows and green walls
allow for minimizing heat gain while additionally
bolstering the overall concept of ecological
design.
•Shrubs and tree shade wherever possible should
augment façade design to minimize heat gain.
•Use of low-solar-transmittance glazing to
reduce solar gain.
•Use window treatments to reduce solar gain.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
6.5
Project Goals
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment,
while addressing the principles of
sustainability.
Balance of Community Interests
Balance community-wide objectives with
the interests of neighborhood residents
and minimize displacement of existing
residents.
•Reflective and Light-colored outer surfaces can
minimally address heat gain but should be
employed in combination with the other façade
and roof treatments.
6.5.4 Bird-Safe Building Design
For all new mixed-used development, whenever
feasible, encourage implementing LEED
standards on bird collsion deterrance from
the U.S. Green Building Council to reduce bird
collision and mortality.
122 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 123
6.5.5 Daylighting and Natural Ventilation
Buildings should be designed to maximize the
use of daylighting for all inhabited interior spaces
to provide a high-quality indoor environment,
reduce overall energy consumption and
reduce exposure to artificial lighting which can
negatively impact human health.
Buildings that allow for natural ventilation reduce
energy consumption for heating and cooling and
provide a higher-quality indoor environment.
Projects should optimize building orientation
for thermal comfort, shading, daylighting, and
natural ventilation, including operable windows.
6.5.6 Roofs
Where building roofs are free of solar panels
or other sustainability infrastructure, they
should be designed to include systems such as
vegetated roof covers, plants, green stormwater
infrastructure, and roofing materials with high
albedo surfaces to reduce heat island effect and
slow rainwater runoff.
Building roofs should be designed to create
usable recreational spaces. Rooftop shading
structures mounted with solar panels can
maximize the effective use of roof area.
Pockets of green roof can help furnish these
recreational spaces, and resist heat gain while
also serving the concept of ecological design.
6.5.7 Renewable Energy
Buildings should provide “solar ready”
infrastructure such as solar panel standoffs,
conduit, and roof water spigots that minimize
the cost and effort of adding solar capacity later,
as per the California Green Building Standards
Code.
6.5.8 Visibility
New development should incorporate elements
like green roofs, shading devices or photovoltaic
panels into the fabric of the building to highlight
building’s energy saving features.
New development should include interpretive
signage explaining the sustainable building
features of the building to promote sustainability
and to educate visitors and occupants how their
behavior can make an impact on overall building
performance.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
6.5
Figure 88 Building roofs can be multi-purpose including
providing additional outdoor space for residents.
Figure 89 Visible elements of sustainability can include design
features such as celebrating secure bike parking.
124 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 125
7.1 Development Standards
7.2 Review Process
7.3 Implementation Actions
7.4 Funding and Financing Strategy
Implementation
7
The implementation of the NVCAP will require input by
the public, City departments, regional agencies, and
private property owners. The City will take the lead in
coordinating areawide actions and establishing funding
mechanisms for public investment in programs and
capital projects. However, private investment through
the architecture, landscaping, and maintenance of
individual development projects will be a significant
determinant of the look and feel of the plan area.
This chapter outlines the process for development proposals, lists
anticipated implementation actions, and identifies a range of potential
funding mechanisms to unlock the NVCAP’s vision and goals into reality.
7.1
Development Standards
The NVCAP establishes new allowable land uses and corresponding development
standards to implement the vision of the Plan. In addition to
the development policies and guidelines mentioned in the earlier chapters of the Plan, other
core development standards have been adopted and integrated
into the Zoning Code, PAMC Title 18, as part of the Plan adoption.
For all development criteria and regulations not amended or superseded by this Plan, the
provisions of other chapters in the PAMC shall prevail.
The NVCAP is primarily focused on residential
development. While other types of uses are
allowed, they are intended to be supportive for
the residents and visitors to the neighborhood.
New non-residential uses may be limited in size;
where applicable the total area cannot be more
than 5,000 square feet on a lot.
Within the NVCAP, there are six zoning districts:
1. Single Family Residential District (NV-R1):
The NV-R1 single family residential district
aims to foster detached dwellings with open
spaces for privacy and outdoor activities.
Minimum site area requirements promote
diverse neighborhoods, quality design, and
accommodate accessory dwelling units.
2. Two Family Residential District (NV-R2):
The NV-R2 two-family residence district
permits a second dwelling unit under the
same ownership as the initial dwelling
unit in designated single-family areas,
while maintaining the area’s single family
character.
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
3. Medium Density Multiple-Family
Residential District (NV-R3): The NV-R3
district enhances multi-family housing
neighborhoods, with development standards
to mitigate impacts on adjacent lower
density residential areas. Projects on larger
parcels enable onsite parking and open
space needs, like garden apartments or
cluster developments, with anticipated
density ranging from 16 to 30 dwelling units
per acre and a 1.5:1 Floor Area Ratio.
4. High Density Multiple-Family Residential
District (NV-R4): The NV-R4 district provides
high-density apartment living, primarily
along major transportation corridors near
mass transit and employment centers.
Density ranges anticipated from 61 to 100
dwelling units per acre, with a maximum
Floor Area Ratio of 3.0:1.
5. Mixed-Use Districts (NV-MXL, NV-MXM,
NV-MXH): Mixed-use districts encourage a
blend of residential, retail, entertainment,
office, service, and commercial spaces,
fostering a pedestrian-friendly environment.
The NVCAP includes three mixed-use
districts: NV-MXL for small-scale commercial
and limited residential; NV-MXM for a mix of
residential and limited commercial; and NV-
MXH for ground-floor retail, entertainment,
and commercial with residential above,
emphasizing a pedestrian-oriented
streetscape. Density in these districts varies,
with permitted dwelling units per acre
anticipated from three to 100 and Floor Area
Ratios ranging from 0.5:1 to 3.0:1.
6. Public Facilities District (NV-PF): The NV-PF
district accommodates governmental, public
utility, educational, and community service
or recreational facilities. In North Ventura, a
one-acre portion of the NV-PF district may
allow for a 100% affordable housing project.
For the specific land use and development
standards for NVCAP, refer to PAMC Chapter
18.29, North Ventura (NV) District.
7.2
Review Process
All new external changes or
improvements in NVCAP must
go through a Coordinated
Development Permit process
as per PAMC Section 19.10.050.
No such permit will be issued,
and no building or structure can
be erected, expanded, altered
externally, placed, installed, or
relocated within an approved
coordinated area plan area unless
it is consistent with the Plan.
For any uses needing a conditional use permit
in NVCAP zone districts, they must follow the
standard Conditional Use Permit process outlined
in Title 18 of the Municipal Code.
In compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
prepared for the NVCAP, supplementing the
2030 Comprehensive Plan EIR. When new
projects undergo discretionary review by the
City, the Supplemental EIR may be used for their
environmental analysis. If the project’s scope
extends beyond the NVCAP’s CEQA analysis,
further assessment may be necessary.
Figure 90 NVCAP Zoning Map
128 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 129
7.3
Implementation Actions
Plan policies in the preceding
chapters will be implemented
by developers, property owners,
and the City over the course
of the plan horizon, many
through development projects.
However, certain policies require
implementation that must be
initiated by City staff and/or
coordinated with other public
agencies.
Table 19 summarizes proactive steps needed to
implement the NVCAP, agencies responsible for
implementation, and the expected timeframe
for each action. Related policies and goals from
preceding chapters for each implementation
action are also referenced.
Following Plan Adoption actions are anticipated
to completed directly following the adoption of
the NVCAP.
•Ongoing actions are expected to be
implemented throughout the planning period.
•Short-term actions are actions that are
expected to be completed within 0 to 4 years
from plan adoption.
•Mid-term actions are anticipated to be
implemented within 5 to 9 years from plan
adoption.
•Long-term actions are expected to be
completed between 10 to 20 years from plan
adoption.
Table 19 Implementation Actions in the NVCAP
Implementation
Action Number Action Description City Department or Public
Agency Responsible Timeframe
Land Use and Zoning
IM 1 Field questions, facilitate desired project design, and proactively reach out to property owners and
local brokers to identify opportunities for investment and lot consolidation and to promote the vision
of the Plan.
Planning Ongoing
Open Space
IM 2 Renaturalize Matadero Creek:
Take actions to implement a concept for Matadero creek that will fully naturalize (removal of
concrete channel) between Park Boulevard and Lambert Avenue. The flood channel should be
widened to a 100-foot riparian corridor, at maximum, to achieve maximum geomorphic form and
ecological function.
Planning, Public Works,
Santa Clara Valley
Water District
Long-Term
IM 3 Public Park:
Take actions to acquire, plan and implement the vision for a public park adjacent to Matadero
Creek.
Planning, Public Works Long-Term
Street Improvements
IM 4 Wayfinding Signs:
Explore a program to design and implement a wayfinding sign program as an effective tool
to celebrate history and provide a clear and predictable navigation for residents, visitors and
employees.
Planning, Public Works,
Office of Transportation
Ongoing
IM 5 Woonerf:
Explore and implement a concept for a woonerf that may either be a private or public/private
partnership to implement a concept that integrates vehicular, pedestrian and traffic calming
elements for the segment of Portage Avenue between Ash Street and Park Boulevard.
Planning, Public Works,
Office of Transportation
Ongoing
Historic Preservation
IM 6 Explore within the first year after adoption of the Plan, the initiation of California or National Register
and/or local Inventory as appropriate/as determined by Council for the cannery and the Ash office
building.
Planning Short-Term
Parking Management
IM 7 Evaluate as needed future parking strategies to maintain parking availability such as a parking
benefit district, pricing options, time-of-day restrictions, Residential Parking Permits, and shared
parking.
Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long-
Term
IM 8 If hourly pricing is used, then explore a strategy that creates targets such that 85% of the spaces are
used at any time OR such that 15% of the parking supply is available at any time.
Office of Transportation Mid-Term to Long-
Term
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
130 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 131
Implementation
Action Number Action Description City Department or Public
Agency Responsible Timeframe
IM 9 Explore unbundling commercial parking or requiring private parking to be available to the public.Planning Mid-Term to Long-
Term
IM 10 Explore a parking pricing or a parking benefit district that could help support on-demand transit,
transportation demand management measures, active transportation investments, transit pass
programs, etc.
Office of
Transportation,
Planning
Mid-Term to Long-
Term
Infrastructure Improvements
IM 11 Evaluate water main capacity that may need to be upgraded on a project-by-project basis. It is
likely that the existing six-inch (6”) water mains are not able to provide sufficient flow and pressure
to meet required fire demands for new construction. Depending on the development project, water
mains may need to be replaced and upsized to meet fire flow requirements.
Public Works Ongoing
IM 12 Paving:
Explore including into the Capital Improvement Program designs and implementation at key
intersections and raised crossings.
Public Works Short-term to
long-term
Public Art
IM 13 Evaluate the placement of public art in relation to the Public Art Master Plan for the NVCAP.Community Services Ongoing
IM 14 Explore updating the Public Art Master Plan as necessary to reconcile the vision of the NVCAP.Community Services Mid-Term to Long-
Term
Mobility
IM 15 Publicly accessible shared path on private property: Implement locations indicated within NVCAP by
requiring recorded easements over private property when property redevelops.
Public Works, Planning Ongoing
7.2
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
132 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 133
7.4
Funding and Financing Strategy
The NVCAP specifies new public infrastructure and amenities required
to support the emergence of a walkable, transit-oriented, mixed-
use neighborhood. The funding and financing strategy identifies the
primary categories of capital improvement projects included in the
NVCAP, and describes applicable funding and financing sources and
mechanisms for constructing those projects.
Major Project Categories
The public infrastructure and amenity
improvements identified in the NVCAP fall into
five primary categories consisting of bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure, streetscape, parks and
open space, green stormwater infrastructure, and
the re-naturalization of Matadero Creek.
Funding and Financing Sources and Mechanisms
A variety of potential funding sources and
financing mechanisms exist for implementing
the improvements identified in the NVCAP. This
section describes these sources and mechanisms
and their potential uses within the Plan Area. In
many cases, multiple funding sources will need to
be combined to pay for specific projects.
Although the terms “funding” and “financing”
are often used interchangeably, there is an
important distinction between the two terms.
“Funding” typically refers to a revenue source
such as a tax, fee, or grant that is used to pay
for an improvement. Some funding sources,
such as impact fees, are one-time payments,
while others, such as assessments, are ongoing
payments. “Financing” involves borrowing from
future revenues by issuing bonds or other debt
instruments that are paid back over time through
taxes or fee payments, enabling agencies to pay
for infrastructure before the revenue to cover the
full cost of the infrastructure is available.
Potential funding for improvements includes a
mix of developer contributions (both required
and negotiated, such as via the 340 Portage
development agreement), City resources, outside
grants, and district-based tools.
Funding Source
Category Examples
Developer
Contributions
Development
Standards
CEQA Mitigations
Impact / In-Lieu Fees
Negotiated
Agreements
City Resources General Fund
Capital Improvement
Plan
User Fees
Outside Grants Regional, State, and
Federal Grants
District-Based Tools Special Assessment
District
Community Facilities
District
Enhanced
Infrastructure Finance
District
Table 20 Funding Source Categories and Examples
Developer Contributions
Development Standards:
Each new development project will contribute
to the NVCAP’s implementation by meeting
requirements regulating each project’s land uses,
height, density, setbacks, parking requirements,
street frontage improvements, pedestrian access,
and other requirements specified in the NVCAP.
These standards are adopted in the City’s zoning
ordinance and must be satisfied for a project to
be granted approval.
Reimbursement Agreements:
If a developer is required to provide additional
infrastructure capacity or amenities to serve
the entire district, a reimbursement agreement
can be established to receive payments from
later developers who benefit from these early
improvements. This allows for areawide cost-
sharing.
CEQA Mitigations:
Developers may be required to contribute
to environmental mitigation measures, both
for areawide needs and for their specific
development projects.
Impact / In-Lieu Fees:
Impact fees are one-time fees imposed on new
developments to pay for improvements and
facilities that either serve the new development
or reduce the impacts of the project on the
existing community. Fee revenues cannot be used
to fund existing deficiencies in infrastructure.
The City of Palo Alto already has citywide
impact fees for Housing, Community and Public
Safety Facilities, Traffic, Parks, and Public Art.
All development projects within the Plan Area
must meet citywide impact and in-lieu fee
requirements.
Negotiated Agreements:
Community benefits are developer contributions
that exceed the baseline features required
under development standards, environmental
mitigation measures, and impact fees.
Community benefits agreements are negotiated
with developers individually in exchange for
additional development rights. A relevant
example for this is the development agreement
for the 340 Portage Avenue site. The developer
proposes to provide more than two acres of
land for a new public park surrounding Madero
Creek and one acre for affordable housing, in
addition to monetary contributions to both park
improvements and the city’s affordable housing
fund.
City Resources:
General Fund:
General Fund revenues include property tax,
sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and other
revenues that are primarily used to pay for
ongoing municipal services and operations.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP):
Infrastructure projects identified in the NVCAP
are candidates for inclusion in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan, which identifies a
range of specific funding sources for capital
improvement projects throughout the City of
Palo Alto. For example, sanitary sewer and
water main replacement projects and fiber optic
backbone extensions within the NVCAP area are
included in the Fiscal Year 2023 CIP, which plans
expenditures for 2023-2027.
User Fees:
User fees and rates include the fees charged
for the use of public infrastructure or goods. It
may be possible to use a portion of user fee or
rate revenue toward financing the costs of new
infrastructure, but user fees are unlikely to be a
major source of funding for implementation of
the NVCAP.
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
134 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 135
Outside Grants
Various federal, state, and regional grant
programs distribute funding for public
improvements. Because grant programs are
typically competitive, grant funds are an
unpredictable funding source, and the City of
Palo Alto must remain vigilant in applying for
grants to implement the NVCAP. Unique grant
funding opportunities may become available
due to the area’s designation as a Priority
Development Area by the Association of Bay
Area Governments, and because most of the
Plan Area is within ½ mile of a Caltrain station—
enabling access to funds directed to transit-
oriented locations. However, access to grant
funds may be contingent on adopting land use
policies that comply with MTC’s Transit-Oriented
Communities policy, with particular impacts on
the Mobility Hubs and One Bay Area grants
describe below.
The following table describes outside grant
funding sources that may be applicable to public
capital improvements as of the passage of the
NVCAP; this is not an exhaustive list, however, and
new grant funding programs will open during the
implementation of the NVCAP.
7.3
Table 21 Examples of Potential Regional or County Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements
Program Adminstering
Agency Description
Eligible Capital Projects
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Access
Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open
Space
Storm
Drainage and Flood
Control
Regional or County
Mobility Hubs MTC The Mobility Hubs program funds projects in designated mobility hubs that connect
services and infrastructure that promote the use of mobility options besides private
vehicles. This includes connecting public transit, bike and pedestrian facilities, and
bike or car share facilities.
x x x
Transportation for
Clean Air (TFCA)
Regional Program:
Bicycle Facilities
Grant Program
Bay Area
Air Quality
Management
District
(BAAQMD)
The TFCA program, administered by the BAAQMD, funds projects that reduce
vehicle emissions. Sixty percent of funds collected go to the TFCA Regional Fund
for competitive grants. Eligible projects must demonstrate air quality benefits and
reduction of emissions from motor vehicles. One sub-program within the TFCA
Regional Fund is the Bicycle Facilities Grant Program, which funds the construction of
new bikeways and the installation of new bike parking facilities.
x
Santa Clara
County Measure
B: Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Program
VTA Measure B was passed by Santa Clara County voters in 2016. Measure B authorized
a 30-year, half-cent countywide sales tax to invest in transit, highway, and active
transportation projects. Measure B includes nine different program areas, one of
which is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (BPP). The BPP provides funding for
bicycle and pedestrian capital projects and planning studies. Priority is given to
projects that connect schools, transit and employment centers, and that fill gaps in
existing bike/ped networks.
x
One Bay Area
Grant (round 3)
MTC OBAG 3 is MTC’s comprehensive policy and funding framework for distributing
federal funding. OBAG 3 includes a Regional Program and a County Program. The
county programs includes various competitive sub-programs.
x x x
Transportation
Development Act
(TDA) Article 3
Program
MTC TDA funds are derived from a 1/4 cent of the State’s general sales tax. Article 3 of
the TDA makes a portion of these funds available for use on bicycle and pedestrian
projects. MTC programs TDA funds in the Bay Area.
x
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
136 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 137
Program Adminstering Agency Description
Eligible Capital Projects
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and
Open Space
Storm Drainage
and Flood Control
State
Infill Infrastructure Grant California Department
of Housing and
Community
Development
The Infill Infrastructure Grant program provides fund for infrastructure improvements necessary to enable
residential or mixed-use infill development.
x x x x
Transformative Climate
Communities
California Strategic
Growth Council
Proceeds from California’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund the Transformative Climate Communities
(TCC) program. The TCC provides competitive grants for coordinated, community-led development and
infrastructure projects focused on achieving multiple environmental, health, and economic benefits within
a given community. Examples of eligible projects include affordable housing, transit, bicycle/pedestrian
improvements, and urban green infrastructure. The TCC program prioritizes disadvantaged communities that
have been most impacted by pollution, as measured by the CalEnviroScreen index. The TCC program offers
Implementation Grants and Planning Grants.
x x x x
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
California Strategic
Growth Council
Proceeds from California’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund the AHSC program. AHSC is a competitive state
grant program that promotes infill development and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through
transportation and land use change. AHSC encourages combined investments in affordable housing, transit,
and active transportation infrastructure, with a majority of funds typically awarded to the affordable housing
component of a project.
x x x
Urban Greening Program California Natural
Resources Agency
Proceeds from the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund California’s Urban Greening Program. The
Urban Greening Program provides competitive funding for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and provide other benefits related to reducing air/water pollution and the consumption of natural resources,
and/or to increasing green spaces and green infrastructure. Eligible projects include the enhancement or
expansion of neighborhood parks, green streets, urban trails, facilities that encourage active transportation,
and other urban heat island mitigation measures. The program prioritizes projects that benefit disadvantaged
communities, as determined by the CalEnviroScreen index.
x x x x
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
California
Transportation
Commission/MTC
ATP provides statewide competitive grants for pedestrian and bicycle capital projects. Certain trail projects are
also eligible if they meet the requirements of the Recreational Trails Program (RTP), a sub-program within ATP.
Beyond the statewide competitive grants, ATP funds are also distributed to MPOs. A minimum of 25% of ATP
funds must be allocated to disadvantaged communities.
x x x
Urban Streams
Restoration Program
(USRP)
California Department
of Water Resources
The USRP funds projects and provides technical assistance to restore urban streams to a more natural state.
Funds used for planning only must be used for projects that will serve disadvantaged communities once
completed. Matching funds of 20 percent must be provided unless the grant will benefit a disadvantaged
community. Examples of eligible projects include installation of green infrastructure such as bioswales,
removing culverts or storm drains, and flood protection enhancements.
x
Land and Water
Conservation Fund
California Department
of Parks and Recreation
The LWCF is a competitive grant program focused on creating new outdoor recreation opportunities for
Californians. The program funds the acquisition or the development of recreational space. Eligible projects
include the acquisition of land to create a new park, a buffer for an existing park, or a recreational/active
transportation trail corridor, or the development of recreational features (e.g. sports fields, dog parks,
gardens, open space, etc.)
x
7.3
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Table 22 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements
138 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 139
Program Adminstering Agency Description
Eligible Capital Projects
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and
Open Space
Storm Drainage
and Flood Control
State
Local Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)
Caltrans HSIP is funded by federal aid as a core program and was codified under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment
and Job Act. HSIP seeks to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and injuries on public roads. Funds
are eligible for work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, so long as the
investment is focused on improving user safety for and addresses a specific safety problem. Non-safety related
capital improvements (e.g. landscaping, street beautification) cannot exceed 10 percent of project costs.
Caltrans requires that projects be consistent with California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
x x
Senate Bill 1: Local
Partnership Program (LP)
California
Transportation
Commission
SB 1, which was signed into law in 2017, is a $54-billion legislative package to fix and enhance roads,
freeways, bridges, and transit across California. Funds are split among numerous programs. SB 1 created
the LP program to reward jurisdictions and transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures,
developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees. The LP program includes a formula allocation as well
as a competitive component. Eligible projects include a wide variety of transportation improvements –
roads, pedestrian/bicycle facilities, transit facilities, and other improvements to mitigate urban runoff from
new transportation infrastructure. For the competitive grant program, funds can only be used for capital
improvements.
x x x
7.3
Program Adminstering Agency Description
Eligible Capital Projects
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and Open Space Storm Drainage and Flood Control
Federal
Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act
Federal Highway
Administration, Federal
Transit Administration,
Federal Railway
Administration, and
Federal Aviation
Administration
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides over $550 billion for the nation’s infrastructure.
Estimated apportionments are available for Fiscal Years 2022 - 2026. Funds are available for a wide array of
infrastructure needs including those related to public transit, airports, ports, bridges, water systems, and more.
Most of the funds will be distributed through state agencies which will be accessible through a range of state
grant programs, whereas other funds will be apportioned directly to urbanized areas, and additional funds
will be available through federal grants processes. The State of California is estimated to be apportioned more
than $35 billion over five fiscal years, and the San Jose urbanized area, which includes Palo Alto, is expected to
be directly apportioned $536 million over this same time period.
x x x
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Table 22 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements (continued)
Table 23 Examples of Potential Federal Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements
140 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 141
7.3
District-Based “Value Capture” Tools
Land-based financing tools are typically
associated with new real estate development
to generate benefit-based special assessment
revenues or property tax revenues to finance
improvements through bond repayment or
paying for improvements over time. District-
based tools provide a stable revenue stream
while ensuring that properties benefitting from
improvements also contribute to those public
investments. The table below describes the three
primary types of district-based funding and
financing tools. Note that assessment districts
and community facilities districts primarily
capture additional funding from private entities,
while the enhanced infrastructure financing
district reinvests growth in public property tax
revenues within the district. If a district-based tool
is utilized, the boundaries do not necessarily need
to align with the NVCAP Plan Area boundaries.
Funding Tools Description Uses Considerations
Special Assessment
Districts
Additional assessment against a range of
participants, depending on the type of district
and relative benefit received.
Examples include: Landscaping and Lighting
District, Community Benefit District, Business
Improvement District.
Most useful for funding ongoing
operations and maintenance.
Requires simple majority vote of paying stakeholders.
Increases costs and risk for paying stakeholders. Stakeholders need to
perceive a clear benefit for themselves.
Impacts paying stakeholders’ overall ability to support other taxes, fees,
and community benefits.
Little financial risk to the City or public agencies; could lead to increased
tax revenue based on private reinvestment.
Additional City staff time to administer districts could offset some gains.
Community Facilities
District (Mello-Roos)
Additional assessment on property, levied
and varied based on a selected property
characteristic (excluding property value).
Financing infrastructure
improvements, development of
public facilities; also, ongoing
operations and maintenance.
Requires approval of 2/3 of property owners (by land area) if there are
fewer than 12 registered voters residing in the district.
Boundaries can include non-contiguous parcels.
Fees can be proportionally subdivided and passed on to future
property / home owners.
Increases costs and risk for landowners and homeowners if fees
dissuade buyers or reduce achievable sales prices.
Impacts paying stakeholders’ overall ability to support other taxes, fees,
and community benefits.
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing District
(EIFD)
Diverts a portion of future municipal General
Fund property tax revenues generated within
the district to help fund infrastructure projects.
Climate resilience districts are a type of EIFD
specifically intended to fund climate projects
such as addressing sea level rise.
Financing infrastructure
improvements, development
of public facilities, affordable
housing development.
Formation and bond issuance does not require a local vote.
Does not cost individual property owners additional fees and taxes.
Does not divert revenues from schools.
Reduces future General Fund revenues by restricting use of the district’s
future property tax revenue growth.
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Table 24 Summary of Major District-Based Value Capture Tools
142 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 143
7.3
Infrastructure Improvements and
Applicable Funding Sources
The following table describes the applicability
of various funding sources to the improvement
needs identified in the NVCAP. Funding
availability for improvements within the Plan
Area will vary based on development activity,
economic conditions, and availability of grants.
Developer Contributions City Resources District Based Outside
Sources
Development
Standards
CEQA Mitiga-
tion
Impact and In-
Lieu Fees
Negotiated
Agreements
General Fund Capital Im-
provement Plan
User Fees CFD EIFD Special Assess-
ment District
Grants (Fed-
eral, Regional,
State)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure, Streetscape Improvements
Public Right of Way
Improvements
X X X X X X X X X
Intersection Improvements X X X X X X X X X
Parks and Open Space
Land Acquisition X X X X X X
Construction of New Parks or
Plazas
X X X X X X
Matadero Creek Re-Naturalization
Land Acquisition X X X X X X
Construction of New
Infrastructure
X X X X X X X
Utilities
District-wide: Stormwater,
Water, and Sewer
Improvements
X X X X X X X X
On-site/Project Specific:
Stormwater, Water, and Sewer
Improvements
X X X X
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Table 25 Infrastructure Improvements and Applicable Funding Sources in the NVCAP
144 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 145
North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan
Draft Plan: March 2024
June 2024 Mark-Up Version
North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan
Acknowledgments
City staff along Working Group members and consultants started working on the North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) in 2018. Thanks to all the Working Group members, City Council,
boards and commission members, and members of the public who contributed their expertise,
guidance, ideas, and feedback towards this Plan. Staff looks forward to working together on the
implementation of this Plan.
NVCAP WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
Angela Dellaporta (Co Chair) Gail Price (Co Chair) Kirsten Flynn
Terry Holzemer Heather Rosen Lund Smith
Yunan Song Tim Steele Siyi Zhang
Alexander Lew Keith Reckdahl Doria Summa
Waldemar Kaczmarski Lakiba Pittman
CORE TEAM
Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Development Services
Kelly Cha Senior Planner, Project Manager, Planning and Development Services
Coleman Frick Principal Planner, Planning and Development Services
Claire Raybould Principal Planner, Planning and Development Services
Chitra Moitra Planner, Planning and Development Services
Jessica Setiawan Senior Business Analyst, Planning and Development Services
Rachael Tanner Assitant Director, Planning and Development Services (former)
Clare Campbell Long-Range Planning Manager, Planning and Development Services (former)
Elena Lee Project Manager, Planning and Development Services (former)
Sheldon S. Ah Sing Project Manager, Planning and Development Services (former)
SPECIAL THANKS TO SPECIAL THANKS TO
The City’s North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan was made possible with funding provided by Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA)’s Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Grant and private funds
from Sobrato Organization.
CONSULTANT AND CONTRIBUTORS
Perkins & Will, Primary Consultant
Arup, Mobility
Strategic Economics, Economic Study
BKF, Infrastructure
Plan to Place, Engagement
WRA, Environmental Consultants, Matadero Creek Study
Page & Turnbull, Historic Preservation Consultants
David J Powers and Associates, Environmental Consultants and Planners
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
4CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Context
1.2 The Plan Area
1.3 The Project Goals
1.4 The Project Objectives
1.5 Citywide Planning
1.6 Regional and Statewide Planning
1.7 The Community Process
28
114
CHAPTER 2: THE VISION
2.1 Preferred Plan
2.2 Land Use
2.3 Ground Floor Edges
2.4 Mobility
2.5 Ecology and Sustainability
2.6 Urban Form
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM
3.1 Sidewalk Zone
3.4 Paving
3.5 Exterior Lighting
3.7 Public Art
56
126
68
CHAPTER 5: PARKS
5.1 Public Park
5.2 Matadero Creek
CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS
6.1 Building Heights and Massing
6.2 Retail and Active Frontages
6.3 Portage Avenue Frontages
6.4 Residential Frontages
6.5 Sustainable Design
CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 Development Standards
7.2 Review Process
7.4 Funding and Financing Strategy
CHAPTER 4: STREETS
4.1 Pedestrian Realm
4.2 Bike Network
4.4 Street Sections
4.5 Transit Access
4.6 Vehicle Circulation and Parking
4.7 Transportation Demand
Management
APPENDIX
A1 Existing Conditions Memo
104
v North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Figures
Figure 1 Photograph of architect Mike Lyzwa hold-
ing a model of a proposed building at the
intersection of Page Mill Road and Park
Boulevard, circa 1984, xii. Credit: Palo Alto
Historical Association.
Figure 2 Photograph of the Cannery monitor roof
supergraphic on the former Fry’s site, 3.
Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 3 Bird’s eye photograph of the NVCAP
Plan Area circa 1957, 4. Credit: Palo Alto
Historical Association.
Figure 4 Priority Development Areas (PDA) in the
Bay Area, 7.
Figure 5 Matadero Creek Existing Conditions, 8.
Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 6 Former Cannery Building Existing
Conditions, 8. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 7 Existing Conditions of the NVCAP
Plan Area, 9.
Figure 8 Existing Zoning Districts of the NVCAP, 11.
Figure 9 Photographs of recent development,
12. Credit: Premier Properties, Level 10
Construction.
Figure 10 Conceptual Tentative Map for the 340
Portage Avenue Development
Figure 11 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter
Packing Company. Credit: Fairchild
Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92,
Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by
Page & Turnbull, 14.
Figure 12 Gabled addition attached to the
southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage
Avenue. View northeast. Credit: Page &
Turnbull, 14.
Figure 13 A portion of the southwest facade of the
Turnbull, 15.
Figure 14 Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at
his canning plant in Alviso. Credit: Our
Town of Palo Alto, 15.
Figure 15 Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Credit: Palo Alto
Historical Association, 15.
Figure 16 An illustrative example of low-cost buffered
bike lanes and intersection improvements,
17. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 17 Building 0 in San Francisco, CA, an
example of mixed-income multi-family
apartments next to a public park, 17. Credit:
Perkins&Will
Figure 18 A breakout discussion during the NVCAP
working group meeting, 19. Credit: City of
Palo Alto
Figure 19 Documenting feedback during a working
group design charrette, 19. Credit:
Perkins&Will
Figure 20 A worksession during the NVCAP working
group meeting, 24. Credit: City of Palo Alto
Figure 21 A sketching session and report back during
the NVCAP working group meeting, 26.
Credit: City of Palo Alto
Figure 22 A presentation during a community
workshop, 27. Credit: Perkins&Will
CHAPTER 2: THE VISION
Figure 23 The NVCAP Preferred Plan, 30.
Figure 24 NVCAP Land Use Framework, 32.
Figure 25 Example of High-Density Mixed Use
Development in Palo Alto, 34 Credit:
Steinberg Architects
Figure 26 Example of Medium Density Mixed Use
Development in Palo Alto, 34. Credit: BDE
Architecture
Figure 27 Example of Low-Density Mixed Use
Development, 35 Credit: WHA
Figure 28 Example of High-Density Residential
Figure 29 Example of Medium Density Residential
Development in Palo Alto, 35. Credit:
Compass
Figure 30 Example of Low-Density Resident
Development, 35 Credit: Google
Figure 31 The Cloudera Galactic HQ is located at 395
Page Mill Road, 36. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 32 NVCAP Ground Floor Edges Framework, 38.
Figure 33 Building lobbies and other accessory
spaces to residential uses are considered
active uses, 40. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 34 Neighborhood-serving retail along major
boulevards like El Camino Real, 41. Credit:
Bruce Damonte
Figure 35 Residential stoops should be set back and
elevated to provide privacy for residents,
41. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 36 NVCAP Mobility Framework, 42.
Figure 37 NVCAP Pedestrian Network, 44.
Figure 38 View of the Bell Street Woonerf in Seattle,
Washington, 45. Credit: Puget Sound
Business Journal
Figure 39 Bike Facility Degree of Separation, 46.
Figure 40 NVCAP Bike Network Framework, 47.
Figure 41 NVCAP Vehicle and Parking Framework, 49.
Figure 42 NVCAP Ecology and Sustainability
Framework, 50.
Figure 43 A conceptual design for the future Public
park, 52.
Figure 44 An example of a restored creek in San Luis
Obispo, CA, 53. Credit: Food and Wine
Safari
Figure 45 An example of green infrastructure
integrated with street furnishings, 53.
Credit: AJ Landskap
Figure 46 NVCAP Urban Form Framework , 54.
Figure 47 Internal streets have height allowances
that are conducive with missing middle
housing like townhomes, 56.
Credit: Perkins&Will
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM
Figure 48 The Sidewalk Zone, 58.
Figure 49 Bioretention, 61. Credit: City of Palo Alto
helps mitigate light pollution and the
health of both humans and wildlife, 62.
Credit: Edgar Zacarias via Foursquare.
helps mitigate light pollution and the
health of both humans and wildlife, 63.
Credit: Edgar Zacarias via Foursquare.
Figure 52 Neighborhood map and directional
visitors to the NVCAP, 64.
Figure 53 An example of a recent public art installa-
tion, 65. Credit: Passages by Susan Zocco-
la.
vii North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan viii
CHAPTER 4: STREETS
Figures
CHAPTER 5: PARKS
CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS
CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 54 Map of Conceptual Gateway Intersection
Design Improvements, 72.
Figure 55 El Camino Real and Page Mill Road Con-
ceptual Intersection Design, 73.
Figure 56 El Camino Real and Olive Avenue Concep-
tual Intersection Design,74.
Figure 57 El Camino Real, Hansen Way, Portage Ave-
nue Conceptual Intersection Design, 75.
Figure 58 Lambert Avenue and Ash Street Conceptu-
al Intersection Design, 76.
Figure 59 Park Boulevard and Portage Avenue Con-
ceptual Intersection Design, 77.
Figure 60 Typical Park Boulevard Section, 81.
Figure 61 Typical Olive Avenue section between Park
Boulevard and Ash Street, 83.
Figure 62 Typical Olive Avenue section between Ash
Street and El Camino Real, 83.
Figure 63 Typical Ash Street section between Page
Mill Road and Olive Avenue, 85.
Figure 64 Typical Ash Street section between Acacia
Avenue and Lambert Avenue, 85.
Figure 65 Typical Acacia Avenue Section, 87.
Figure 66 Typical Pepper Avenue Section, 89.
Figure 67 Typical Portage Avenue section between
Park Boulevard and Ash Street, 91.
Figure 68 Typical Portage Avenue section between
Ash Street and El Camino Real, 91,
Figure 69 Streetscape elements like double row
of trees, textured pavement, pedestrian
scale lighting , and seating encourages
a low-carbon, welcoming neighborhood
environment, 93. Credit: SWA
Figure 70 Typical Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone
Section, 94.
Figure 71 Typical El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone
Section, 95.
Figure 72 Typical Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone
Section, 96.
Figure 73 Typical mid-block connetion section, 99.
Figure 74 Typical rear setback connection section, 99.
Figure 75 Location of Park Gateways and Circulation
Paths, 107.
Figure 76 An example of passive park programming,
109. Credit: Jennifer Tyner
Figure 77 An example of active park programming,
109. Credit: Daggett
Figure 78 The location of the Matadero Creek buffer,
circulation, and gateways, 111.
Figure 79 The Matadero Creek Channel is currently a
constrained concrete trapezoidal channel.,
112. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 80 A naturalized creek has the opportunity to
provide multi-use trails and habitat areas,
113. Credit: Food and Wine Safari
Figure 81 An example of a daylight plane
requirement for mixed-use development
stepping down to single family residential
neighborhoods, 116.
Figure 82 Allowable Height Map, 117.
signage, 118. Credit: David Baker Architects
outdoor rooms to allow for lively spillover
of retail, 119 Credit: Bruce Damonte
transparency and a connection to the
street, 119 Credit: David Baker Architects
materiality, fenestration, and roof datum of
historic structures, 120. Credit: Connect CRA
privacy for residents, neighborhood
management, 121. Credit: Perkins&Will
Figure 88 Buidling roofs can be multi-purpose,
including providing additional outdoor
space for residents, 124. Credit: Kirstin
Bucher
Figure 89 Visible elements of sustainability can
include design features such as celebrating
secure bike parking, 125. Credit: Nelson /
Nygaard
Figure 90 NVCAP Zoning Map, as of March 2024, 129.
ix North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan x
Tables
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Table 1 Historical Population and Growth in Palo
Alto, 1980 - 2040, 7.
Table 2 Existing Zoning Designations, 10.
Table 3 Existing and Future Development Potential
by Land Use, 32.
Table 4 Proposed NVCAP Development Standards,
36.
CHAPTER 2: THE VISION
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC REALM
Table 6 Allowed Features by Sidewalk Zone, 58.
CHAPTER 4: STREETS
Table 7 Park Boulevard Street Design, 80.
Table 8 Olive Avenue Street Design, 82.
Table 9 Ash Street Street Design, 84.
Table 10 Acacia Avenue Street Design, 86.
Table 11 Pepper Avenue Street Design, 88.
Table 12 Portage Avenue Street Design, 90.
Table 13 Lambert Avenue Sidewalk Zone Design, 94.
Table 14 El Camino Real Sidewalk Zone Design, 95.
Table 15 Page Mill Road Sidewalk Zone Design, 96.
Table 16 Mid-Block Paseo Design, 98.
Table 17 Rear Setback Pathway Design, 98.
Table 18 TDM Strategy Menu, 104.
CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION
(Continued), 132.
Table 20 Funding Source Categories and Examples,
135.
Table 21 Examples of Potential Regional or County
Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP
Table 22 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding
Table 22 Examples of Potential State Grant
(Continued), 140.
Table 23 Examples of Potential Federal Grant
140.
Table 24 Summary of Major District-Based Value
Capture Tools, 142.
Applicable Funding Sources in the NVCAP,
144.
xi North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan xii
The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
(NVCAP) represents a rare opportunity within
the City of Palo Alto to plan proactively for a
transit-oriented, mixed-use, mixed-income,
and walkable neighborhood. The NVCAP sets
forth a vision that:
• Honors the storied history and unique character of the North
Ventura neighborhood;
• Understands the needs of current residents and puts forward
near-term solutions to current challenges;
• Establishes a long-term framework for desired growth so that
more people can call North Ventura home; and
• Invests in community infrastructure to support an equitable,
resilient, and sustainable Palo Alto.
Executive Summary
NVCAP is aligned with the goals and policies embedded in the
adopted City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan, addressing
the eight major themes: Building Community and Neighborhoods;
Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character; Reducing
Reliance on the Automobile; Meeting Housing Supply Challenges;
Protecting and Sustaining the Natural Environment; Keeping Palo
Alto Prepared for Future Natural and Human-Caused Hazards;
Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs; and Providing
Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership.
Finally, this is a vision shaped by the Palo Alto community. This
Plan would not be possible without the guidance of stakeholders,
decision-makers, residents, and other community members, who
graciously volunteered their time as members of the Working
Group to thoughtfully consider the challenges and opportunities of
the Plan.
Figure 1 Photograph of architect Mike Lyzwa holding a model of a proposed building at the intersection of
Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, circa 1984.
xiii North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 1
Plan Organization
The plan document is organized
as follows:
Introduction provides an overview of the NVCAP
physical and regulatory context. The Plan is
shaped by the project goals and objectives,
adopted and in-progress City plans and policies,
recently enacted regional and state laws, and the
comprehensive community planning process.
The Vision provides an overview of the vision
for the future of NVCAP built and natural
environment. This includes urban design
frameworks that calibrate the optimal mix of
uses; support a multi-modal mobility framework
within the neighborhood and how it connects
to the rest of the city and the region; foster
a regenerative and ecological framework to
support the health of humans and wildlife while
supporting the implementation of City’s Climate
Action Plan; and the neighborhood’s context-
Design Standards and Guidelines (Public
Realm, Streets, Parks, Buildings) include
requirements that govern the construction
whereas guidelines are qualitative requirements.
Implementation outlines the necessary steps to
and capital investments.
Appendix contains information for reference
used to generate the NVCAP including existing
site conditions, market studies, and infrastructure
analysis.
Figure 2 Photograph of the Cannery monitor roof supergraphic on the former Fry’s site, 2022
Credit: Perkins&Will
2 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 3
1.1 Context
1.2 Plan Area
1.3 Project Goals
1.4 Project Objectives
1.5 Citywide Planning
1.6 Regional and Statewide Planning
1.7 Community Process
Introduction
1
Figure 3 Bird’s eye photograph of the NVCAP Plan
Area circa 1957.
Matadero Creek Sutter Packing Plant
Park Boulevard
El Camino Real
Stanford Industrial Park
1.1
Context
The purpose of the NVCAP is to capture the City’s vision for the North
Ventura neighborhood into a regulatory document that will guide
the future development of the 60-acre plan area, including land use,
development standards, and design guidelines.
This planning effort was initiated by Palo Alto
Initiated by the City Council to implement
Comprehensive Plan Program L-4.10, which states
the following,
Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan
for the North Ventura area and
surrounding California Avenue area.
The Plan should describe a vision for
the future of the North Ventura area as
a walkable neighborhood with multi-
public park, creek improvements, and
an interconnected street grid. It should
guide the development of the California
Avenue area as a well-designed mixed-
use district with diverse land uses and a
network of pedestrian-oriented streets.
The NVCAP aligns with the Comprehensive Plan
policy, however, the Plan Area focuses solely on
the North Ventura neighborhood.
On November 6, 2017, the City Council adopted
application to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission for a Priority Development Area
Grant for the North Ventura Coordinated Area
Plan. The Council expressed local support and
commitment of necessary matching funds and
assurance of the completion of the project.
City Policies
The Region
The Bay Area is expected to be home to an
additional 1.4 million households by 2050. It
is essential that housing, transportation, and
other types of land uses work together – as
part of a regional growth framework – create
an equitable, prosperous future for all Bay Area
communities and make the best use of available
resources. Priority Development Areas (PDA) are
a key piece of the Bay Area’s regional growth
framework.
Approximately 70% of the Plan Area is located
within the California Avenue PDA, which was
selected as a PDA based on excellent access to
transit, the proximity of the existing California
Avenue Business District, and the availability of
underutilized parcels of land.
Figure 4 Priority Development Areas (PDA)
in the Bay Area
Palo Alto Growth Projections
According to the City’s Housing Element Update,
the total population is projected to grow to
82,835 people by 2030 and 86,510 people by
2040.
Historically, the number of new homes built in
the Bay Area has not kept pace with demand,
resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices,
and exacerbating issues of displacement and
homelessness. The number of new homes in Palo
Alto increased 3.8 percent from 2010 to 2020,
which is below the growth rate for Santa Clara
County and below the growth rate of the region’s
housing stock during this time period. At the
same time, Palo Alto’s population increased 6
percent.
Table 1 Historical Population and Growth
in Palo Alto, 1980 - 2040
Sources: U.S. Census 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, California Department of Finance 2021
and ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 Projections
* Projections
Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.7: Use
coordinated area plan to guide
development
Comprehensive Plan (Program
L-4.10.1): Prepare a coordinated area
plan for the North Ventura area and
surrounding California Avenue area.
On November 6, 2017, the City Council
adopted a Resolution expressing
local support and commitment for the
preparation of the NVCAP.
Year Population Numerical
Change
Percent
Change
1980 55,225 741 1%
1990 55,900 675 1%
2000 58,598 2,698 5%
2010 64,403 5,805 10%
2020 68,145 3,254 6%
2030* 82,835* 15,178* 22%*
2040* 86,510* 3,675* 4%*
California Avenue PDA
6 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 7
For more information and history of the Palo
Alto Cannery, go to:
The Palo Alto Cannery Spotlight, Pages 14-15
Cloudera Galactic HQ
The Cannery
Matadero Creek Channel
California Avenue Caltrain Station
Boulware Park
Park Plaza Apartments
Navan
Plan Area
The NVCAP plan area is approximately 60 acres, roughly bounded by
Oregon Expressway / Page Mill Road to the north, El Camino Real to
the west, Lambert Avenue to the south, and the Caltrain rail corridor to
the east. Nearby neighborhoods include the Evergreen neighborhood
to the west, the Midtown neighborhood to the north, and Barron Park
to the south.
Figure 7 Existing Conditions of the NVCAP Plan Area, 2020
1.2
Proximity to City Destinations
The plan area is within walking and biking
distance to several key destinations, including:
•The California Avenue Caltrain Station, which
is within a half mile of the plan area. Walking
access to the station is primarily along Park
Boulevard, a designated Bike Boulevard.
•El Camino Real, a regional commercial and
retail corridor. Opportunities for pedestrians
and bicyclists to cross Page Mill Road safely are
limited.
•California Avenue, a regional retail attraction
and social destination for the peninsula.
•Stanford University, one of the premier higher-
education institutions in the world.
•Stanford Research Park and California Avenue
Business District, accounting for almost 40% of
the City’s employment distribution.
•Signature Palo Alto open spaces such as Sarah
Wallis Park, Boulware Park, and J. Bowden Park.
Plan Area Notable Sites
Notable sites within the plan area include the
Matadero Creek Channel and the buildings
associated with the Cannery.
The portion of the Matadero Creek running
through the plan area is contained with a concrete
trapezoidal channel, which was built in 1990 from
El Camino Real to the Caltrain Tracks.
Figure 5 The Matadero Creek Channel is currently a
constrained concrete trapezoidal channel.
Figure 6 The former Cannery building site is 12.5
acres and located at the heart of the
NVCAP.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Project Boundary
Caltrain Station
Bus Stops
Existing Sidewalks
Major External Connections
Surface Parking
Parks
8 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 9
Figure 8 Existing Zoning Districts of the NVCAP
ROLM
GM
GM
GM
CS
CS
CS
CS
R-1
R-1
RM-30
RM-30
RM-30
PC
Land Use and Zoning
The North Ventura neighborhood is already
made up of a mix of multi-family and single-
uses. Service commercial uses are concentrated
along El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and
the southern segment of Portage Avenue.
along Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard,
the most notable anchors being the Cloudera
Galactic Headquarters at 395 Page Mill Road
and the newly constructed building at 3045 Park
Boulevard.
About 70% of residential units in North Ventura
are single-family detached homes, most built
before 1950. Single-family homes occupy about
10 percent of the Plan Area and are generally
found along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue.
The Park Plaza Apartments is the most notable
multi-family residential development within
the Plan Area, situated at the corner of Park
Boulevard and Page Mill Road.
1.2
Table 2 Existing Zoning Designations
Zoning Map
Designation District Name
R-1 Single-family residence district
RM-30 Medium density multiple-family residence district
CS Service commercial district
ROLM
GM General manufacturing district
CN Neighborhood commercial district
PC Planned community district
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
10 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 11
Recent Development
and new investment in mixed-use development.
A few new developments include:
Under Construction or Completed
441 Page Mill Road: a three-story mixed use
building with one level of underground parking.
3045 Park Boulevard: a two-story shell
commercial building with underground parking.
3225 El Camino Real: a mixed-use development
second building is two stories with ground
development includes underground and podium
parking.
The 340 Portage Avenue
Development Agreement
In October 2023, the City approved a
development agreement with the Sobrato
Organization, LLC for the redevelopment of the
14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue,
3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street
and 278 Lambert Avenue (Ordinance #5595).
parcels, is located centrally within the boundary
of the NVCAP. The development agreement
includes:
•Partial demolition of a commercial building
(formerly Bayside Cannery) deemed eligible for
the California Register of Historical Resources
building (340-404 Portage) to retain and restore
key historic features (Parcel 1)
•Construction of (74) new three-story townhome
condominiums replacing approximately 84,000
square feet (sf) of the historic cannery building
at 200-404 Portage Avenue (Parcel 1)
•Demolition of a building containing commercial
recreation use at 3040 Park Boulevard (Parcel 1)
•Dedication of approximately 3.25 acres
of land to the City for future affordable
housing (approximately 1 acre) and parkland
(approximately 2.25 acres) uses (Parcel 2)
1.2
Figure 9 Photographs of recent development
•Retention of existing research and development
(R&D) uses in the remaining portion of the
former cannery building (Parcel 3)
•Construction of a two-level parking garage
(Parcel 3)
•
3201-3225 Ash Street (Parcel 4)
•Conversion of automotive use at 3250 Park
Boulevard to R&D use (Parcel 5)
•Contribution of $5 million for future park
improvements and contributions to the City’s
affordable housing fund.
•Development of a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program for the R&D and
When the terms of the agreement end,
conformance with the NVCAP will be required of
all new projects in the affected area.
Figure 10 Conceptual Tentative Map for the 340 Portage Avenue Development
12 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 13
Spotlight:
Palo Alto Cannery
The southeast corner of the parcel
contains a one-story wood frame
building. The building, located on
Ash Street next the former cannery
building appears to have been initially
built as a dormitory for the cannery
employees sometime between 1918
and 1925 and was moved to its current
location in 1940. The building features
a front-gabled roof, wraparound porch
with a shed roof, and wood lap siding.
Figure 11 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing
Company. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight
C-7065, Frame 92, Collection of UC Santa Barbara.
Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Figure 12 Gabled addition attached to the southernmost
monitor roof of 340 Portage Avenue. View
northeast. Source: Page & Turnbull
The former cannery site was initially
developed in April 1918, by Thomas
Foon Chew, the owner of Bayside
Canning Company or affectionately
known in the press at the time as “The
Asparagus King”. This was intended
to be Mr. Chew’s second cannery; the
California. The Palo Alto cannery
was strategically located alongside a
Railroad’s Los Gatos branch, which
facilitated shipments, and Matadero
Creek for a ready water supply.
The cannery was expanded over
the next several decades. The site
operated as the Bay Side Cannery and
then as the Sutter Packing Company in
1929. The cannery continued to grow
through World War II and was closed
in 1949.
Although the building has undergone
some exterior alterations throughout
the expansion, aerial photos show
that from 1965, the building continues
to have the same shape and general
form as now. Following the closure of
the cannery, the site has been occupied
by an anchor retailer Maximart and
Electronics, continued to occupy the
site until the end of 2019.
Figure 13 A portion of the southwest facade of the former
Figure 14 Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his canning
plant in Alviso. Source: Our Town of Palo Alto.
Figure 15 Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto
Historical Association
1.2
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Some of the most distinctive features
include the monitor roofs, capped with
composition shingles and clad with
corrugated metal, wood clerestory
ribbon windows and wire glass
skylights.
At the heart of the NVCAP is the 12.5-
acre 340 Portage Avenue property.
What appears to be one large
building on the parcel is composed
of approximately ten buildings that
were constructed at various times
between 1918 and 1949. The building
is surrounded by a narrow parking lot
to the north and a larger parking lot
to the south bounded by Matadero
Creek. The rectangular former cannery
building features walls that are
concrete, corrugated metal or wood
siding, with a variety of roof shapes.
14 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 15
Project Goals
On March 5th, 2018, the City Council approved the following goals to
guide the NVCAP. A project goal refers to the desired outcome of a
project. The following goals are high-level statements that provide an
overall context for the aims and accomplishments of the project.
Housing and Land Use
Add to the City’s supply of multi-family housing,
including market rate, affordable, “missing
middle” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed-
use, transit-accessible neighborhood, with retail
and commercial services, open space, and
possibly arts and entertainment uses.
Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Connections
to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities,
including connections to the Caltrain Station,
Park Boulevard, and El Camino Real.
Connected Street Grid
gaps and street connections to California Avenue,
the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where
appropriate.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate development of
new community facilities and infrastructure
with private development, recognizing both the
community’s needs and that such investments
can increase the cost of housing.
Balance of Community Interests
Balance community-wide objectives with the
interests of neighborhood residents and minimize
displacement of existing residents.
Urban Design, Design Guidelines, and
Neighborhood Fabric
Develop human-scale urban design strategies,
and design guidelines that strengthen
development will respect the scale and character
of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment, while
addressing the principles of sustainability.
1.3
Figure 16 (left) An illustrative example of low-cost buffered bike lanes and intersection improvements.
Figure 17 (top) Building 0 in San Francisco, CA, an example of mixed-income multi-family apartments next
to a public park.
Throughout the document, applicable
project goals are included in insets.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
16 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 17
Project Objectives
On March 5th, 2018, the City Council approved the following objectives
to guide the NVCAP. Project objectives describe the optimal process
and set the goalposts for a successful plan. Project objectives are
measurable and achievable.
Data-Driven Approach
Employ a data-driven approach that considers
community desires, market conditions and
development patterns, development capacity,
natural resources, need for community facilities
(e.g., schools), and other relevant data to inform
plan policies.
Comprehensive User-Friendly Document and
Implementation
Create a comprehensive but user-friendly
location and extent of land uses, planning
policies, development regulations, and design
guidelines to enable development and needed
infrastructure investments in the project area.
Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision
Makers
Provide a guide and strategy for staff and
decision-makers to bridge the gap between the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
and individual development projects in order to
streamline future land use and transportation
decisions.
Meaningful Community Engagement
Enable a process with meaningful opportunities
timeline, and an outcome (the coordinated area
priorities.
Economic Feasibility
of marketplace factors and incentives and
public infrastructure investments and projected
Environmental
A plan that is protective of public health and a
process that complies with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
1.4
Figure 18 (left) A breakout discussion during the NVCAP working group meeting,
Figure 19 (top) Documenting feedback during a working group design charrette
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
18 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 19
Citywide Planning
The standards and guidelines in this document are informed and in
conformance with the following foundational city plans and policies.
2030 Comprehensive Plan
The City adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
in November 2017, which is the primary tool
for guiding preservation and development in
and provides a collective vision that guides
preservation, growth, and change. The Plan
Area is a part of the California Avenue Multi-
Neighborhood Center. A multi-neighborhood
districts that serves more than one neighborhood
with a diverse mix of uses, including retail, service,
staff to prepare a coordinated area plan for the
North Ventura area and surrounding California
Avenue area. The plan should describe a vision
for the future of the North Ventura area as
a walkable neighborhood with multi-family
improvements, and an interconnected street grid.
It should guide the development of the California
Avenue area as a well-designed mixed-use
district with diverse land uses and a network of
pedestrian-oriented streets.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The City adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan in July 2012, which
strategically guides public and private
investments in non-motorized transportation
facilities and related programs. The plan
critical bicycle streets, including Portage Avenue
as an enhanced bikeway as part of the Bay to
Ridge Trail and Park Boulevard as a major north-
south Bicycle Boulevard.
Housing Element 2023-2031
The Housing Element update, one of the
State-mandated components of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, represents the City of Palo
Alto’s sixth Housing Element and plans for the
years 2023 through 2031. In total, approximately
6,700 housing units are needed to accommodate
the 2023-2031 growth for all income groups as
part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) process. The Plan Area includes 15
opportunity sites that could help the City meet its
housing needs (unit yield of approximately 300).
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 19.10:
Coordinated Area Plans
This chapter establishes the procedures for the
preparation of coordinated area plans (CAP).
The chapter’s sections outline the purpose of a
CAP, the procedures needed to be performed
throughout the planning process, the contents
of the plan document, and the requirements for
permitting and development once the CAP has
been adopted.
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.32:
Affordable Housing Incentive Program
The affordable housing incentive program is
intended to promote the development of 100%
affordable rental housing projects located within
one-half mile of a major transit stop or one-
quarter mile of a high-quality transit corridor.
Due to the Plan Area’s proximity to transit
and everyday needs, the NVCAP is a strong
candidate to support the City’s goal of adding
more affordable housing units to support a wider
range of incomes.
1.5
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.24:
Contextual Design Criteria and Objective
Design Standards
To comply with California’s recently adopted
legislation (Senate Bill (SB) 35 and SB 330) to
address the housing shortage within the state,
Palo Alto adopted objective design standards
to review new multi-family and mixed-use
residential housing projects. The development
standards and design guidelines included in
the coordinated area plan are intended to
be complementary to the objective design
standards.
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and
Recreation Master Plan
Adopted in September 2017, the Parks Master
Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo
Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space, and
Plan Area as an urban canopy target area,
emphasizing the need for new green streets
and parks. Additionally, Policy 1.B.10 states the
following, ‘develop a creek walk along Matadero
Creek that links parks and creates open
space and a habitat corridor’. Finally, the plan
designates Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard
as ‘Pollinator Pathways,’ which are intended
to provide connectivity for natural systems
through the integration of green stormwater
infrastructure. The future public park and the
renaturalization of the creek can serve as an
integral component of the City’s larger regional
habitat connection concept, connecting people
and wildlife from the foothills to the Baylands.
Urban Forest Master Plan
Adopted in February 2019, the Urban Forest
Master Plan establishes long-term management
goals and strategies to foster a sustainable
urban forest in Palo Alto. The urban forest
includes street trees, park trees, forested
parklands, and trees in many private ownership
settings. NVCAP is aligned with the master plan’s
goals and policies including:
•Goal 1: A well-developed contiguous, healthy,
and ecologically resilient citywide urban forest;
and
•Goal 2: Re-generated native woodland and
riparian landscapes as the key ecological
basis of the urban forest with a focus on native
species and habitat.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan
Completed in 2019, the Green Stormwater
Infrastructure (GSI) Plan provides a guidance
framework to integrate GSI measures into the
City’s urban landscape to properly manage and
treat stormwater at its source, decreasing water
quality impacts to local creeks, the Baylands,
and the San Francisco Bay. Integration of GSI
measures is critical for the Plan Area to address
the current lack of open spaces, and high
amount of imperviousness. Chapter 4 of the
Prioritization Criteria, that projects located within
one of the key development areas should receive
a higher priority than projects located outside
one of these areas.
Public Art Master Plan
Completed in November 2016, the mission of
Palo Alto’s people, diverse neighborhoods, the
innovative and global character of its businesses
and academic institutions, and the beauty of
its natural environment. Several of the plan’s
objectives are applicable to NVCAP including:
•Objective 1: Locate art in unexpected places,
such as alleys to provide an element of surprise
and whimsy to everyday life.
•Objective 2: Integrate impactful, permanently-
sited public art projects in business areas.
•Objective 3: Install public art in neighborhoods
for residents to enjoy on a daily basis.
•Objective 4: Use art to promote environmental
stewardship and sustainability. Create
partnerships with Environmental Services and
local regional agencies to integrate public art
into environmental projects.
•Objective 5: Commission artists or artist/design
areas of Palo Alto where development is taking
place.
20 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 21
Regional and Statewide
Planning
Approximately 70% of the Plan Area is located within the California
Avenue PDA, which was selected based on excellent access to transit,
the proximity of the existing California Avenue Business District, and
the availability of underutilized parcels of land. Therefore, NVCAP is
subject to both regional and state legislation, developed and adopted
to ensure new development within PDAs are supporting compact,
equitable transit-oriented communities.
Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy
Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s)
regional Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC)
policy update seeks to support the region’s transit
investments by creating communities around
transit stations and along transit corridors that
not only support transit ridership, but that are
places where Bay Area residents of all abilities,
and income levels, and racial and ethnic
backgrounds can live, work and access services,
such as education, childcare, and healthcare. The
TOC policies would apply to PDAs that are served
Avenue Station (Caltrain). PDAs that comply with
these TOC policies are eligible for grant funding
administered by the MTC. Jurisdictions adopting
these policies would be required to implement
the following:
•New Residential Development: a minimum
density of 50 units/net acre or higher and an
allowable maximum density of 75 units/net acre
or higher.
•
minimum density of 2 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or
higher and an allowable maximum density of 4
FAR or higher.
•Parking Management Requirements: no
minimum parking requirement allowed.
At the time of plan adoption, the City has not
adopted the TOC policy.
Assembly Bill 2097 (AB2097)
The California State Legislature passed, and the
Governor signed, Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 that
eliminates minimum parking requirements for all
uses/development, (except hotels) within a half-
mile of public transit. This bill affects all properties
within the NVCAP. The new requirements went
into effect on January 1, 2023, ahead of the
adoption of the NVCAP.
1.5 1.6
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Adopted in June 2023, the Sustainability and
Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) is a comprehensive
document laying out the City’s strategy to
achieve ambitious carbon reduction goals,
while improving natural environment, adapting
to climate impacts, and increasing livability for
Palo Alto residents. The S/CAP establishes the
goals of reducing carbon emissions 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030 (the “80 x 30” goal)
and achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. Several
of the plan’s goals are applicable to NVCAP
including:
•Energy: Reduce GHG emissions from the direct
use of natural gas in Palo Alto’s building sector
by at least 60% below 1990 levels (116,400 MT
CO2e reduction)
•Mobility: Reduce total vehicle miles traveled
12% by 2030, compared to a 2019 baseline, by
reducing commute vehicle miles traveled 20%,
visitor vehicles miles traveled 10%, and resident
vehicle miles traveled 6%
•Mobility: Increase the mode share for active
transportation (walking, biking) and transit from
19% to 40% of local work trips by 2030
•Natural Environment: Restore and enhance
resilience and biodiversity of our natural
environment throughout the City
•Natural Environment: Increase tree canopy to
40% city-wide coverage by 2030
•Natural Environment: By 2030, achieve a
10% increase in land area that uses green
stormwater infrastructure to treat urban water
runoff, compared to a 2020 baseline
Relationship Between the
NVCAP and Other City Plans and
Ordinances
The NVCAP implements the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and provides more detailed
consistent with those found in the Comprehensive
Plan but address the unique characteristics of
NVCAP.
To implement the NVCAP, Palo Alto made
changes to Title 18, Zoning, in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC). This new code section
projects within the plan area. While many
of these are detailed in the plan itself, the
regulations in the NVCAP section of Title 18 take
change or replace zoning standards, the
established PAMC requirements apply. However,
standards of NVCAP and PAMC, NVCAP
standards will be followed.
Regulatory Compliance
The Plan was prepared in accordance with CEQA,
and any state applicable law. The NVCAP guides
all development within the Plan Area and will
require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
to ensure consistency and to implement
the development regulations and land uses
established in this CAP. The CAP is adopted under
the authority of the City’s Zoning Ordinance,
which designates Coordinated Area Plans as
a tool to guide land use and development
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
22 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 23
The Community Process
The NVCAP was informed by a multi-year planning process, which
prioritized a robust and authentic community process, and invited
a diversity of voices from both city departmental agencies and
community stakeholders to shape the future of the Plan Area. 2
The City of Palo Alto conducted:
Spotlight:
Community
Workshops
17
NVCAP Working
Group Meetings
2
Online Surveys
6
Stakeholder Group
Meetings
Meetings with
Decision-Makers
City Council
Historic Resources Board (HRB)
Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC)
Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC)
Architectural Review Board
(ARB)
1.7
Figure 20 A worksession during the NVCAP working group meeting
Over the course of the planning process, City staff
and consultants conducted extensive community
outreach, providing numerous opportunities
for public engagement and meaningful input.
Stakeholders, decision-makers, residents, and
other community members have volunteered
their time to thoughtfully consider the challenges
and opportunities afforded by this project and
contribute to the evolving plan ideas.
As part of the planning process, three draft
alternatives were developed for the NVCAP. The
draft alternatives take into account feedback
provided by: (1) the NVCAP Working Group, (2)
feedback from community members provided
at community workshops, (3) analyses and
information provided by the City’s consultant
team to City staff and leadership. City Council
deliberated and selected a preferred scenario.
This community process led to the development
of the draft plan including the vision and design
framework included in Chapter 2.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
24 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 25
The NVCAP Working Group
Consistent with PAMC 19.10.030 and to ensure
engagement, the City Council appointed a
14-member Working Group (WG). The WG was
made up of 14 individuals and two alternates.
The group’s composition represented a diversity
of interests and expertise, including homeowners
and renters, people of different ages and cultural
backgrounds. The WG included:
•Residents (renters and property owners) living
within the Plan Area boundaries or the greater
North Ventura neighborhood.
•Business owners and local employees working
or owning a business within the Plan Area
boundaries or nearby (mix of small and larger
businesses).
•Property owners (large and small properties).
•City residents with expertise in urban design,
housing development, environmental planning,
transportation, or land economics.
•Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
member.
•Architectural Review Board (ARB) member.
•Parks and Recreation Commission member.
Over the course of 17 meetings held from 2018 to
2020, the WG reviewed and provided feedback
on existing conditions, planning alternatives, and
other information related to the planning area.
The WG created a vision statement for the Plan
Area which is summarized below:
‘The Working Group envisions the Plan
Area to replicate a European square
with open plaza, colorful public art,
beautiful landscaping with green open
spaces and lots of public amenities such
as benches, trails, and bike paths. The
existing context, between three and six
stories, interconnected with pedestrian
and bicycle paths. The bustling plaza
should have lots of local-serving retail
uses such as cafes, small local markets,
and theaters, which encourage lively
provide diverse housing opportunities,
with minimum intrusion from automobile
City Department Partnerships
The planning process was informed by
representatives from the City of Palo Alto to
ensure the plan was aligned with foundational
city plans, projects, and programs. The
departments represented include Planning &
Development, Transportation, Public Works,
Utilities, and Community Services.
The Community Workshops
Two community workshops were held to share
ideas, respond to study results, and weigh in on
the vision and emerging policies of the plan. The
2019. The community feedback helped to frame
the basis of the proposed draft plans. The
City hosted the second community workshop
on February 27, 2020. The workshop solicited
input on the three draft plan alternatives and
endeavored to identify community priorities on
various topics.
Community Surveys
Staff prepared two online community surveys
(April 2020 and October 2020) to solicit input
from the members of the community. The surveys
aimed to reach community members unable to
attend the workshops. An online questionnaire
on the draft alternatives was created by staff
to solicit input from the community at-large in
October 2020. About 30 community members
responded. The majority of the participants
preferred Alternative 3, supporting higher
residential densities and heights, allowing small
on the proposed transportation improvements,
and parks and open space proposals. Opinions
varied over preservation of the cannery building.
Some preferred removal of old cannery building
while others supported partial retention.
Project Website
To augment the community engagement
efforts, the city hosted a robust project website
that served as the primary online portal for
community engagement. It included information
on project updates, upcoming events, updated
summaries of workshops and staff reports.
Public Noticing / Mailing List
Notices of all public hearings and WG meetings
were published in accordance with the
regulations set forth by the Palo Alto Municipal
Code and City regulations. Additionally, an
extensive emailing list consisting of over 430
interested community members was developed
and maintained by City staff and used for
disseminating information to all interested
individuals.
Stakeholder Group Meetings
Stakeholder groups including property owners,
commercial tenants, area residents, Palo Alto
advocates (affordable housing representatives,
bicycle groups, environmental representatives,
and their input was gathered through a series
of six meetings. Staff also presented to the
December 2018, on February 20, 2020, and on
Board Members indicated an interest to site a
new school to serve new families conceived in
the draft alternatives. The City is supportive of
working together to understand student yield
from proposed typologies and suitable sites.
During the development and public review of
alternatives, City staff have continued discussions
with stakeholders, such as property owners and
affordable housing advocates to gather their
feedback on evolving policy ideas and aspects of
the alternatives.
Decision Maker Meetings
Since the initiation of the NVCAP planning
work in October 2018, City staff have provided
several updates to the following boards: City
Council, Historic Resources Board (HRB), Parks
and Recreation Commission (PRC), Planning
and Transportation Commission (PTC), and the
Architectural Review Board (ARB).
1.6
Figure 21 A sketch session and report back during the NVCAP
working group meeting
Figure 22 A presentation during a community workshop
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
26 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 27
Vision
2
2.1 Plan Concept
2.2 Land Use
2.3 Ground Floor Edges
2.4 Mobility
2.5 Ecology and Sustainability
2.6 Urban Form
The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan sets forth
The vision frameworks described in the following pages illustrates the
desired physical form delivered incrementally over time which:
•Honors the storied history and
unique character of the North
Ventura neighborhood;
•Understands the needs of
current residents and puts
forward near-term solutions to
current challenges;
•Establishes a long-term
framework for desired growth
so more people can call North
Ventura home; and
•Invests in community
infrastructure to support
an equitable, resilient, and
sustainable Palo Alto.
2.1
Plan Concept
The NVCAP Concept at Potential Full Build-out
GREEN STORMWATER
INFRASTRUCTURE
SEAMLESS CONNECTION
TO CALTRAIN
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
FRIENDLY STREETS
ENHANCED
URBAN FOREST
ENERGY EFFICIENT
BUILDINGS
COMMUNITY
OPEN SPACE
CELEBRATING
HISTORY
NATURALIZED
MATADERO CREEK
ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS
AND HABITAT RESPECTING EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY HOMESINTERSECTIONS BUILDINGS
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPTIONS
The actual development within the plan area will
vary based on each parcel’s project goals and
in Figure 23 does not incorporate development
projects recently approved or constructed.
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.2
Land Use
NVCAP aims to achieve the following targets for
these land uses within the plan area:
•Allow up to 530 new dwelling units;
•Approximately 2 acres of public open space;
•16,600 square feet of commercial development
including existing and new local retail and
professional services.
Existing and Future Development Potential by Land Use
Land Use Future
Residential
(units)
142 units 672 units
Parks (acres)0 acres 1.9 acres
744,000 sq.ft. 466,000 sq.ft.
Retail (sq.ft.) 111,200 sq.ft. 103,700 sq.ft.
NVCAP Land Use Framework
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.2
Residential
The NVCAP land use framework is principally
focused on supporting a variety of housing
options, a diverse range of unit sizes and
and price points to
support Palo Alto residents at different stages of
life. Residential density will depend on its location
within the Plan Area. For example, mixed use
midrise development will be encouraged along
commercial corridors whereas townhomes will
be encouraged adjacent to existing residential
development.
The land use designations listed below are
calibrated for a wide range of multi-family
housing typologies:
The high-density mixed-use designation is
located along the southern segment of El Camino
Real. The designation is intended to support
This designation requires active uses for ground
nodes along El Camino Real, to support its role as
a regional commercial corridor. The designation
requires that upper stories be residential. The medium-density mixed-use designation is
located on the northern segment of El Camino
Real and Page Mill Road. The designation is
apartment buildings. This designation requires
Real, to support its role as a regional commercial
corridor. The designation requires that upper
stories be residential.
Project Goals
Housing and Land Use
Add to the City’s supply of multi-
family housing, including market rate,
affordable, “missing middle,” and senior
housing in a walkable, mixed-use, transit-
accessible neighborhood, with retail and
commercial services, open space, and
possibly arts and entertainment uses.
Balance of Community Interests
Balance community-wide objectives
with the interests of neighborhood
residents and minimize displacement of
existing residents.
The low-density mixed-use designation serves
as a transition between the high-density mixed-
use area and the low-density residential areas
located in the interior of the plan area. The
designation area is also located along Ash
Street and Portage Avenue, to support mid-
to-low-rise multi-family development near the
are encouraged but not required. Residential is
The high-density residential designation is
located on the large 395 Page Mill Road site and
is targed towards development on the surface
parking lots.
The medium-density residential designation
is located at the 340 Portage Avenue site to
support the long-term goal of supporting
additional housing in the plan area. The
designation requires that both the ground
designation is intended to support a mix of
townhouses and mid-rise apartments. Allowable
heights are calibrated to support sensitive
structures such as the Cannery building.
Example of High-Density
Mixed Use in Palo Alto
Example of Medium-Density
Mixed Use in Palo Alto
Example of Low-Density
Mixed Use in Palo Alto
Example of High Density
Residential in Palo Alto
Example of Medium Density
Residential in Palo Alto
The low-density residential designation is
calibrated to both facilitate new housing
development while also being sensitive to the
existing single-family neighborhood fabric -
located along Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue.
This area of existing single-family homes has
been designated as an area of stability and will
Example of Low Density
Residential in Palo Alto
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.2
The Cloudera Galactic HQ is
located at 395 Page Mill Road
FAR
High-Density Mixed Use 61-100 55*65 3.0:1 NV-MXH
Medium-Density Mixed-Use 31-70 45*55 2.0:1 NV-MXM
Low-Density Mixed Use 3-17 35*35 0.5:1 NV-MXL
High Density Residential 61-100 55*65 3.0:1 NV-R4
Medium Density Residential 16-30 35*45 1.5:1 NV-R3
Low Density Residential 1 or 2 units/lot 30 0.45:1 NV-R2
NV-R1
Public Facilities and Open Space n/a n/a n/a NV-PF
Proposed NVCAP Development Standards
To bolster the City’s affordable housing program,
new townhome ownership projects across the
plan area would provide 20% inclusionary below
market rate (BMR) units. For all other housing types,
both ownership and rental, a 15% inclusionary BMR
requirement would apply. In accordance with the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), in-lieu fees may
be paid in certain circumstances.
Proposed 100% below-market-rate (BMR) projects
in the NVCAP are eligible for an additional height
bonus through either the State Density Bonus or the
City’s Housing Incentive Program.
This land use designation is located in the
southeastern corner of the plan area. This will
include the approximately 2 acre public open space
as well as the re-naturalization of the Matadero
Creek between Park Boulevard and Lambert
Avenue.
* 100% Affordable Housing is eligible for an additional 33 feet when using the applicable Housing Incentive Program
development standards.
Existing land uses are permitted to remain in
place and continue operations. Existing buildings
or land uses which become nonconforming
as a result of the new zoning and land use
in the Zoning Code regarding nonconforming
buildings and uses. Certain limits are established
for repairs, additions, restoration, expansion, and
occupancy after an extended vacancy. See PAMC
18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying
Facilities) for applicable requirements.
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.3
Ground Floor
Edges
NVCAP Ground Floor
Edges Framework
For design standards and guidelines, go to:
Chapter 5: Site and Building Design
REQUIRED
RETAIL EDGE
REQUIRED
RETAIL EDGE
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.3
To create a pedestrian-friendly environment and
new development within within designated areas
of high-density and medium-density mixed-use
designations will provide active uses on frontages
facing a public right-of-way, greenway, or park,
to the degree feasible. Retail or retail-like uses are
Real and encouraged along Park Boulevard.
select nodes along prominent corridors, NVCAP
is supporting the ability for residents to walk to
everyday services and subsequently reduce the
number of cars on the road. See Figure 32 on
Page 38-39 for locations of the designated active
use areas.
Active uses include but are not limited to the
following:
•Neighborhood-serving retail which provides
goods and services that people would
frequently use to take care of their personal and
household needs. Examples include grocery
stores, drug stores, restaurants, dry cleaners, hair
salons, etc.
•
Business, Medical, and Professional; use should
be neighborhood serving.
•Public Uses including a community room and
daycare.
•Building lobbies.
•Spaces accessory to residential uses, such as
shared kitchens, and mail rooms.
•Building frontage for mechanical equipment,
transformer doors, parking garage entrances,
exit stairs, and other facilities necessary to the
operation of the building are excluded from this
requirement.
Plan Area, an urban edge should be created to
foster healthy street life. This includes storefronts
and transparency for homegrown businesses.
Traditional retail such as food and beverage
establishments are a subset of active uses.
Residential stoops, porches, patios, terraces,
and frontage courts create a social edge to a
neighborhood street. When set back by a small
distance and vertically above the sidewalk grade,
they can also ensure privacy at a comfortable
social distance for a residential unit.
Neighborhood-serving retail along major
boulevards like El Camino Real.
Building lobbies and other accessory spaces to
residential uses are considered active uses.
Residential stoops should be set back and elevated
to provide privacy for residents.
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.4
Mobility
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be designed
for people of all ages and abilities, and accessible
and other amenities. Streets and intersections
will be designed to prioritize local circulation and
access and to encourage low vehicle speeds. The
planned improvements will be fully integrated into
the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure seamless
connections for all users.
NVCAP Mobility Framework
For design standards and guidelines, go to:
Chapter 3: Public Realm
Chapter 4: Accessibility and Mobility
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.4
A well-designed, integrated pedestrian network
is a vital component of the NVCAP. The mobility
framework prioritizes a fully connected, ADA-
accessible sidewalk network throughout the
neighborhood. Wide, tree-lined sidewalks will
and abilities can move safely and conveniently
throughout the neighborhood.
Portage Avenue, Park Boulevard, and Olive
Avenue will become priority walking routes to the
California Avenue Caltrain Station and the bus
stops along El Camino Real to ensure convenient
alternatives to driving.
In addition to established public sidewalks, the
Plan envisions publicly accessible private paths to
bridge existing gaps.
Project Goals
Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Connections
connections to transit, pedestrian, and
bicycle facilities, including connections to
the Caltrain Station, Park Boulevard, and
El Camino Real.
Connected Street Grid
sidewalk gaps and street connections to
California Avenue, the Caltrain Station,
and El Camino Real where appropriate.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate development
of new community facilities and
infrastructure with private development,
recognizing both the community’s needs
and that such investments can increase
the cost of housing.
Spotlight:
The Portage Avenue Woonerf
Central to the vision for a re-imagined North
NVCAP Pedestrian Network
Publicly accessible shared path on private
property
Pedestrian path
Woonerf
External pedestrian connections
Project Boundary
View of the Bell Street Woonerf in Seattle, Washington
Legend
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
Street To
El Camino Real Page Mill Road Lambert Avenue Separated and/or Buffered
Bike Lane along segment
Ash Street
Page Mill Road Olive Avenue Shared Use Path
Acacia Avenue Lambert Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
Park Boulevard Page Mill Road Lambert Avenue BufferedSeparated Bike
Lanes
Page Mill Road El Camino Real Park Boulevard Separated or Buffered Bike
Lanes
Olive Avenue El Camino Real Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard with Wide
Sidewalks
Portage Avenue
El Camino Real Ash Street Shared Use Path or Bicycle
Boulevard
Ash Street Park Boulevard Woonerf or Shared Use Path
The NVCAP will feature a high-quality, “low-
stress” bikeway network that will be comfortable
for people of all ages and abilities to use. The
proposed network will be integrated into the
citywide network to ensure safe, convenient
connections to the adjacent neighborhoods. This
will be achieved by selecting bicycle facilities that
prioritize safety and comfort based on vehicle
speeds and volumes, and with intersections
signage and ample bicycle parking are also
integral elements of the network. The bicycle
network will support a range of users, including
the future integration of scooters, e-bikes, and
other micromobility devices.
The low-stress bike network will include
separated bicycle lanes on busier streets, bicycle
boulevards on calmer neighborhood streets,
and well-designed intersections throughout the
project Plan.
are off-street, two-way
bikeways physically separated from motor vehicle
other non-motorized users.
are dedicated bikeways
that combine the user experience of a multi-
use path but are located on a street. They
are physically distinct from the sidewalk and
objects such as parked vehicles, a curb, green
stormwater infrastructure, or posts.
2.4
provide dedicated on-street
space for bicyclists delineated with a designated
buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the
adjacent motor vehicle travel lane.
are streets with low vehicle
volumes and speeds, designated and designed
to prioritize bicyclists. Bicycle boulevards use
signs, pavement markings, and speed and
volume management measures to discourage
vehicle cut-through trips and include safe,
convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterials.
The 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan includes a potential future grade-separated
pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Caltrain/
Alma Street, either near Matadero Creek/
Park Boulevard or between Margarita and
Loma Verde Avenues. This project is outside of
the NVCAP boundary but will close the gap
between existing crossings and greatly improve
east-west connectivity in conjunction with other
improvements.
The intersections surrounding the Plan Area will
be enhanced to improve access, safety, and
connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. This is
particularly important for pedestrian and bicycle
safety, as the current intersections’ designs largely
prioritize vehicular speed and access. New design
guidance and signal technology advancements
offer options for improved intersection
interactions between people walking, biking,
and driving. In particular, intersections on the
between bicycles and vehicles must be designed
thoughtfully.
Bike Facility Degree of Separation
NVCAP Bike Network Framework
Separated
Bike Lane
Publicly Accessible
Shared Paths on
Private Property
Woonerf
Bike Boulevard
External Bike
Connections
Project Boundary
Legend Shared Paths
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.4
Transit
The success of transit is strongly dependent
upon the level of convenience that is offered
to the patron. Currently, the North Ventura
neighborhood contains two transit stops: a mid-
block stop located at El Camino Real and Portage
Avenue and a far-side stop located at El Camino
Real and Page Mill Road. The mobility framework
focuses on designing intuitive, accessible, and
safe routes to transit through priority pedestrian
to Caltrain, enhanced bus stop amenities for
passengers, and a mobility hub along Portage
Avenue.
s
The mobility framework serves the needs of
existing and future development with vehicle
and parking strategies aimed to prioritize local
circulation and access, encourage low speeds,
and determine right-sized parking capacity.
To support local access and mitigate cut-through
from Page Mill Road to Olive Avenue into a one-
way southbound street. Olive Avenue from Ash
Street to El Camino Real will remain a two-way
street.
Avenue is permitted but should be discouraged.
Vehicle circulation in this area will be primarily
for access to buildings located on the woonerf.
Acacia Avenue from Ash Street to Park Boulevard
will be a private aisle for accessing residential
frontage on Acacia Avenue for parking and
unloading.
In compliance with AB-2097, no parking
minimums are to be set as the neighborhood
is near a Caltrain Station. However, there
will also be no parking maximums, allowing
the neighborhood to follow a market-based
regulatory approach. No new surface parking
is proposed, and new parking supply should be
implemented on the ground or basement levels
of new buildings. Where new buildings are not
proposed, existing surface parking spaces are
to remain to support remaining commercial
single-family homes on Pepper Avenue and Olive
Spotlight:
Mobility Hub
•
•
•
•
•
• Real-time travel information signage and
•
•
•
Avenue, with no new street parking proposed
along new developments. Street parking near
intersections should be restricted to ensure
large vehicles and emergency vehicles are
able to safely make turns. To support the new
new buildings, short-term parking should be
implemented on the ground or basement levels
of the new developments.
TDM strategies can be effective at encouraging
fewer trips made by single-occupancy vehicles
(SOV). An effective TDM Plan ensures that
alternative modes of transportation, such as
walking, bicycling, public transit, or other forms
of shared mobility, are made available to site
occupants and nearby community members.
beyond reducing SOV trips, including:
•
congestion and air quality impacts produced by
new development.
•Improving transportation circulation and safety
conditions for community members.
•Quality of life enhancements that improve the
public realm.
NVCAP Vehicle Movement and Parking Framework
Major Intersection
Improvements
Minor Intersection
Improvements
Project Boundary
Vehicular Movement
Vehicular Street on Private Property
Surface Parking
Vehicular Street
Legend
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.5
Ecology and
Sustainability
This framework goes beyond mitigation,
adaptation, and resilience, but grounded in
regeneration – identifying opportunities for
renewal, restoration, carbon sequestration, and
growth of the natural environment.
The future streets, parks, natural areas, and
buildings will restore and enhance habitat
stormwater management, cleaner air and
cleaner water, and healthier habitats for current
and future generations.
NVCAP Ecology and Sustainability Framework
For design standards and guidelines, go to:
Chapter 3: Public Realm
Chapter 4: Accessibility and Mobility
Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space
Chapter 6: Site and Building Design
GREEN STORMWATER
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENHANCED
URBAN FOREST
ENERGY EFFICIENT
BUILDINGS
COMMUNITY
OPEN SPACE
CELEBRATING
HISTORY
NATURALIZED
MATADERO CREEK
ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS
AND HABITAT
POLLINATOR
PATHWAYS
GREEN
ROOFS
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.5
Located in the southeast corner of the Plan
Area, NVCAP proposes to transform a surface
parking lot into a new public park that is
approximately two acres. The potential future
naturalization of Matadero Creek between Park
Boulevard and Lambert Avenue serves as the
organizing framework for the park’s design and
neighborhood destination, inviting Palo Alto
residents, employees, and visitors to enjoy access
to recreational activities, habitat, and inclusive
community programming. Shared multi-use
pathways weave through the park, providing
access to the Creek and seamless connections
to the citywide pedestrian and bicycle network,
ensuring that the park is a beloved city asset that
can be enjoyed by the entire community.
The primary entrance to the park is along the
proposed Portage Avenue woonerf directly
across from the historic Palo Alto Cannery,
creating an iconic activity node. The design of
the proposed Portage Avenue woonerf supports
a natural extension of the park to the renovated
Cannery building.
Project Goals
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment,
while addressing the principles of
sustainability.
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate development
of new community facilities and
infrastructure with private development,
recognizing both the community’s needs
and that such investments can increase
the cost of housing.
NVCAP proposes future re-naturalization of
a section of the Matadero Creek, removing
the existing U-shaped concrete channel and
replacing it with a widened, natural channel.
The goals of a renaturalization project are to
ecosystem habitat, and avoid adverse impacts
NVCAP supports a widened natural corridor with
an area available for riparian plantings, creative
landscape architecture design, and increased
recreation access. This concept includes replacing
the Lambert Avenue bridge with a longer
span and widening the creek channel from
approximately 30 feet wide to 100 feet wide.
As an integral part of the Plan Area’s ecological
and sustainability framework, the public realm
consists of a coordinated network of multi-
functional landscapes that effectively manage
stormwater, create pollinator pathways, mitigate
the urban heat island effect, and create usable
public spaces for all to enjoy.
An example of a restored creek in San Luis Obispo, CA.
An example of green stormwater infrastructure
integrated with street furnishings.
A conceptual design for the future public park
SAFE CONNECTION
TO BOULWARE PARK
COMMUNITY
GARDENS
OPEN SPACE
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
2.6
Urban Form
TH
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
For design standards and guidelines, go to:
Chapter 6: Site and Building Design
Project Goals
Urban Design, Design Guidelines, and Neighborhood Fabric
Develop human-scale urban design
strategies, and design guidelines that
strengthen and support the neighborhood
scale and character of the surrounding
residential neighborhood.
The Urban Form framework was developed
taking into account the existing neighborhood
in the plan area, including the existing
residential neighborhoods. In addition to
creating a well-connected neighborhood
accessible by all modes of transportation,
the framework also evaluated transitions
between the future development and existing
neighborhoods, as well as between private
development and the public realm. This
informed the building standards and site
design standards for the plan area.
The design standards and guidelines for
the public realm, public park, and buildings
are laid out in the subsequent chapters.
The standards and guidelines will create a
complete and well-connected neighborhood
that is respectful of the existing urban fabric
and achieve the goals of the plan.
Urban form design standards requires setbacks and stepbacks
for new development that is adjacent to single family zoning.
Internal streets have height allowances that
are conducive with missing middle housing like
townhomes.
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
3.1 Sidwalk Zone
3.4 Paving
Public Realm
3
The public realm is a connective tissue of streets, parks,
plazas, and natural spaces that weaves throughout the
neighborhood, serving as an organizing framework for
future development while fostering inclusive, experience-
rich spaces for the entire Palo Alto community.
Building on the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan’s Urban Design Vision, the Plan
Area’s public realm will ‘serve as centers
for public life with gathering places,
bicycle and pedestrian access, safety-
enhancing night-time lighting and clear
visual access, and, in some cases, small-
scale retail uses such as cafes.’
The standards and guidelines layout
a planned, intentional, well-designed
public realm network that works in
unison to achieve multiple goals:
•Aesthetically pleasing, context-
appropriate streets that enhance
residents’ quality of life and Palo Alto’s
reputation as ‘a gracious residential
community.’
•A comprehensive multi-modal
network that provides equitable
access to clean, safe, and reliable
mobility options and seamlessly
connects to the larger citywide
transportation network.
•Open spaces that blend people
places with green stormwater
infrastructure to provide new social
gathering outdoor rooms while
showcasing climate-positive design.
3.2
The neighborhood is bounded on the west and
north by two major vehicular roads: El Camino
Real, a major arterial, and Oregon Expressway,
an street designed to move higher volumes of
However, most streets within the Plan Area are
pedestrians priority in terms of scale and facility.
The plan is aligned with the recommendations of
the National Association of City Transportation
widths such as 10 feet are appropriate in urban
areas and have a positive impact on street safety
Standards:
The regulations that govern the requirements
below. The information described here provides
a general overview of requirements and is not
intended to replace the regulations referenced.
a width of 10 feet.
3.2.2 California Fire Code
California Fire Code. This includes the following:
•Roadway widths shall accommodate aerial
for buildings over 27 feet tall.
•Walkable pathways shall be a minimum of 16
3.2.3 Crosswalk Treatments
All crosswalk surfacing and treatments shall
3.2.4 Intersection Enhancements
All intersection enhancements shall select from
the following toolbox:
•High visibility marked crosswalks.
•Raised crosswalks.
•Advance stop bars and yield lines.
•Daylighting to improve sightlines by
removing parking adjacent to the
intersection.
•ADA-accessible, bi-directional curb ramps.
•Curb extensions or bulb-outs.
•Bicycle detention and markings to indicate
the position and path for bicyclists to cross
the intersection.
•
•Accessible pedestrian signals at intersections
with clear markings, audio, and braille
messaging.
•Leading pedestrian intervals at signalized
intersections for pedestrians to establish their
presence in the crosswalks before vehicles
proceed.
•Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Guidelines:
3.2.5 Artful Intersections
To enhance the aesthetics and vibrancy of
the roadway, key intersections and crosswalks
should be evaluated for the inclusion of public
art, such as unique pavers, intersection murals,
or crosswalk artwork, where appropriate. For
additional information, refer to the Public Art
Program provisions and Public Art Master Plan.
3.1
Sidewalk Zone design is important for creating
a safe, accessible, and attractive urban
environment that caters to the needs of
pedestrians and cyclists.
The City has established design guidelines and
required standards for sidewalk improvements
outlined in PAMC Section 18.24.020 that are
applicable to development in the NVCAP.
The design elements apply to the three distinct
sidwalk zones: Frontage, Sidewalk, and Street.
Below is description of the zones and objective
design standards. For additional information
please refer to the respecitve PAMC section.
Project Goal
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate
development of new community
facilities and infrastructure with private
development, recognizing both the
community’s needs and that such
investments can increase the cost of
housing.
Figure 48 The Sidewalk Zone
Frontage Sidewalk Street
Building
Setback Frontage Area Pedestrian Clear
Zone Furniture Zone
Mixed-Use
•Sidewalk Dining
•Outdoor Displays
•Public Art
•Seating
•
Residential
•Stoops
•Porches
•Front Yards
•
•Sidewalk •Planting
•Street
Lighting
•Seating
•Bike Parking
•Public Art
•Outdoor
Dining
•Bus Shelters
•
•Street Parking
•Bike Lanes
•Drop-off Zones
•Parklets
•Bus Stops
Table 6 Allowed Features by Sidwalk Zone
For more information on street
dimensions, go to: Chapter 4:
Accessibility and Mobility
58 59
3.3
Project Goal
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment,
while addressing the principles of
sustainability.
As an integral part of the Plan Area’s ecological
network, the public realm will consist of a
coordinated network of green stormwater
infrastructure intended to implement the
Comprehensive Plan’s vision to “provide
beauty for residents. Palo Alto will strive for clean
air and clean water.” Inspired by natural systems,
the following standards and guidelines for
green stormwater infrastructure and the urban
forest are aimed at creating multi-functional
landscapes that:
•Effectively manage stormwater.
•Create pollinator pathways.
•De-pave unnecessary hardscaped areas to
mitigate the urban heat island effect.
•Create usable outdoor rooms which are an
extension of parks and plazas.
PU
B
L
I
C
R
E
A
L
M
The regulations that govern the requirements
for green stormwater infrastructure and tree
protection are mentioned below. The information
described here provides a general overview of
requirements and is not intended to replace the
regulations referenced.
3.3.1 Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Green stormwater ifrastructure is built into
our urban environment to collect, slow, and
clean stormwater runoff through the use of
natural processes. Development is subject to
Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
on local requirements, see the Green Stormwater
Stormwater Pollution Prevention.
3.3.2 Street Trees
Palo Alto boasts a large population of trees
and has been acknowledged by both the
State of California and the National Arbor Day
Foundation as a Tree City-USA. Preserving and
enhancing the City’s urban tree canopy is key
consideration for all development, especially for
vision of the new neighborhoods within NVCAP.
For tree preservation requirements, PAMC
Chapter 8, Trees and Vegetation, provide
standards for both public and privately owned
trees. These requirements apply to all trees
and landscaping within the public right of
mature trees are subject to the tree protection
requirements. Please refer to the PAMC for more
details.
For new development requiring street trees,
property owners shall consult with the City’s
Urban Forestry division to determine the
appropriate street tree. Tree species should
be selected based on a combination of their
aesthetics and their ecological performance
allows, either on private setbacks or within the
sidewalk zones, the planting of a second row of
street trees is encouraged.
3.3.3 Pollinator Pathways
The adopted Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural
Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard as Pollinator
Pathways.
Street design for these streets shall integrate
support pollinators such as hummingbirds and
Figure 49 Bioretention
60 61
3.5
Adequate exterior lighting should be provided in
all dedicated open spaces and along all streets
safe pedestrian passage. Lighting design also has
an opportunity to support habitat and mitigate
light pollution, allowing current and future
generations to be able to look up and clearly see
the night sky.
The information described here provides a
general overview of requirements and is not
intended to replace established relevant
Standards:
meet City of Palo Alto standards per PAMC 12.08
and be approved by the City.
3.5.2 Fully-Shielded Fixtures
minimize glare, light trespass, and light pollution
throughout the neighborhood.
3.5.3 Dark Sky Compliant
adhering to recommended kelvin temperature
impacts on humans and wildlife except where
otherwise required for safety. This standard shall
be applicable until the City adopts the Citywide
ordinance on Dark Sky standards.
3.5.4 Key Pedestrian Routes and Scale
Lighting shall reinforce key active transportation
streets and all lighting shall be scaled to the
pedestrian and bicycle experience.
3.5.5 Safety
Lighting shall allow facial recognition along paths
of travel. Lighting shall not create glare or “hot
spots” that would inhibit visual accessibility.
Guidelines:
3.5.6 Habitat Areas
If lighting is appropriate in the proposed public
park adjacent to the Creek and sensitive habitat
motion sensors or timers to not disrupt the
circadian rhythms of wildlife.
3.5.7 Retail / Active Use Areas
Lighting on private property along El Camino
Real and Portage should incorporate signature
Figure 51
mitigate light pollution and the health of both humans
and wildlife.
PU
B
L
I
C
R
E
A
L
M
3.4
the character, connectivity, and identity of the
North Ventura neighborhood’s varied streets and
open spaces. A hierarchy of paving materials
on streets like El Camino Real, Portage Avenue,
and Park Boulevard can help create clear
neighborhood.
Standards:
3.4.1 City Standards
All street paving shall meet City of Palo Alto
Sidewalk Standards per PAMC 12.08 and be
approved by the city engineer or designate.
Materials that reduce the urban heat island
effect by using pavement with a Solar
selected for use.
3.4.3 Portage Avenue Special Paving
The Portage Avenue Woonerf shall incorporate
a special paving pattern. The use of contrasting,
tactile, and high-quality paving that distinguishes
the bike lanes and vehicle lanes with a curbless
street that prioritizes pedestrians, gathering and
spill-over activities is encouraged.
Guidelines:
3.4.4 Responsible Material Use
Paved areas should be made of sustainable
paving materials, including recycled, local,
and sustainable sourced materials. Consider
opportunities for the reuse of demolition waste
from the site.
3.4.5 Accent Paving at Intersections
Street improvement projects should install accent
paving at key intersections and raised crossings. .
3.4.6 El Camino Real Special Paving
In coordination with Caltrans and VTA,
the segment of El Camino Real within the
neighborhood should incorporate a special
Grand Boulevard. The paving material should
extend into the private setback along active
and welcoming public space for adjacent
businesses.
3.4.7 Pervious Paving for Green Stormwater
Infrastructure
Large hardscaped areas such as parking areas,
sidewalks, and driveways could utilize types of
pervious pavements to reduce ponding, recharge
groundwater, and prevent stormwater pollution.
Figure 50 Light colored pavement reduces the
urban heat island effect.
For more information on
intersections go to: Chapter 4:
Accessibility and Mobility
62 63
3.7
Building on the City’s legacy of commissioning
iconic public art within urban centers like
Downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue, the
integration of new and diverse public art can
within the neighborhood. This plan is aligned
with the City of Palo Alto’s Public Art Master Plan’s
guiding principles which state that Palo Alto’s
public art will:
•Be distributed citywide, focusing on areas where
people gather and in unexpected places that
encourage exploration;
•Represent a broad variety of artistic media and
forms of expression;
•Enhance City infrastructure, transportation
corridors, and gateways;
•Include both permanent and temporary
artworks;
•Strive for artistic excellence;
•Be maintained for people to enjoy.
Guidelines:
3.7.1 Location of Public Art
Public art should be located at major social
engagement areas such as the proposed
public park and the Cannery Building, along
transportation corridors such as El Camino Real,
Portage Avenue, and Park Boulevard, and at
major gateway moments announcing that you
are entering the neighborhood.
Figure 53 The location of public art such as Passages
by Susan Zoccola should be located at the
public park, major transportation corridors
and major gateways.
PU
B
L
I
C
R
E
A
L
M
3.6
is an effective tool that can celebrate the
neighborhood’s history, foster a sense of place,
and support clear and predictable navigability
for residents, employees, and visitors.
Standards:
3.6.1: Caltrans Standards
Roadway signage shall comply with the
3.6.2: City Standards
Active Transportation signage shall adhere to
the Design Standards included in the City of Palo
Alto’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan;
the regulations in Sign Ordinance, PAMC 16.20
may also apply.
Guidelines:
3.6.3: Shared Use Signage
Curbless streets such as Portage Avenue
Woonerf should have signage that indicates the
delineation of the right of way for pedestrians,
bicycles, and vehicles. Shared trails within the
public park should include signage indicating the
shared use area at pedestrian and bicycle eye
level.
3.6.4: Celebrate the Cannery and Other
Landmarks
neighborhood landmarks like the Cannery
by correlating graphically and emulating a
consistent color and material palette.
3.6.5: Neighborhood Maps and Directional
Signage
highlights nearby destinations along pedestrian
pathways should be installed at major gateways
into the neighborhood.
3.6.6: Mile Markers and Educational Placards
The use of mile markers and educational and
interpretive placards can be placed along the
trails along Matadero Creek to inform visitors
about the re-naturalization process and
Figure 52 Neighborhood map and directional
visitors to the area.
64 65
5.1 Public Park
5.2 Matadero Creek
Parks and Open Space
5
NVCAP’s ecological framwork takes direct input from
the community and working group who advocated for
the need for more reacreational space for residents in
the community and places to be outdoors and gather.
In addition, the ecological framework takes inspiration
from the City’s Sustanability and Climate Action Plan,
identifying opportunities for renewal, restoration, carbon
sequestration, and growth of the natural environment.
The future streets, parks, natural areas,
and buildings will restore and enhance
habitat and pollinator pathways,
stormwater management, cleaner
air and cleaner water, and healthier
habitats for current and future
generations.
In addition, the future parks and
natural areas will provide much
needed recreational and outdoor
space where the community can
gather.
The Ecological Framework includes
the following:
•Public Park
•Matadero Creek
5.1
Public Park
Located in the southeast corner of the plan
area, approximately two acres of public open
space is proposed. The proposed naturalization
of Matadero Creek between Park Boulevard
and Lambert Avenue will serve as the
organizing framework for the park’s design and
neighborhood destination, inviting Palo Alto
residents, employees, and visitors to enjoy access
to recreational activities, habitat, and inclusive
community programming. Bounded by the
proposed Portage Avenue woonerf and Park
Boulevard, the proposed public park is seamlessly
integrated into the adopted citywide Pedestrian
and Bicycle Plan. The design of the proposed
Portage Avenue woonerf supports a natural
extension of the park, directly connecting to the
Cannery Building.
Standards:
5.1.1 Park Acreage and Dimensions
An approximately two-acre public park is
proposed in the plan. The details of the public
park and open space will be fully developed
in the future when it becomes a project, with a
public process. The concept of the public park is
included in the plan and is generally described in
Figure 71.
5.1.2 Circulation
All multi-use paths should form a continuous
path connecting all points of entry as illustrated
in Figure 71.
Programmed spaces should connect to the plan
area mobility network via multi-use paths.
The multi-use paths network would create a safe
connection across Lambert Street to Boulware
Park.
The minimum width of the multi-use path will be
12 feet.
5.1.3 Park Gateways
to connect with the pedestrian and bike mobility
network around the park. The character of these
gateways to the park is further outlined in Figure
71.
5.1.4 Utilities
Electrical service, potable water, and sewer
supply should be provided to accommodate
varied events such as movie nights, festivals to
serve small park structures; and along the park
trails and the Picnic Area.
5.1.5 Design Approval
Once the park becomes a project, the design
of the park would be subject to the typical City
review process including review by the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
Figure 75 Conceptual Plan of Location of Park Gateways and Circulation Paths
Park Gateways
Access to park
SAFE CONNECTION
TO BOULWARE PARK
COMMUNITY
GARDENS
OPEN SPACE
ACTIVE ZONES
OBSERVATION DECK
Viewing shed
Legend
Project Goals
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment,
while addressing the principles of
sustainability.
Balance of Community Interests
Balance community-wide objectives with
the interests of neighborhood residents
and minimize displacement of existing
residents.
106 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 107
Guidelines:
5.1.6 Programming
Active Park programming may include but is
natural habitat area, community garden, or
amphitheater.
In addition to active programming, park design
should accommodate passive uses such as
reading and picnicking.
When siting park elements, consider types of
activity, periods of use or vacancy, availability of
sun or shade, and the differing needs of a diverse
range of visitors such as small children, adult
athletes, and dog owners.
The park should include amenities to support the
commercial environment on Portage Avenue such
play spaces, and public art.
Surrounded by development on more than one
side, the program elements should be designed
to be protected from wind and down-drafts
from buildings with strategic tree planting and
thoughtful siting of passive programming.
5.1.7 Native Plantings
Where possible, pollinator friendly native plants
should be incorporated. Refer to Valley Water’s
Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near
Streams Chapter 4 (Design Guides for Guidelines
and Standards) for the placement of native
plants along the creek.
Figure 76 An example of passive park programming
Figure 77 An example of active park programming
PA
R
K
S
108 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 109
5.2
Matadero
Creek
The Plan envisions the full naturalization of
Matadero Creek between Park Boulevard and
a maximum of 100 feet riparian corridor serving
maximum geomorphic form and ecological
function. Leading with resilience in mind, the
design offers the creek the capability to convey
The full details of the renaturalization of the creek
will be developed in the future when it becomes
a project. Appropriate City review process,
including a public process and coordination with
applicable agencies will be required.
Standards:
5.2.1 Creek Buffer
The creek section between Park Boulevard
and Lambert Avenue is buffered by a 100-foot
riparian corridor, at maximum. To determine the
further City coordination is required.
5.2.2 Coordination
Coordination with Santa Clara Valley Water
District shall be required to ensure the
renaturalization of the creek implement
adequate measures and standards to reduce
impact to the existing channel.
5.2.3 Circulation
The riparian corridor shall maintain public access
on both sides of the creek front and be designed
to embrace the Matadero creek as a central
feature.
Lambert Avenue bridge is recommended to be
replaced with a new bridge spanning 100 feet.
The recommended location shown in Figure
74 will connect Portage Avenue and Lambert
Avenue.
5.2.4 Wind Protection
As the riparian corridor is 10 feet lower than the
surrounding terrain, it should be designed to
be protected from wind and down-drafts from
surrounding areas with strategic tree planting
and thoughtful design of the shared trail routes.
5.2.5 Ecology
Impervious surfaces shall be discouraged in the
100 foot buffer as per Figure 74.
Plant selections shall reinforce the native and
surrounding ecology and promote habitat
development.
Figure 78 Conceptual Plan of the Matadero Creek buffer, circulation, and gateways
100 FEET RIPARIAN
CORRIDOR
10 FEET
GRADE DROP
NATURALIZED CREEK
Riparian Corridor Gateways
NO IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
IN 100 FEET BUFFER
Shared Path
PUBLIC ACCESS
ALONG CREEK
Riparian Corridor Buffer Boundary
Legend
Project Goals
Community Facilities and Infrastructure
Carefully align and integrate development
of new community facilities and
infrastructure with private development,
recognizing both the community’s needs
and that such investments can increase
the cost of housing.
Sustainability and the Environment
Protect and enhance the environment,
while addressing the principles of
sustainability.
110 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 111
PA
R
K
S
Figure 79 The Matadero Creek Channel is currently a constrained concrete trapezoidal channel.Figure 80 A naturalized creek has the opportunity to provide multi-use trails and habitat areas.
5.2.6 Gateways
Gateways to the corridor shall be recommended
at the following key intersections. See Figure 74.
Sloped walks, terraces, stairs, or ramps for bicycle
and pedestrian circulation shall be a key feature
wall designed to connect across the 10 feet
grade change between the public park and the
Matadero creek riparian corridor. This will ensure
that pedestrians and bicyclists can access both
the park and the riparian trail.
Gateway access to multi-use paths should be
designed to be ADA accessible to traverse the 10
feet grade change from the public park to the
creek.
5.2.7 Floodwalls or Retaining Walls
Concrete retaining walls shall be
designed to allow for vegetation to the extent
feasible.
5.2.8 Utilities
Electrical service and potable water shall be
provided along the trails.
Guidelines:
5.2.9 Public Art
Gateways, bridge, and other park amenities may
integrate public art/structures to indicate major
entry points, when appropriate.
5.2.10 The Matadero Creek Bridge
Observation areas should be integrated with the
design of the new bridge.
Educational placards should inform the public on
the re-naturalization of Matadero Creek.
112 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 113
6.1 Building Heights and Massing
6.2 Retail and Active Frontage
6.3 Portage Avenue Frontage
6.4 Residential Frontage
6.5 Sustainable Design
Site and Building Design
6
NVCAP’s urban form framework champions the design of
buildings that are respectful neighbors, human-scaled,
and embrace the street. New development will respond
to the surrounding context such as building up to El
Camino Real while creating a gentle transition to quieter
residential portions of the neighborhood.
This chapter provides guidance on
the desired future built form and sets
aspirations for how new buildings
will contribute to the character of
the NVCAP as it continues to be
developed incrementally over time.
The key factors that contribute to good
building architecture: building mass
and bulk appearance; pedestrian-
friendly design of the ground level, and
visual interest created by architectural
articulation, the materiality of the
building, and sustainable design.
The standards and guidelines have
been organized to address these
key elements under the following
headings:
•Building Heights and Massing
•Building Frontages
•Sustainable Design
114 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 115
6.1
Building Heights
and Massing
Building form and massing have a crucial role
in forming NVCAP’s built environment as a
framework for a comfortable and exciting public
architecture make associated building uses more
legible and well-organized. Massing regulations
such as allowable building heights and stepbacks
will support the gradual transition from taller
buildings along El Camino Real to quieter,
residential parts of the neighborhood.
Standards:
6.1.1 Building Heights
All new development shall conform to Figure 78
for maximum allowable building heights.
6.1.2 Affordable Housing Height Bonus
Through the City’s Housing Incentive Program
or the State Density Bonus, 100% below market
rate projects shall be eligible for additional bonus
height (up to 33 feet).
6.1.3 Stepdown to Single-Family Residential
Based on the development standards of a
adjacent zoning district, new development shall
stepdown to existing single family residential.
Refer to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as setback
and stepback requirements on side or rear lot
lines shall vary based on zoning. Daylight plane
height and slope shall be identical to those of the
most restrictive residential zoning district abutting
the lot line.
6.1.4 Utilities
Overhead public utilities shall be undergrounded
for buildings with roof edge heights over 27 feet
tall.
Guidelines:
6.1.5 Cannery Building Roof Datum
Any adaptive re-use projects directly adjacent
to the Cannery may be allowed to match the
structure’s 36 foot roof datum. The consideration
of this additional 12 inches of height above what
is permitted will be part of the development
project’s discretionary review.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
Figure 82 Allowable Height Map
Figure 81 An example of a daylight plane
requirement for mixed-use development
stepping down to single family residential
neighborhoods.
116 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 117
Remove the 55' height area near the park/green area; Increase all 55' to 65';
Increase the 35' height area between Olive and Portage Avenue to 45';
Increase all areas with a height of 45' to 55'; Increase the current 30' height to 35'
6.2
Retail and Active
Use Frontage
and activate streetscapes, enhancing the
public interface between new buildings and
the sidewalk. Within the Plan Area, the highest
concentration of retail and active uses are
located along El Camino Real. These ground
wide variety of commercial spaces including local
shops, cafes, maker spaces, co-working spaces,
and professional services.
Active uses are listed on page 40 of Section 2.3
(Ground Floor Edges).
Standards:
6.2.1 El Camino Real Active Frontage
all new development fronting El Camino Real.
edges.
6.2.2 Ground Floor Retail Height
a minimum of 14 feet.
6.2.3 Objective Standards
For Corner Conditions, Primary Entries, Façade
Design, and Transparency, new development
shall adhere to Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Chapter 18.24 Contextual Design Criteria and
Objective Design Standards.
Guidelines:
6.2.4 Park Boulevard
for new development fronting Park Boulevard.
6.2.5 Storefront Frontages
along each street frontage, expressing the unique
identity of each tenant. Where active uses or
retail frontages are required or located, the
following design standards shall apply:
•
shall use transparent glazing to the extent
feasible. Low-e glass or minimal tinting to
achieve sun control is permitted, provided
the glazing appears transparent when
viewed from the ground level.
•Window coverings are not permitted on the
Where operations preclude transparency
(e.g., theaters) or where privacy requires
window coverings, sidewalk-facing frontage
shall include items of visual interest including
displays of merchandise or artwork; visual
access shall be provided to a minimum
interior depth of 3 feet.
6.1.5 Outdoor Rooms
should be lined with active retail uses and have
ample space for spillover for outdoor dining,
murals, and retail displays.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
Figure 83 Figure 84
to allow for lively spillover of retail.
Figure 85
118 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 119
6.3 6.4
Portage Avenue
Frontage
Residential
Frontage
Portage Avenue is a designated focal point for
the plan area due to its adjacency to the historic
Cannery building, new park, and the planned
woonerf.
The Portage Avenue park frontage zone will be
designed as a vibrant, human-scaled pedestrian
environment. Active programming throughout
this area will enliven both the woonerf and
the adjacent public park. Businesses along
this frontage are ideal candidates for outdoor
dining spaces, creating a lively backdrop for park
activities.
Standards:
6.3.1 Ground Floor Entries
have a minimum of four (4) active doorways per
200 linear feet.
Guidelines:
6.3.2 Balconies and Terraces
The inclusion of balconies and terraces should
be encouraged along the streetwall above
take advantage of views of the public park
and to allow greater programmatic and visual
connection between uses in the buildings and
the park.
6.3.2 Respect the Cannery
Development along Portage Avenue adjacent to
the Cannery should emulate the Cannery, taking
cues from the materiality and fenestration, and
roof datum.
by the lower intensity of activity, generally
fronting onto streets that are quieter in character,
and serves to foster neighborhood connection.
Individual residential entries and stoops are an
effective way to activate the street and create
greater opportunities for social interaction. At
the same time, they should provide a sense of
privacy and comfortable social distance from the
sidewalk.
Standards:
The following standards are in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.24.020
(Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Design
Standards):
6.4.1 Ground Floor Entries
Entries must be raised above sidewalk grade
based on the setback condition from the
property line.
with direct, individual access onto a public right
of way, open space, or easement.
Guidelines:
6.4.2 Stoops
Residential units should provide a stoop to create
units are not required to have stoops and may be
entered at grade.
The design of stoops should balance the need to
create privacy for the unit occupant and allow
visual connection with the street.
Areas between stoops should be planted and
can be an opportunity to integrate Green
Stormwater Infrastructure.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
Figure 86 Figure 87
120 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 121
Sustainable
Design
Palo Alto has long been a leader in sustainability,
making impressive progress towards reducing
its carbon impacts, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and resource consumption. In October
2022, Palo Alto City Council passed an ambitious
carbon neutrality by 2030 goal, building on
the City’s existing goal of cutting emissions
80% below 1990 levels by 2030. The following
standards and guidelines are intended to support
the City’s larger climate action goals to ensure a
sustainable and resilient future.
Standards:
6.5.1 California Green Building (CALGREEN)
Standards Code
New development shall adhere to Chapter
16.14 California Green Building Standards Code.
As stated in the code, all newly constructed
residential buildings must meet CALGREEN Tier 2
requirements.
6.5.2 Bird-Safe Glass Design
All new mixed-use development that has facades
exceeding 30 percent glazing shall utilize bird-
safe design strategies. Applicants shall choose
from the following materials list:
A. Fritted Glass - Ceramic dots or ‘frits’ can be
silk-screened, printed, or otherwise applied to
the glass surface. This design element, useful
primarily for new construction, can also improve
solar heat gain control and reduce glare.
B. Etched Glass – Glass etching on the surface of
the glass can be achieved through acidic, caustic,
or abrasive substances. The etched markers
should be on the outside surface.
C. Permanent Stencils or Frosting - Frosted
glass is created by acid etching or sandblasting
transparent glass. Frosted areas are translucent,
levels of light transmission. An entire surface can
be frosted, or frosted patterns can be applied.
D. Exterior Apparatus - Fixed exterior screens,
insulation from strike impact, reduce solar
heat gain, reduce glare and provide weather
protection.
E. UV Coated Glass – Some birds can see into
the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum of light, a range
or absorbing patterns (transparent to humans
but visible to birds) are frequently suggested as
a solution for many bird collision problems. This
approach is not appropriate for situations where
the glazing is back lit.
The City is in the process of developing the
Citywide bird-safe design standards. Once
adopted, the Citywide standards shall supersede
the standards outlined in 6.5.2.
Guidelines:
6.5.3 Minimize Heat Gain
Building facades should be designed to balance
solar access with the need to control heat gain.
This could include the following:
•Shade windows with architectural features
that add visual interest by creating textural
variations.
•Architectural elements that should be used on
south-facing facades.
•Fixed shading features, which are designed with
a range of projection and spacing dimensions
that minimize heat gain and composed with
visually pleasing rhythms to avoid monotonous
building facades.
•Perforated horizontal overhang
•Awnings that are well integrated with the overall
building façade, especially for retail on the
•
that double as privacy screens for outdoor
private spaces such as balconies and terraces
overlooking El Camino Real.
•Trellis, Vegetation on windows and green walls
allow for minimizing heat gain while additionally
bolstering the overall concept of ecological
design.
•Shrubs and tree shade wherever possible should
augment façade design to minimize heat gain.
•Use of low-solar-transmittance glazing to
reduce solar gain.
•Use window treatments to reduce solar gain.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
6.5
Project Goals
Sustainability and the Environment
sustainability.
Balance of Community Interests
the interests of neighborhood residents
residents.
•
minimally address heat gain but should be
employed in combination with the other façade
and roof treatments.
6.5.4 Bird-Safe Building Design
For all new mixed-used development, whenever
feasible, encourage implementing LEED
standards on bird collsion deterrance from
the U.S. Green Building Council to reduce bird
collision and mortality.
122 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 123
6.5.5 Daylighting and Natural Ventilation
Buildings should be designed to maximize the
use of daylighting for all inhabited interior spaces
to provide a high-quality indoor environment,
reduce overall energy consumption and
negatively impact human health.
Buildings that allow for natural ventilation reduce
energy consumption for heating and cooling and
provide a higher-quality indoor environment.
Projects should optimize building orientation
for thermal comfort, shading, daylighting, and
natural ventilation, including operable windows.
6.5.6 Roofs
Where building roofs are free of solar panels
or other sustainability infrastructure, they
should be designed to include systems such as
vegetated roof covers, plants, green stormwater
albedo surfaces to reduce heat island effect and
slow rainwater runoff.
Building roofs should be designed to create
usable recreational spaces. Rooftop shading
structures mounted with solar panels can
maximize the effective use of roof area.
Pockets of green roof can help furnish these
recreational spaces, and resist heat gain while
also serving the concept of ecological design.
6.5.7 Renewable Energy
Buildings should provide “solar ready”
infrastructure such as solar panel standoffs,
conduit, and roof water spigots that minimize
the cost and effort of adding solar capacity later,
as per the California Green Building Standards
Code.
6.5.8 Visibility
New development should incorporate elements
like green roofs, shading devices or photovoltaic
panels into the fabric of the building to highlight
building’s energy saving features.
New development should include interpretive
signage explaining the sustainable building
features of the building to promote sustainability
and to educate visitors and occupants how their
behavior can make an impact on overall building
performance.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
6.5
Figure 88 Figure 89
124 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 125
7.1 Development Standards
7.2 Review Process
7.3 Implementation Actions
7.4 Funding and Financing Strategy
Implementation
7
The implementation of the NVCAP will require input by
the public, City departments, regional agencies, and
private property owners. The City will take the lead in
coordinating areawide actions and establishing funding
mechanisms for public investment in programs and
capital projects. However, private investment through
the architecture, landscaping, and maintenance of
determinant of the look and feel of the plan area.
This chapter outlines the process for development proposals, lists
funding mechanisms to unlock the NVCAP’s vision and goals into reality.
7.1
Development Standards
The NVCAP establishes new
allowable land uses and
corresponding development
standards to implement the
vision of the Plan. In addition to
the development policies and
guidelines mentioned in the
earlier chapters of the Plan, other
core development standards have
been adopted and integrated
into the Zoning Code, PAMC Title
18, as part of the Plan adoption.
For all development criteria
and regulations not amended
or superseded by this Plan, the
provisions of other chapters in the
PAMC shall prevail.
The NVCAP is primarily focused on residential
development. While other types of uses are
allowed, they are intended to be supportive for
the residents and visitors to the neighborhood.
New non-residential uses may be limited in size;
where applicable the total area cannot be more
than 5,000 square feet on a lot.
Within the NVCAP, there are six zoning districts:
1. Single Family Residential District (NV-R1):
The NV-R1 single family residential district
aims to foster detached dwellings with open
spaces for privacy and outdoor activities.
Minimum site area requirements promote
diverse neighborhoods, quality design, and
accommodate accessory dwelling units.
2. Two Family Residential District (NV-R2):
The NV-R2 two-family residence district
permits a second dwelling unit under the
same ownership as the initial dwelling
unit in designated single-family areas,
while maintaining the area’s single family
character.
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
3. Medium Density Multiple-Family
Residential District (NV-R3): The NV-R3
district enhances multi-family housing
neighborhoods, with development standards
to mitigate impacts on adjacent lower
density residential areas. Projects on larger
parcels enable onsite parking and open
space needs, like garden apartments or
cluster developments, with anticipated
density ranging from 16 to 30 dwelling units
per acre and a 1.5:1 Floor Area Ratio.
4. High Density Multiple-Family Residential
District (NV-R4): The NV-R4 district provides
high-density apartment living, primarily
along major transportation corridors near
mass transit and employment centers.
Density ranges anticipated from 61 to 100
dwelling units per acre, with a maximum
Floor Area Ratio of 3.0:1.
5. Mixed-Use Districts (NV-MXL, NV-MXM,
NV-MXH): Mixed-use districts encourage a
blend of residential, retail, entertainment,
fostering a pedestrian-friendly environment.
The NVCAP includes three mixed-use
districts: NV-MXL for small-scale commercial
and limited residential; NV-MXM for a mix of
residential and limited commercial; and NV-
and commercial with residential above,
emphasizing a pedestrian-oriented
streetscape. Density in these districts varies,
with permitted dwelling units per acre
anticipated from three to 100 and Floor Area
Ratios ranging from 0.5:1 to 3.0:1.
6. Public Facilities District (NV-PF): The NV-PF
district accommodates governmental, public
utility, educational, and community service
or recreational facilities. In North Ventura, a
one-acre portion of the NV-PF district may
allow for a 100% affordable housing project.
standards for NVCAP, refer to PAMC Chapter
18.29, North Ventura (NV) District.
7.2
Review Process
All new external changes or
improvements in NVCAP must
go through a Coordinated
Development Permit process
as per PAMC Section 19.10.050.
No such permit will be issued,
and no building or structure can
be erected, expanded, altered
externally, placed, installed, or
relocated within an approved
coordinated area plan area unless
it is consistent with the Plan.
For any uses needing a conditional use permit
in NVCAP zone districts, they must follow the
standard Conditional Use Permit process outlined
in Title 18 of the Municipal Code.
In compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
prepared for the NVCAP, supplementing the
2030 Comprehensive Plan EIR. When new
projects undergo discretionary review by the
City, the Supplemental EIR may be used for their
environmental analysis. If the project’s scope
extends beyond the NVCAP’s CEQA analysis,
further assessment may be necessary.
Figure 90 NVCAP Zoning Map
128 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 129
7.3
Implementation
Actions
Plan policies in the preceding
chapters will be implemented
by developers, property owners,
and the City over the course
of the plan horizon, many
through development projects.
However, certain policies require
implementation that must be
initiated by City staff and/or
coordinated with other public
agencies.
Table 19 summarizes proactive steps needed to
implement the NVCAP, agencies responsible for
implementation, and the expected timeframe
for each action. Related policies and goals from
preceding chapters for each implementation
action are also referenced.
Following Plan Adoption actions are anticipated
to completed directly following the adoption of
the NVCAP.
•Ongoing actions are expected to be
implemented throughout the planning period.
•Short-term actions are actions that are
expected to be completed within 0 to 4 years
from plan adoption.
•Mid-term actions are anticipated to be
implemented within 5 to 9 years from plan
adoption.
•Long-term actions are expected to be
completed between 10 to 20 years from plan
adoption.
Table 19 Implementation Actions in the NVCAP
Implementation
Action Number Action Description City Department or Public
Agency Responsible Timeframe
Land Use and Zoning
IM 1 Field questions, facilitate desired project design, and proactively reach out to property owners and
local brokers to identify opportunities for investment and lot consolidation and to promote the vision
of the Plan.
Planning Ongoing
Open Space
IM 2 Renaturalize Matadero Creek:
Take actions to implement a concept for Matadero creek that will fully naturalize (removal of
widened to a 100-foot riparian corridor, at maximum, to achieve maximum geomorphic form and
ecological function.
Planning, Public Works,
Santa Clara Valley
Water District
Long-Term
IM 3 Public Park:
Take actions to acquire, plan and implement the vision for a public park adjacent to Matadero
Creek.
Planning, Public Works Long-Term
Street Improvements
IM 4
to celebrate history and provide a clear and predictable navigation for residents, visitors and
employees.
Planning, Public Works, Ongoing
IM 5 Woonerf:
Explore and implement a concept for a woonerf that may either be a private or public/private
elements for the segment of Portage Avenue between Ash Street and Park Boulevard.
Planning, Public Works, Ongoing
Historic Preservation
IM 6
building.
Planning Short-Term
Parking Management
IM 7 Evaluate as needed future parking strategies to maintain parking availability such as a parking
parking.
Mid-Term to Long-
Term
IM 8 If hourly pricing is used, then explore a strategy that creates targets such that 85% of the spaces are
used at any time OR such that 15% of the parking supply is available at any time.
Mid-Term to Long-
Term
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
130 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 131
Implementation
Action Number Action Description City Department or Public
Agency Responsible Timeframe
IM 9 Explore unbundling commercial parking or requiring private parking to be available to the public. Planning Mid-Term to Long-
Term
IM 10
transportation demand management measures, active transportation investments, transit pass
programs, etc.
Transportation,
Planning
Mid-Term to Long-
Term
Infrastructure Improvements
IM 11 Evaluate water main capacity that may need to be upgraded on a project-by-project basis. It is Public Works Ongoing
IM 12 Paving:
Explore including into the Capital Improvement Program designs and implementation at key
intersections and raised crossings.
Public Works Short-term to
long-term
Public Art
IM 13 Evaluate the placement of public art in relation to the Public Art Master Plan for the NVCAP.Community Services Ongoing
IM 14 Explore updating the Public Art Master Plan as necessary to reconcile the vision of the NVCAP. Community Services Mid-Term to Long-
Term
Mobility
IM 15 Publicly accessible shared path on private property: Implement locations indicated within NVCAP by
requiring recorded easements over private property when property redevelops.
Public Works, Planning Ongoing
7.2
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
132 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 133
7.4
Funding and
Financing Strategy
to support the emergence of a walkable, transit-oriented, mixed-
primary categories of capital improvement projects included in the
mechanisms for constructing those projects.
Major Project Categories
The public infrastructure and amenity
pedestrian infrastructure, streetscape, parks and
open space, green stormwater infrastructure, and
the re-naturalization of Matadero Creek.
Funding and Financing Sources and Mechanisms
A variety of potential funding sources and
section describes these sources and mechanisms
and their potential uses within the Plan Area. In
many cases, multiple funding sources will need to
are often used interchangeably, there is an
important distinction between the two terms.
“Funding” typically refers to a revenue source
such as a tax, fee, or grant that is used to pay
for an improvement. Some funding sources,
such as impact fees, are one-time payments,
while others, such as assessments, are ongoing
payments. “Financing” involves borrowing from
future revenues by issuing bonds or other debt
instruments that are paid back over time through
taxes or fee payments, enabling agencies to pay
for infrastructure before the revenue to cover the
full cost of the infrastructure is available.
Potential funding for improvements includes a
mix of developer contributions (both required
and negotiated, such as via the 340 Portage
development agreement), City resources, outside
grants, and district-based tools.
Funding Source
Category Examples
Developer
Contributions
Development
Standards
CEQA Mitigations
Impact / In-Lieu Fees
Negotiated
Agreements
City Resources General Fund
Capital Improvement
Plan
User Fees
Outside Grants Regional, State, and
Federal Grants
District-Based Tools Special Assessment
District
Community Facilities
District
Enhanced
Infrastructure Finance
District
Table 20 Funding Source Categories and Examples
Developer Contributions
Development Standards:
Each new development project will contribute
to the NVCAP’s implementation by meeting
requirements regulating each project’s land uses,
height, density, setbacks, parking requirements,
street frontage improvements, pedestrian access,
These standards are adopted in the City’s zoning
be granted approval.
Reimbursement Agreements:
If a developer is required to provide additional
infrastructure capacity or amenities to serve
the entire district, a reimbursement agreement
can be established to receive payments from
improvements. This allows for areawide cost-
sharing.
CEQA Mitigations:
Developers may be required to contribute
to environmental mitigation measures, both
development projects.
Impact / In-Lieu Fees:
Impact fees are one-time fees imposed on new
developments to pay for improvements and
facilities that either serve the new development
or reduce the impacts of the project on the
existing community. Fee revenues cannot be used
The City of Palo Alto already has citywide
impact fees for Housing, Community and Public
All development projects within the Plan Area
must meet citywide impact and in-lieu fee
requirements.
Negotiated Agreements:
that exceed the baseline features required
under development standards, environmental
mitigation measures, and impact fees.
with developers individually in exchange for
additional development rights. A relevant
example for this is the development agreement
for the 340 Portage Avenue site. The developer
proposes to provide more than two acres of
land for a new public park surrounding Madero
Creek and one acre for affordable housing, in
addition to monetary contributions to both park
improvements and the city’s affordable housing
fund.
City Resources:
General Fund:
General Fund revenues include property tax,
sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and other
revenues that are primarily used to pay for
ongoing municipal services and operations.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP):
are candidates for inclusion in the City’s
improvement projects throughout the City of
Palo Alto. For example, sanitary sewer and
backbone extensions within the NVCAP area are
included in the Fiscal Year 2023 CIP, which plans
expenditures for 2023-2027.
User Fees:
User fees and rates include the fees charged
for the use of public infrastructure or goods. It
may be possible to use a portion of user fee or
infrastructure, but user fees are unlikely to be a
major source of funding for implementation of
the NVCAP.
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
134 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 135
Outside Grants
Various federal, state, and regional grant
programs distribute funding for public
improvements. Because grant programs are
typically competitive, grant funds are an
unpredictable funding source, and the City of
Palo Alto must remain vigilant in applying for
grants to implement the NVCAP. Unique grant
funding opportunities may become available
due to the area’s designation as a Priority
Development Area by the Association of Bay
Area Governments, and because most of the
Plan Area is within ½ mile of a Caltrain station—
enabling access to funds directed to transit-
oriented locations. However, access to grant
funds may be contingent on adopting land use
policies that comply with MTC’s Transit-Oriented
Communities policy, with particular impacts on
the Mobility Hubs and One Bay Area grants
describe below.
The following table describes outside grant
funding sources that may be applicable to public
capital improvements as of the passage of the
NVCAP; this is not an exhaustive list, however, and
new grant funding programs will open during the
implementation of the NVCAP.
7.3
Table 21 Examples of Potential Regional or County Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements
Program Adminstering
Agency Description
Eligible Capital Projects
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Access
Streetscape
Parks, Trails,
and Open
Space
Storm
Drainage
and Flood
Control
Regional or County
Mobility Hubs MTC The Mobility Hubs program funds projects in designated mobility hubs that connect
services and infrastructure that promote the use of mobility options besides private
vehicles. This includes connecting public transit, bike and pedestrian facilities, and
bike or car share facilities.
x x x
Transportation for
Clean Air (TFCA)
Regional Program:
Bicycle Facilities
Grant Program
Bay Area
Air Quality
Management
District
(BAAQMD)
The TFCA program, administered by the BAAQMD, funds projects that reduce
vehicle emissions. Sixty percent of funds collected go to the TFCA Regional Fund
reduction of emissions from motor vehicles. One sub-program within the TFCA
Regional Fund is the Bicycle Facilities Grant Program, which funds the construction of
new bikeways and the installation of new bike parking facilities.
x
Santa Clara
County Measure
B: Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Program
VTA Measure B was passed by Santa Clara County voters in 2016. Measure B authorized
a 30-year, half-cent countywide sales tax to invest in transit, highway, and active
transportation projects. Measure B includes nine different program areas, one of
which is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (BPP). The BPP provides funding for
bicycle and pedestrian capital projects and planning studies. Priority is given to
existing bike/ped networks.
x
One Bay Area
Grant (round 3)
MTC OBAG 3 is MTC’s comprehensive policy and funding framework for distributing
federal funding. OBAG 3 includes a Regional Program and a County Program. The
county programs includes various competitive sub-programs.
x x x
Transportation
Development Act
(TDA) Article 3
Program
MTC TDA funds are derived from a 1/4 cent of the State’s general sales tax. Article 3 of
the TDA makes a portion of these funds available for use on bicycle and pedestrian
projects. MTC programs TDA funds in the Bay Area.
x
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
136 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 137
Program Adminstering Agency Description
Eligible Capital Projects
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and
Open Space
Storm Drainage
and Flood Control
State
California Department
of Housing and
Community
Development
x x x x
Transformative Climate
Communities
California Strategic
Growth Council
Proceeds from California’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund the Transformative Climate Communities
(TCC) program. The TCC provides competitive grants for coordinated, community-led development and
a given community. Examples of eligible projects include affordable housing, transit, bicycle/pedestrian
improvements, and urban green infrastructure. The TCC program prioritizes disadvantaged communities that
have been most impacted by pollution, as measured by the CalEnviroScreen index. The TCC program offers
Implementation Grants and Planning Grants.
x x x x
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
California Strategic
Growth Council
Proceeds from California’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund the AHSC program. AHSC is a competitive state
transportation and land use change. AHSC encourages combined investments in affordable housing, transit,
and active transportation infrastructure, with a majority of funds typically awarded to the affordable housing
component of a project.
x x x
Urban Greening Program California Natural
Resources Agency
Proceeds from the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program help fund California’s Urban Greening Program. The
Urban Greening Program provides competitive funding for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and/or to increasing green spaces and green infrastructure. Eligible projects include the enhancement or
expansion of neighborhood parks, green streets, urban trails, facilities that encourage active transportation,
communities, as determined by the CalEnviroScreen index.
x x x x
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
California
Transportation
Commission/MTC
ATP provides statewide competitive grants for pedestrian and bicycle capital projects. Certain trail projects are
also eligible if they meet the requirements of the Recreational Trails Program (RTP), a sub-program within ATP.
Beyond the statewide competitive grants, ATP funds are also distributed to MPOs. A minimum of 25% of ATP
funds must be allocated to disadvantaged communities.
x x x
Urban Streams
Restoration Program
(USRP)
California Department
of Water Resources
The USRP funds projects and provides technical assistance to restore urban streams to a more natural state.
Funds used for planning only must be used for projects that will serve disadvantaged communities once
community. Examples of eligible projects include installation of green infrastructure such as bioswales,
x
Land and Water
Conservation Fund
California Department
of Parks and Recreation
The LWCF is a competitive grant program focused on creating new outdoor recreation opportunities for
Californians. The program funds the acquisition or the development of recreational space. Eligible projects
include the acquisition of land to create a new park, a buffer for an existing park, or a recreational/active
gardens, open space, etc.)
x
7.3
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Table 22 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements
138 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 139
Program Adminstering Agency Description
Eligible Capital Projects
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and
Open Space
Storm Drainage
and Flood Control
State
Local Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)
Caltrans
are eligible for work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, so long as the
Caltrans requires that projects be consistent with California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
x x
Senate Bill 1: Local
Partnership Program (LP)
California
Transportation
Commission
freeways, bridges, and transit across California. Funds are split among numerous programs. SB 1 created
the LP program to reward jurisdictions and transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures,
developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees. The LP program includes a formula allocation as well
as a competitive component. Eligible projects include a wide variety of transportation improvements –
roads, pedestrian/bicycle facilities, transit facilities, and other improvements to mitigate urban runoff from
new transportation infrastructure. For the competitive grant program, funds can only be used for capital
improvements.
x x x
7.3
Program Adminstering Agency Description
Eligible Capital Projects
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Access Streetscape Parks, Trails, and
Open Space
Storm Drainage
and Flood Control
Federal
Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act
Federal Highway
Administration, Federal
Transit Administration,
Federal Railway
Administration, and
Federal Aviation
Administration
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides over $550 billion for the nation’s infrastructure.
Estimated apportionments are available for Fiscal Years 2022 - 2026. Funds are available for a wide array of
infrastructure needs including those related to public transit, airports, ports, bridges, water systems, and more.
Most of the funds will be distributed through state agencies which will be accessible through a range of state
grant programs, whereas other funds will be apportioned directly to urbanized areas, and additional funds
will be available through federal grants processes. The State of California is estimated to be apportioned more
be directly apportioned $536 million over this same time period.
x x x
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Table 22 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements (continued)
Table 23 Examples of Potential Federal Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements
140 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 141
7.3
District-Based “Value Capture” Tools
associated with new real estate development
improvements through bond repayment or
paying for improvements over time. District-
based tools provide a stable revenue stream
improvements also contribute to those public
investments. The table below describes the three
primary types of district-based funding and
and community facilities districts primarily
capture additional funding from private entities,
district reinvests growth in public property tax
revenues within the district. If a district-based tool
is utilized, the boundaries do not necessarily need
to align with the NVCAP Plan Area boundaries.
Funding Tools Description Uses Considerations
Special Assessment
Districts
Additional assessment against a range of
participants, depending on the type of district
Examples include: Landscaping and Lighting
Improvement District.
Most useful for funding ongoing
operations and maintenance.
Requires simple majority vote of paying stakeholders.
Increases costs and risk for paying stakeholders. Stakeholders need to
Impacts paying stakeholders’ overall ability to support other taxes, fees,
tax revenue based on private reinvestment.
Additional City staff time to administer districts could offset some gains.
Community Facilities
District (Mello-Roos)
Additional assessment on property, levied
and varied based on a selected property
characteristic (excluding property value).
Financing infrastructure
improvements, development of
public facilities; also, ongoing
operations and maintenance.
Requires approval of 2/3 of property owners (by land area) if there are
fewer than 12 registered voters residing in the district.
Boundaries can include non-contiguous parcels.
Fees can be proportionally subdivided and passed on to future
property / home owners.
Increases costs and risk for landowners and homeowners if fees
dissuade buyers or reduce achievable sales prices.
Impacts paying stakeholders’ overall ability to support other taxes, fees,
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing District
(EIFD)
Diverts a portion of future municipal General
Fund property tax revenues generated within
the district to help fund infrastructure projects.
Climate resilience districts are a type of EIFD
such as addressing sea level rise.
Financing infrastructure
improvements, development
of public facilities, affordable
housing development.
Formation and bond issuance does not require a local vote.
Does not cost individual property owners additional fees and taxes.
Does not divert revenues from schools.
Reduces future General Fund revenues by restricting use of the district’s
future property tax revenue growth.
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Table 24 Summary of Major District-Based Value Capture Tools
142 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 143
7.3
Infrastructure Improvements and
Applicable Funding Sources
The following table describes the applicability
of various funding sources to the improvement
availability for improvements within the Plan
Area will vary based on development activity,
economic conditions, and availability of grants.
Developer Contributions City Resources District Based Outside
Sources
Development
Standards
CEQA Mitiga-
tion
Impact and In-
Lieu Fees
Negotiated
Agreements
General Fund Capital Im-
provement Plan
User Fees CFD EIFD Special Assess-
ment District
Grants (Fed-
eral, Regional,
State)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure, Streetscape Improvements
Public Right of Way
Improvements
X X X X X X X X X
Intersection Improvements X X X X X X X X X
Parks and Open Space
Land Acquisition X X X X X X
Construction of New Parks or
Plazas
X X X X X X
Matadero Creek Re-Naturalization
Land Acquisition X X X X X X
Construction of New
Infrastructure
X X X X X X X
Utilities
District-wide: Stormwater,
Water, and Sewer
Improvements
X X X X X X X X
Stormwater, Water, and Sewer
Improvements
X X X X
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Table 25 Infrastructure Improvements and Applicable Funding Sources in the NVCAP
144 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 145
Commenter: Cedric (via Zoom)
Hello, good early afternoon. Thanks to the staff for working on this plan and thanks to the ARB for
your prior comments. I was happy to see that in your comments there was a lot of support and
encouragement for rooftop gardens, as well as good access to the to the creek, the renaturalized
creek. I'm really looking forward to that creek being renaturalized to a hundred-foot channel that
would allow the maximum winding of the creek. I hope that the zoning areas and stuff will be
preventing or dissuading any development through the area that the creek would expand into, so
that we don't block the ability to widen the creek.
I saw that in the comments that there were desires to incentivize more rooftop gardens and I saw
that they're kind of supported by the green building standards, but not necessarily incentivized. I
wonder if there’s additional ways to incentivize them.
And I guess this will come later when we actually go to design the naturalization of the creek. My
understanding is, from the past, from the prior, feasibility study that, there is a plume of ground
pollution and so there would be, underneath the naturalized creek, some sort of impermeable
barrier to prevent those pollutants from spreading into the creek. And I wonder if there's some way
to actually fix up that ground pollution so that the creek can have full contact with the Earth. There's
a lot of information out now or you know, I don't know how new this information is, but basically
underneath every creek and river there's a underground parallel river that helps to support the life of
the creek in the soil, and I forget the exactly the details, but I think it was like 1 h of water moving
through the ground-based creek would remove like 90% of pollutants from about 78% of the types
of pollutants. So it's really valuable for cleaning our waters and promoting a healthy ecosystem. So
hopefully we'll find a way to clean up that pollution and get the creek fully in contact with the earth.
Thank you.
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 www.dot.ca.gov
April 22, 2024 SCH #: 2023020691
GTS #: 04-SCL-2023-01266
GTS ID: 29299
Co/Rt/Pm: SCL/82/24.037
Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 6th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan ─ Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Kelly Cha:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. The Local
Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure
consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are
based on our review of the March 2024 DEIR.
Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on
this project and is for informational purpose only.
Project Understanding
The proposed project will adopt land use policies and programs that would allow for
additional 530 residential units and would incorporate two acres of new public open
space within the North Ventura Coordinated Area. Residential densities would range
from low to high. The plan would additionally result in a net reduction of up to 278,000
square feet of office space and up to 7,500 square feet of retail space.
The project site is located at the intersection State Route (SR)-82 and Page Mill Rd in
Palo Alto and is approximately 60 acres with three proposed intersection improvement
sites located within Caltrans’ Right of Way (ROW).
Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient
development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and
multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Vehicle
Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
April 22, 2024
Page 2
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for land use projects, please review Caltrans’
Transportation Impact Study Guide (link). The project VMT analysis and significance
determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the City of Palo Alto VMT
policy. Per DEIR, this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact.
However, since the additional trips generated from this project would impact several
intersections along El Camino Real within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, we request an in-depth
traffic safety impact analysis including Intersection Safety Operational Assessment
Process (ISOAP). Fair Share Contributions
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any
needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair
share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead
agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.
The DEIR has identified that the additional trips generated from this project could have
an adverse effect on the operation of three Caltrans intersections under horizon plus
project conditions. Please consider the following Projects for fair share contributions to
mitigate the impact of this project to the State Transportation Network:
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s Plan Bay Area 2050: Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) Modernization with SamTrans on El Camino Real (RTP ID 21-T10-078).
This program includes funding to implement BRT improvements to existing bus
service along El Camino Real from Daly City Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to
Palo Alto Caltrain Station. Improvements include frequency upgrades (15-
minute peak headways), dedicated lanes (45% of route), transit priority
infrastructure and transit signal priority.
• Active transportation projects in support of building a multimodal transportation
system to accommodate users of all ages and abilities:
o Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan: Class IV separated buffered bike lanes on El Camino Real from Sand Hill Rd to San Antonio Rd. Hydrology
There would be significant impact from storm runoff due to proposed development.
Please ensure that any increase in storm water runoff from the development do not
encroach on Caltrans’ ROW but be efficiently intercepted by drainage inlets. The
existing storm drain system in Caltrans’ ROW might need to be upgraded in size to
allow increased runoff. A detailed Drainage report will be required to be submitted to
our office for review and approval.
Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
April 22, 2024
Page 3
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
Freight
SR-82 is identified as a Terminal Access Route by the Freight Network Designation. Lane
widths and turning movements should be considered during development.
Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State
roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please
visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link). Prior to construction, coordination may be
required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce
construction traffic impacts to the STN.
Encroachment Permit
This project would result in a significant increase in usage for El Camino Real. Please
identify whether any projects will be required on SR-82 in the immediate vicinity as a
result of this area plan to accommodate the residential and mixed use. In the event of
such projects, please provide information if there would be dedications for additional
ROW required as a condition of future development.
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that
encroaches onto Caltrans’ ROW requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As
part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office
of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application
package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this
comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the
following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design
Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request,
and/or airspace lease agreement.
The checklist TR-0416 (link) is used to determine the appropriate Caltrans review process for encroachment projects. The Office of Encroachment Permit requires 100%
complete design plans and supporting documents to review and circulate the permit
application package. To obtain more information and download the permit
application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link). Your application
package may be emailed to D4Permits@dot.ca.gov.
Equity
We will achieve equity when everyone has access to what they need to thrive no
matter their race, socioeconomic status, identity, where they live, or how they travel.
Caltrans is committed to advancing equity and livability in all communities. We look
Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
April 22, 2024
Page 4
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
forward to collaborating with the City to prioritize projects that are equitable and
provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities.
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet
American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the
project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These
access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable,
and equitable transportation network for all users.
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should
you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Marley Mathews,
Transportation Planner, via LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov. For future early coordination
opportunities or project referrals, please contact LDR-D4@dot.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
April 22, 2024
City of Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
By Email: nvcap@cityofpaloalto.org
Dear Kelly,
VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
(NVCAP) and its Draft Supplemental EIR. VTA has reviewed the documents and has the following
comments.
Countywide Plans
The Draft NVCAP and its Draft Supplemental EIR should include relevant countywide plans with the
listed local, regional, and state plans. VTA recommends including VTA’s Visionary Network and
Bike Superhighway Implementation Plan and specifically recommends highlighting El Camino
Real’s improvements identified in the two plans.
Caltrain Crossing
VTA recommends exploring adding a bicycle and pedestrian crossing across the Caltrain tracks
within the plan’s area. Currently, there is no crossing along the plan’s frontage. With the plan’s
increased density, the lack of crossing may cause more users to trespass onto the tracks and
thereby increase the risk of incidents.
Transportation Mitigation Measures
VTA would like more information on the TRANS-1b Mitigation Measures: “Fees collected would be
used for capital improvements aimed at reducing motor vehicle trips and motor vehicle traffic
congestion” (page vii).
If Transit Signal Priority (TSP) improvements are applicable to this mitigation measure area, VTA
recommends including a fair share contribution to upgrade the traffic signal controller cabinets on
El Camino Real to comply with VTA’s Enhance Traffic Signal Controller guidance document (see
attached). The existing equipment in the traffic signal controller cabinets is reaching its end of
useful life and the traffic signal controllers do not have the capabilities to work with more modern
forms of TSP.
Future Coordination
VTA appreciates the multimodal transportation improvement and connections to Caltrain and VTA
identified in the plan. VTA would like to review future development applications. Please send
applications to plan.review@vta.org.
City of Palo Alto
April 22, 2024
Page 2 of 2
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 408-321-5804 or larissa.sanderfer@vta.org.
Sincerely,
Larissa Sanderfer
Transportation Planner II
PA2401
From:Cha, Kelly
To:Natalie Noyes
Cc:Raybould, Claire
Subject:Fw: VW File 33840 - NVCAP SEIR Review at Matadero Creek
Date:Tuesday, April 23, 2024 8:07:24 AM
Attachments:image001.pngOutlook-xppccy5s.png
Forwarding 3 of 3
KELLY CHA
Senior PlannerPlanning and Development Department(650) 329-2155 | kelly.cha@cityofpaloalto.orghttps://link.edgepilot.com/s/0a79fb1c/8pMnObfe90eBGV0as8meoA?
u=http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/
From: Gennifer Wehrmeyer <GWehrmeyer@valleywater.org>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 4:59 PM
To: North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan <NVCAP@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Shree Dharasker <sdharasker@valleywater.org>; Raybould, Claire
<Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org>; CPRU-Dropbox <CPRU@valleywater.org>
Subject: VW File 33840 - NVCAP SEIR Review at Matadero Creek
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Kelly Cha,
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental EIR
(SEIR) and Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) to plan for a walkable, mixed-
use neighborhood on approximately 60 acres roughly bounded by Page Mill Rd, El Camino
Real, Lambert Ave, and the Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto, received on March 8, 2024. Based on
our review Valley Water has the following comments on the SEIR and NVCAP plans:
SEIR COMMENTS
1. The NVCAP will impact Valley Water facilities. Valley Water currently has easement,exclusive easement, and fee title property within the project area along Matadero Creek,as seen in the deeds linked here:https://link.edgepilot.com/s/96c3194b/K2t1q2gA0kKhEdFAJKBNZA?
u=https://fta.valleywater.org/fl/aFJnDlpWvc. Please submit plans showing the proposedwork in greater detail on or adjacent to Valley Water right of way. In accordance withValley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance (WRPO), any construction
activity within or adjacent to Valley Water property will need an encroachment permit. A
copy of the encroachment permit application can be found here:https://link.edgepilot.com/s/54803bf0/zhYcv18m4UeWZzeSg9W1KA?u=https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-
district/permits-working-district-land-or-easement/encroachment-permits. Valley
Water encroachment permits are discretionary actions, and therefore, Valley Water is a
responsible agency under CEQA.
2. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) should not be referred to as “District”throughout the SEIR. While the official name of the agency remains Santa Clara Valley
Water District, Valley Water has been used as a moniker since 2019. Please replace
“District” with “Valley Water” on pages 142 and 143.
3. SEIR Figures 2.3-3 through 2.3-6, pages 33 through 36, and NVCAP plan Figures 36 and42, pages 43 and 51, depict the removal of Matadero channel improvements, including
the removal of Valley Water’s maintenance path and concrete channel lining, and
replacement with a widened channel section with a riparian corridor, pedestrian paths,and a pedestrian bridge over Valley Water fee title property and easement.
At a minimum, proposals to naturalize the Matadero Creek flood protection facilitymust not: increase our costs to maintain the facility; reduce maintenance access;reduce the level of flood protection currently provided by the channel; and createchannel instability.
Additionally, proposals must: include a net benefit to Valley Water (including thereservation of lands in Valley Water fee title for the Valley Water’s use in fulfilling futuremitigation planting requirements for its stream maintenance program); providesufficient additional right of way to Valley Water to operate and maintain the modifiedfacility (including all areas required to contain the same level of flood protectioncurrently afforded); include regulatory permitting; provide appropriate mitigation (thatdo not include use of Valley Water right of way for mitigation planting); and be ageomorphic, stable channel that will not increase erosion or sediment deposition orincrease the potential for damage to or failure of the adjacent concrete channel lining,up or downstream of the proposed naturalization.
Once a proposal is provided to Valley Water for review, we will be able to providecomments. Valley Water expects adjacent landowners to provide right of way toaccommodate any desired recreational facilities and amenities that are not conduciveto sharing space with a maintenance road.
4. SEIR page 149, “Hydrology and Water Quality”, and page 204, “Storm Drain System”,states that the creation of Matadero Park and naturalization of Matadero Creek throughthe establishment of a 100-foot riparian buffer will result in a net reduction of
impervious surfaces, and that this net decrease in impervious surfaces will result in a
corresponding decrease in stormwater runoff. It is not clear if the determination of “lessthan significant impact” regarding impacts related to drainage relies on the proposednaturalization of Matadero Creek. Since this work is not proposed as a part of the
NVCAP, naturalization of Matadero Creek should not be considered in the impact
analysis for drainage and this discussion should be revised for accuracy and clarity.
5. SEIR page 24, Section 2.3.9, “Naturalization of Matadero Creek”, discusses the removalof Lambert Avenue Bridge and replacement with a new 100-foot clear-span bridge.
Since the section of Matadero Creek at Lambert Avenue is not proposed for
naturalization, the need for the bridge replacement as a part of the naturalization work is
unclear. Any plans for replacement of Lambert Ave Bridge should be submitted to ValleyWater once available for review and comment.
6. Valley Water has an exclusive easement reserved for flood control purposes on APN
132-38-011, which would restrict the ability of the City of Palo Alto (City) to obtain a trail
easement over this portion of the Matadero Creek maintenance road without ValleyWater relinquishing the exclusivity of its easement. Further discussions will be neededbetween Valley Water and the City if the City wishes to pursue access through this
easement.
7. Please modify the “Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance”section on SEIR page 156 to include the following statement in its entirety:
Valley Water operates as a flood protection agency for Santa Clara County. ValleyWater also provides stream stewardship and is the wholesale water supplierthroughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program. Inaccordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, any workwithin Valley Water’s fee title right of way or easement or work that impacts ValleyWater’s facilities requires the issuance of a Valley Water permit. Under Valley Water’sWell Ordinance 90-1, permits are required for any boring, drilling, deepening,refurbishing, or destroying of a water well, cathodic protection well, observation well,monitoring well, exploratory boring (45 feet or deeper), or other deep excavation thatintersects with the groundwater aquifers of Santa Clara County.
8. Please submit plans for any proposed underground structures or dewatering plans to
Valley Water for review once available. Valley Water cannot determine that dewatering
activities will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or substantially interferewith groundwater recharge until such plans are made available.
9. SEIR page 140, Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality”, 3.8.1.1, “Regulatory
Framework, Federal and State”, should include a brief summary of California’s
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) under the State regulatoryframework because Valley Water’s 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (mentioned onpage 142) is a DWR approved Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainable Plan
(Alternative) under SGMA.
10. SEIR page 142, “2021 Groundwater Management Plan” should include the followingdetail near the beginning of the paragraph: “The 2021 GWMP is the first periodic updateto the approved Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan under SGMA.”
11. SEIR pages 145 and 148, “Groundwater”, should be modified to read “Typical
groundwater depths in Palo Alto range from less than 10 to 30 feet below ground surface(bgs).” because groundwater depths can be shallower than 10 feet in many areas ofPalo Alto. For example, City well 06S03W12R010, located directly adjacent to the
project site, regularly has water levels about 5 feet bgs (most recent data for March 2024
is 5.5 feet bgs). Groundwater level data in Palo Alto can be viewed on Valley Water’shistorical groundwater elevation data website:https://link.edgepilot.com/s/52ad5893/UoPDYbO-AUicIroC7bXiEw?
u=https://gis.valleywater.org/GroundwaterElevations/map.php.
12. On SEIR page 148, the project site is located entirely overlying the confined zone of the
Santa Clara Subbasin and not within the recharge zone. Therefore, any rainfall orirrigation that infiltrates the Project site would recharge the shallow aquifer above theconfining layer. The deeper, confined aquifer is the primary groundwater supply of the
Santa Clara Subbasin, not the shallow aquifer. This is why Valley Water has no recharge
ponds or facilities near the Project site.
13. On SEIR page 148, “Standard Permit Conditions”, given the first bullet (Prohibitdewatering during the rainy season.), we recommend that the Project construction
activities consider that groundwater levels are typically the highest (closest to land
surface) during the rainy season.
14. On SEIR page 148, given that the Project overlies the confined aquifer, potentialdewatering activities are unlikely to negatively impact the groundwater supply because
the primary supply is from the confined aquifer. However, the Project site is located
within the seawater intrusion outcome measure area, as defined in the 2021Groundwater Management Plan (see Chapter 5 and Appendix H). We recommend thatany future dewatering permit applications evaluate and mitigate if the dewatering
activities, particularly any long-term or ongoing dewatering, will negatively affect the
spatial pattern of seawater intrusion in the shallow aquifer.
15. On SEIR pages 148, 149, and 150, there is conflicting text about impacts to groundwaterthat should be resolved. This includes text on page 148 stating “Temporary or
permanent dewatering could affect groundwater supplies.” and page 149 stating “…
NVCAP in compliance with the above standard permit conditions and existingregulations (including the NPDES General Construction Permit and MRP) would notsubstantially deplete groundwater supplies…”. Page 150 also states “…NVCAP would
not substantially decrease groundwater supplies…”
16. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood InsuranceRate Map (FIRM) 06085C0017H, effective May 18, 2009, the majority of the project site iswithin FEMA Flood Zone X, an area with a 0.2% annual chance flood hazard, and the
areas of Matadero Creek are located within Flood Zone A, a special flood hazard area
with 1.0% annual chance flood discharge contained in the structure with no base floodelevations determined.
17. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) records indicate that 40 active wells are
located on the subject property. Valley Water’s Well Information App can be used to
help locate wells on the Project site: https://link.edgepilot.com/s/aaa90e47/RLSVX5-BN0enFpbUy2GAaQ?u=https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-district/wells-well-owners/well-information-app. While this app indicates
there are many destroyed wells and active water supply and monitoring wells on the
project site, there could be additional unknown abandoned wells. If any existing wellsare to be destroyed by the Project and if any abandoned wells are identified during theProject, they need to be properly destroyed in coordination with Valley Water staff at the
Well Permitting and Inspections Hotline: 408-630-2660
(https://link.edgepilot.com/s/35f51adc/myTamLqd5E6RYVllMlQvEw?u=https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-district/wells-well-owners .
18. The State GeoTracker webpage
(https://link.edgepilot.com/s/5aca8e9f/JJuzdFwpNUOX6LmjG7LaJw?u=https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/) lists at least 8 open cleanup sites within theProject footprint. Any proposed groundwater dewatering near these sites should be
approved by the relevant regulatory oversight agency.
NVCAP PLANS COMMENTS
19. Figure 36, page 43, Figure 42, page 51, and Figure 75, page 107, of the NVCAP plansshow multiple crossings of Matadero Creek, while Figure 43, page 52, only shows one
creek crossing. The number of creek crossings is to be minimized. Valley Water onlysupports one creek crossing. Please reference Valley Water’s Water ResourcesProtection Manual, Design Guide 4, “Riparian Revegetation or Mitigation Projects”, and
Design Guide 16, “Guidance for Trail Design”, when designing creek crossings.
20. Page 60, “Green Infrastructure”, discusses the use of green stormwater infrastructureas a part of the NVCAP plans. Re-development of the site provides opportunities tominimize water and associated energy use by incorporating on-site reuse for both storm
and graywater and requiring water conservation measures to exceed State standards.
To reduce or avoid impacts to water supply, the City and applicant should considerimplementing measures from the Model Water Efficient New Development Ordinance,which include:
A. Hot water recirculation systems.
B. Alternate water sources collection (like cisterns) and recycled waterconnections as feasible.
C. Pool and spa covers.
D. Encourage non-potable reuse of water like recycled water, graywater and
rainwater/stormwater in new development and remodels through installationof dual plumbing for irrigation, toilet flushing, cooling towers, and other non-potable water uses.
E. Require dedicated landscape meters where applicable.
F. Require installation of separate submeters to each unit in multi-familydevelopments and individual spaces within commercial buildings toencourage efficient water use.
G. Weather- or soil-based irrigation controllers.
21. Lighting described on Page 63 must be directed away from the creek. Please explainwhether wildlife can trigger motion sensors, as this would counteract efforts to protecthabitat from nighttime lighting. Please reference Guidelines and Standards Design
Guide 16.I.H for lighting requirements near creeks. The Guidelines and Standards were
adopted by the City of Palo Alto under Ordinance 4932.
22. Page 108, Section 5.1.7, mentions the use of pollinator-friendly native plants. Pleasereference Guidelines and Standards Design Guide 2 for the placement of native plants
along the creek.
23. Page 110, Section 5.2 should reference Guidelines and Standards Design Guides 4 and16 and Section VII.B.
24. Page 112, Section 5.2.7, “Floodwalls”, discusses the use of vegetation within concrete
retaining walls. Floodwalls and retaining walls are not the same and it is not clear what
is proposed. Vegetation may impact the ability to inspect flood walls and may not beallowed.
If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at
gwehrmeyer@valleywater.org or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 33840
on further correspondence regarding this project.
Thank you,
Gennifer Wehrmeyer
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL
Community Projects Review Unit
Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division
GWehrmeyer@valleywater.org
Tel. (408) 630-2588 Cell. (408) 694-2069
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/a51a4422/h07-tTtJdkqYUPbacYKTWg?u=http://www.valleywater.org/
Clean Water . Healthy Environment . Flood Protection
El Camino Real
Grant Avenue
Sherman Avenue
Ash Street
Ramos Way (Private)
Page Mill Road
Hansen
Way
Portage Avenue
Lambert Avenue
Olive Avenue
Margarita Avenue
Oregon Expressway
Ramona Street
EmersonStreet
New
Mayfield
Lane Birch Street
Hansen
Way
Jacaranda Lane
Oregon Expressway
Peral Lane
California Avenue
Page Mill Road
Emerson Street
Fernando Avenue
Park Boulevard
MimosaLane
Alma Street
Sheridan
Avenue
Page MillRoad
El Carmelo
Avenue
Birch Street
Orinda Street
Acacia AvenueEl Camino Real
Ash Street
El Dorado Avenue
Birch Street
Sheridan Avenue
Chestnut Avenue
Oregon
Expressway
Ash Street
Pepper Avenue
Page Mill Road
This map is a product of City of Palo Alto GIS
[
0 200 400100FeetRev: November 30, 2023
Street Yard SetbackSufficient to create 12' sidewalk051020NVCAP Zoning DistrictsNV-R1NV-R2NV-R3NV-R4NV-PFNV-MXLNV-MXMNV-MXH
NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLANStreet Yard Setback
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Action Agenda: May 8, 2024 2
Council Chambers & Virtual 3
6:00 PM 4
Draft Verbatim Minutes NVCAP Excerpt 5
Action Items 6
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 7
8
2. Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation to City Council to Certify 9
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for and Adopt the North Ventura 10
Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), and to Adopt an Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.29 11
North Ventura (NV) District Regulations) and Amending Chapters 18.14, 18.24, and 12
16.65 in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Implement the NVCAP. 13
14
Planner Kelly Cha: Good evening, Planning and Transportation Commission my name is Kelly Cha, 15
I’m the project planner for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. It is an exciting night, 16
hopefully everyone agrees, staff is asking Transportation Commission to consider and 17
recommend to the City Council to adopt the NVCAP and as well as a draft NVCAP ordinance and 18
certify the Supplemental EIR. Just to provide some context before we get into the details, this 19
whole process started back in November 2017, it was prompted by Comp Plan policy that 20
basically established… establishing the North Ventura Area CAP process. The City Council initiated 21
the CAP process in November of 2017, shortly after that they also adopted goals and objectives 22
and appointed working group members to guide the plan process, and upon Planning and 23
Transportation Commission recommendation on preferred plan alternative in 2022 City Council 24
endorsed a preferred plan alternative and with that plan staff prepared a draft NVCAP and it was 25
published back in 2023. Staff took the draft document to Planning and Transportation 26
Commission and Architectural Review Board, received feedback on them and we have 27
incorporated those feedback as well as some reorganization to remove redundancy and publish 28
the revised draft NVCAP along with the draft Supplemental EIR in March of this year. So we went 29
to ARB, Architectural Review Board in April to discuss the draft zoning ordinance and received 30
feedback on them and just few weeks ago on the 22nd of April, the required public comment 31
period ended and we’re here tonight for the Planning and Transportation Commission 32
recommendation on the NVCAP. So, this is the NVCAP goals and objectives that was endorsed by 33
the City Council earlier in the process and this is showing the NVCAP area roughly abounded by 34
Page Mill, El Camino Real and Lambert, as well as the Can Train tracks on the north and it’s 35
approximately a 60 acre site that has the Cannery Site inside as well as Matadero Creek. And this 36
is a concept plan visualizing the preferred alternative endorsed by the City Council that primarily 37
includes 530 dwelling units and adaptive reuse of the cannery structures and envisioning 38
naturalization of the creek. And this is the land use map reflecting the endorsed plan as well, so 39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
this shows the current use zone as commercial to be rezoned to mixed use and also reflects that 1
530 additional units of build out. So, the draft and NVCAP documents have it has seven chapters: 2
introduction, vision, and design standards and guideline chapters and implementation chapters, 3
this is similar to the one that was reviewed by PTC last year, the difference is that chapter 4 was 4
expanded to include all of the mobility related standards and guidelines, including the street 5
sections and gateway intersections. As a result, the implementations chapter has been 6
condensed. In addition to the revised NVCAP document, Staff has some modifications 7
recommended it is included in attachment F of Staff Report; majority of the changes are in 8
chapter 4, and they are on street sections and gateway intersections for better consistency with 9
the proposed zoning ordinance and other City projects like John Bowler Park Design. This is 10
showing the crosswalk between the NVCAP land use as well as and the zoning districts. As you 11
all know, one of the main implementation for area plan like NVCAP is a zoning ordinance update; 12
Staff is recommending adding a new chapter for NVCAP. The development standards are similar 13
to comparable zoning districts and has a lot of reference to city-wide context based objective 14
design standards, but has specific street yard standards for each NVCAP district, which might be 15
a little bit different to…compared to the existing zoning chapters. On April 18th, Staff took the 16
draft zoning ordinance to ARB, and ARB provided comments and feedback on them and has some 17
recommendations to modify the zoning ordinance that includes: increasing the lot coverage for 18
NVR3 and NVR4, and changing the minimum street yard to 10 feet to encourage high density and 19
more flexibility, and also they’re asking for increased height for higher density areas as well as 20
considering a way to measure a setback and calculate lot coverage for buildings with basements. 21
So, that concludes the Staff presentation, but the following slides kind of provide the information 22
for Planning and Transportation Commission discussion. These are lot coverage setback and 23
maximum height and sidewalk width. So, this slide is showing the comparison between existing 24
zoning and proposed zoning in NVCAP area, and this is showing the changes in development 25
standards that were a reflected after ARB’s feedback, so those are lot coverage and setbacks. The 26
height…maximum height as well this is highlighting the changes from the indoors plans or 27
preferred plan alternative. So, upon recommendation from Planning and Transportation 28
Commission, Staff will forward the recommendation from the Commission to City Council to 29
consider for adoption on June 18th. Staff is recommending the commission to forward these 30
actions so that the City Council can consider and adopt the NVCAP in June. So that concludes staff 31
presentation and I’m ready to answer any questions you may have. 32
33
Chair Summa: Okay, before we go to questions, I would like to welcome Chair Baltay from the 34
ARB, who is here to help us tonight answer any questions, and also to ask him if he would like to 35
make any kind of presentation. 36
37
Chair Baltay: Sure, good evening, thank you for having me address you. We spent quite awhile 38
looking at these standards on several occasions, most recently April 18th of this year, after a lot 39
of review and discussion, we kind of narrowed down parts that we thought were important. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Summa: Sorry, we can barely hear you, it’s these crazy microphones. 2
3
Chair Baltay: Okay, okay so we narrowed down our thoughts to essentially five categories of 4
things, mostly relating to development standards, which is what the ARB is focused on. Before I 5
do any of that though, we’ve come to think at the ARB that a really valuable zoning tool is the 6
daylight plane, and if we enforce it, a good daylight plane, we get with it really good privacy 7
protection for neighbors, and really good control of the bulk and the mass of buildings relative 8
to the community as a whole, the context based development. We’ve figured it out starting with 9
objective standards a few years ago, but every time we look at this we end up coming back to a 10
daylight plane being the simplest, easiest to enforce, easiest to regulate, easiest for applicants to 11
understand means of regulating this. I say that, because that’s what lets us feel very comfortable 12
with things like saying you really outa have a consistent 10 foot setback, and we ought to allow 13
taller heights on buildings, being comfortable that the daylight plane steps that down at the 14
edges where it affects neighbors and communities; that’s sort of the rationale behind our 15
thinking we should have a higher absolute minimum on height, because we’re confident that our 16
daylight plan requirements regulate the bulk and the mass of a building to a greater, and more 17
sophisticated extent; they’re relative to the property line and things like that. We’ve come up 18
with recommendations, or actually they’re in the code now, requirements for daylight plans in 19
our objective standards, so one thing to understand is that the NVCAP must have in it a 20
requirement that the current objective standards apply to this area, if you don’t have that, then 21
you don’t have the daylight plane and then a lot of what we’re saying doesn’t really work. So, 22
with that, we think 10-foot setbacks make a lot of sense, rather than having odder numbers, 12 23
½ feet for example, throughout the area, keep it simple, keep it straightforward. We think the 24
height can be much higher on multi-family housing units, R3 and R4 zones, especially in this area; 25
certainly 35 feet is just very low. The reason we’re often concerned about going too much higher 26
is the impact on adjacent R1 or lower density neighbors, residential neighborhoods; the daylight 27
plane will regulate that, let the building be taller if it still is set back properly from the residential 28
neighbors. Same thing applies to lot coverage, although there we see a lot as a practicing 29
Architects, having a 40 or 45% lot coverage just doesn’t give you enough space to work with if 30
we’re trying to get higher density, so we’re recommending 60 and 80% for R3 and R4 zones, just, 31
if we’re serious about increasing the density, you’ve got give a little more space to build. The last 32
thing really is, the…this notion of measuring lot coverage and setbacks for below grade 33
structures, several feet below the ground. We’ve discovered that….frequently we’ll see projects 34
wanting to put parking garages, mostly, below the ground out to the property line. They have to 35
maximize the space to get the parking to make it work, and we’re generally all for that, the 36
problem is that those parking garages have concrete ceilings, which are generally right at the 37
ground, so they put some sort patio, but that precludes having planting; trees or any kind of 38
landscaping, we frequently see then planters being created on top of these things, that precludes 39
mature trees going in. So, it seems to us to make sense just to say that, if we push it down, say 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
3 feet, you can really landscape the border of a property very well, and you can still have a garage 1
underneath that, but about 3 feet down lets you have real trees; look at the City Hall, the front 2
of the Plaza, those are big trees, on top of a parking garage. They’re there because we have 3 3
feet of soil; we came up with 3 feet as a.. not arbitrary, but a recommended number, but if you 4
can just wrap your head around measuring below grade stuff, deeper in the ground, we get the 5
benefit of being able to landscape the perimeter of a property for privacy. We have other 6
requirements for setbacks, daylight planes, that give us that space at the edge, but we have to 7
make it possible to put plants there, that also lets us have open space that’s useful outside that’s 8
green…that’s landscaped. So those two….that really came to us as a real good way to get both 9
things, it’s not that much harder to put the parking garages deeper underground. We struggled, 10
and this is more your issue than ours, that implementing a rule like that, just for the NVCAP, is 11
not very consistent throughout the town, that’s the kind of standard that should be applied 12
uniformly for all development, so the question for you perhaps is, is that appropriate to bury that 13
into the NVCAP regulations, which is what you’re doing today. We struggled with that question, 14
but we felt in the end…our recommendation should go to you, or Council on how you want to 15
deal with that, but our strong consider….our strong thought was that just measure these things 16
a couple feet down and it works. So that’s the summary of what we did and thoughts about all 17
this, so I’ll answer any questions, but thank you very much for hearing me. 18
19
Chair Summa: Thank you so much for that, and we will go to questions from PTC… and then to 20
the public. So, I am seeing Commissioner Templeton’s light. 21
22
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you… this question is for Staff, and I’m just wondering if you 23
can help us set some guidelines for tonight… as you know we are a body that has a tremendous 24
number of suggestions and opinions, and unafraid to provide them, but we also understand that 25
this is going to go forward in front of the Council; do we have any scope for what kind of feedback 26
we should provide, for example, do we want to be comfortable with making modifications to 27
those numbers for example that we were just discussing or…. or is that too broad, would that set 28
us back to step 1. 29
30
Planner Cha: So, it is Planning and Transportation Commissions discretion to make any 31
modifications to any Staff recommendation, So… 32
33
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you, I understand that. 34
35
Planner Cha: That includes the numbers or the height regulations….okay. 36
37
Commissioner Templeton: What I’m trying to discern is… what kinds of boundaries do we have 38
that would impact the ability for this to go forward to Council. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planner Cha: I think as long as the modifications doesn’t impact the… the CEQA analysis, I think 1
we can definitely accommodate any changes. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton: Great, thank you for clarifying that. 4
5
Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman. 6
7
Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you, two questions…for Staff. The first is a timing question, I 8
see on packet page 20…that…two of our grants from CALTRANS and HCD are at risk if we don’t 9
complete the project by the grant due dates, but I couldn’t find in the Staff report when the grant 10
due dates are; can you…..and that may affect this is going to Council June 18th, so can you tell me 11
when those grant due dates are? 12
13
Planner Cha: So initially when we were preparing for Staff report, it was June 30th of this year, 14
so Staff….but at the same time Staff were in coordination with those HCD and CALTRANS and 15
have extended until next year, of June 30th of 2025. So, we do have time, but definitely we would 16
like to move forward…if we can. 17
18
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, thank you. Second question…relates to…the information that 19
we just heard from the Chair of the ARB, it appears that there are…two places in the draft 20
ordinance where the ARB recommendation and the Staff recommendation are different; in each 21
case the ARB recommendation is 10-feet higher than the Staff recommendation, and I think we 22
just heard the ARB explain that the comfort level they had in recommending the elevations that 23
they recommended is the daylight plane, that applying the daylight plane, the extra 10-feet 24
compared to the Staff recommendation, you’re protected. Staff understands how the daylight 25
plane works. I was curious… to hear from Staff why with the daylight plane Staff was 26
uncomfortable recommending, sort of adopting the ARB recommendation as they have done in 27
practically…on all the other ARB recommendations as near as I can tell. 28
29
Planner Cha: I’m going to share some slides, to kind of visually represent the changes in height, 30
so this slide is showing what’s been included in the draft NVCAP. So this the original 31
recommendation of the heights… and this is showing ARB recommendations, so it is kind of… 32
when we are looking at the numbers it’s not as impactful… but when you’re looking with the 33
colors, you can kind of see how it’s… very… abutting… low density areas where the 65-feet are 34
proposed; so Staff, looking at these… we kind of wanted to make sure that. we can minimize the 35
impact to the lower density residential area, and usually Staff is comfortable with…when there’s 36
difference between… like the maximum difference of 15-feet, is what Staff usually recommends 37
in between the low density and high density. So, looking at that we have recommended lowering 38
some of those medium density areas; so, NVR3 and NVMXM, the medium density mixed-use 39
designations… but we do agree that the daylight plane definitely provides… a great tool to 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
provide… that… protect the privacy and… ya know… the mass and bulk impacts… reducing the 1
mass and bulk impacts. 2
3
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so let me… I think the explanation is… you’re recognizing the 4
daylight plane, but notwithstanding that they’re protected by the daylight plane… you… Staff are 5
sort of uncomfortable with just the bulk and massing even if the daylight plane is satisfied; in… 6
and it’s just in these two instances; am I understanding right? 7
8
Planner Cha: Yes, that’s correct. 9
10
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, alright, thank you for that clarification. 11
12
Chair Summa: Commissioner Chang. 13
14
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, I’ve got a bunch of clarifying questions. Okay, so, I had a question about 15
the effective density bonus… on height. So, my understanding is that with density bonus… we 16
could see up to 33 additional feet… over and above whatever we ultimately decide for NVCAP in 17
every single area; is that correct? 18
19
Planner Cha: That is correct….So 20
21
Vice-Chair Chang: So, like 65-feet would become 98-feet... 22
23
Planner Cha: That’s correct. 24
25
Vice-Chair Chang: And then… ya know… if somebody took advantage… 26
27
Planner Cha: Yeah. 28
29
Vice-Chair Chang: Then… my other question is, does… does the density bonus have any impact 30
on daylight plane, in other words is that one of the things that can be waived, or not? 31
32
Planner Cha: I believe it is one of the things that the applicant or developer can ask as a waiver… 33
so, yes… the answer would be yes… yeah. 34
35
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, that also was very helpful. Go… you want to… 36
37
Albert Yang, City Attorney : Sorry, I’d just like to jump in on the previous questions about the 33-38
feet. So, 33-feet is something that is provided for developments that are 100% affordable. 39
Height can still be waived, or developments that don’t… that aren’t 100% affordable… but that 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
waiver will be based on what’s necessary to permit that development… you know, at the density 1
that’s permitted. 2
3
Vice-Chair Chang: What implication does that have given that we’re not talking about density for 4
NVCAP, we’re doing FAR instead. 5
6
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Right, so relying on FAR does provide us with some more control over 7
that bulk and mass…rather than we’re trading that for control over the numbers of units, and 8
so…If someone for example, would normally be intitled to a 20% density bonus, they’ll 9
get…they’ll be intitled to a 20% FAR increase…. and then…. whatever waivers are necessary to 10
accommodate that additional 20% FAR. 11
12
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, so if I understand though, it’s sort of based on the design of whatever 13
the applicant submits, so, if they decide to have very high stories, like 14-feet, or ceilings for 14
example, then that would result in… higher height… correct? Because they’d [TIMESTAMP 37:42 15
Unintelligible] FAR. 16
17
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Yes, there is some grey area… around… you know, what is actually 18
necessary to accommodate development to that… at a certain density… but that is what a 19
developer would certainly assert… you know, what we need is 14-foot ceilings, and therefore, we 20
need this height. 21
22
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, and then something that you brought up, Councilor Yang is… that the 23
density bonus 33-feet really wouldn’t be reached unless it was 100% affordable, but then the 24
100% afford… affordability definition would be based on the states definition, correct? So, the 25
moderate… kind of 80 to 120% would quality as… like if it were 100% moderate, then that would 26
qualify for (interrupted) 27
28
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: No, in this case, the definition of 100% affordable… is going to be at a 29
lower affordability range. Under density bonus law, generally moderate income units don’t get 30
credit for rental projects, but they do get credit for ownership projects. 31
32
Vice-Chair Chang: That’s right, I forgot about that then. And then I do have… but it… it’s still 33
going to be the State definition, and not the NVCAP definition of 100% affordable, correct? 34
Because there’s an NVCAP definition, I think on page 24, on packet page 24, which I also had a 35
clarifying question about. 36
37
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Yes, so it will be the State definition, not the NVCAP definition. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, since we’re talking about that NVCAP definition on packet page 24… 1
hold on let me get there… okay, so my question is… I’m a little bit confused about the wording 2
here… am I correct in saying that for the purposes of the NVCAP chapter, it is 100% affordable… 3
if a project is a rental project, it would be considered 100% affordable only if the average AMI 4
does not exceed 60%, is that correct? I just couldn’t understand 18.29.040A. 5
6
Planner Cha: So, I think in… as you can see in attachment A, we have both the ARB 7
recommendation as well as Staff recommendation. One of the Staff recommendations was to 8
remove the section… 18.29.090, so that’s the housing incentive program. We initially had…a very 9
NVCAP specific affordable housing incentive, but we’re recommending that with the city-wide 10
housing incentive program, we’re just referring that chapter instead of having a specific one in 11
the NVCAP chapter, so therefore, the definition actually becomes… we actually have to 12
recommend removal of that definition so that we have consistency between that H… Housing 13
Incentive Chapter as well as… 14
15
Vice-Chair Chang: So, what is considered 100% affordable in the HIP? 16
17
Planner Cha: Albert… could you? 18
19
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Yeah so, that’s still being developed, but for… for rental projects I would 20
expect it to be at lower income…. so 80% to the MRI of below. 21
22
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, so if we allow HIP to supersede, then this 18.29.040 becomes moot, is 23
that what you’re saying? 24
25
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: So, I think Ms. Cha was explaining that we just forgot to delete it. That 26
we had recommended removal of this later section that relied on that definition… and… since we 27
removed that later section it’s really not relevant anymore… the definition. 28
29
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, but then it means that the new… since we removed that definition, the 30
new definition affordability is going to be at a higher percent AMI 80, instead of 60… is that 31
correct? 32
33
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Well, so that’s still… going to determined… the city-wide HIP 34
amendments are going to come the PTC… likely over the summer sometime. 35
36
Vice-Chair Chang: How about the timing for when this goes to Council… like, is this ordinance 37
going to be approved… like which one’s going to come first? Are we going to have HIP in place? 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: No… no we’re not. So, what this ordinance says, is that right now for 1
NVCAP we have these new zoning standards, and the NVCAP will also be eligible for HIP 2
enhancements when those are developed. 3
4
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay…but then if the NVCAP goes into place without this definition of 100% 5
affordable then what definition of 100% for affordable would there be within NVCAP? 6
7
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Well, so, there wouldn’t be any definition of 100% affordable just for 8
the NVCAP, because nothing would rely on such a definition… 9
10
Vice-Chair Chang: Right, no I understand…. so then it would be the City’s definition of 100% 11
affordable which at the moment… 12
13
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: No, but… sorry… nothing would rely on a City definition of 100% 14
affordable either. Like, there’s nothing you get for meeting some City definition of 100% 15
affordable, the only benefit that would exist at this time, before the HIP is developed and 16
enacted, is the density bonus definition of 100% affordable; which is… I was just looking it up… 17
it’s at least 80% for lower income households and at most 20% for moderate income households. 18
19
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, so lower incomes defined up to 80%, is that correct?...or is it 50? 20
21
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: It is a State Law definition that I would have to…yeah…follow through. 22
23
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, if you don’t mind that would be really great, because I know that this is 24
sort of like a big stumbling point… for our… that’s come up in… for City Council as well as it’s kind 25
of in our city. Okay, I’ve taken up a lot of time. I do have other clarifying questions, but other 26
people can go if they have other clarifying questions. 27
28
Chair Summa: Commissioner Reckdahl. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: We’re introducing this new zone the NV R-1, and what’s the difference 31
between NV R-1 and just regular R1? 32
33
Planner Cha: So, the NV R-1 is basically the low density single-family home. So most of the 34
development standards that we’re recommending… that it’s consistent with the existing R1 35
district, but the only difference is that… that is listed in Table 1, so that’s the street yard and 36
parking; because parking we have no requirement of minimum or maximum different from the 37
existing chapters, so the difference… only differences are in the street yard, which is a little bit 38
different from front yard, and the parking; other regulations and standards were relying on the 39
existing requirements in R1. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: So, you said in Table 1. 2
3
Planner Cha: Table 1, under 18.29.060… that’s… I believe packet page 31. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, there’s also Table 1 in 18. So, page 31… so that… well the parking 6
is irrelevant because if we kept it R1 we still can’t enforce parking, right?... by the State Law. 7
8
Planner Cha: Right, so because of the proximity to the CALTRAIN Station, the entire NVCAP area 9
is… we can’t require any parking, so… 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl: So, that in itself would not require a zone change, but you’re saying 12
that the street yard for R1 is… what is the street yard for R-1, 20-feet?... front… 20, okay and so 13
we’re shrinking that, okay. So, second question is… in NVCAP there’s a lot of R1 lots, and a some 14
of those have been converted to NV R-1 and others have been converted into NV R2, and why 15
were those lots treated differently? 16
17
Planner Cha: I think it’s just the… the NV R1 and NV R2 is basically low density area, but in our 18
NV R2… are facing some of the higher density, so we wanted to have some… a little bit of 19
flexibility allowing additional development standards that might be applicable for like duplex if 20
in the future if it’s… if there’s a desire. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: So, you’re saying that because they have to put up with the height 23
behind them, we want to give them the ability to put a duplex. 24
25
Planner Cha: Well, R2 is basically two family zoning district. 26
27
Commissioner Reckdahl: Correct. 28
29
Planner Cha: So, and then if you see the zoning district map, the NV R2 is along Olive Avenue, 30
and it is in between high density residential and VR4, VR3 medium density residential and 31
surrounded by medium density mixed use, so there is a potential if there is any desire, that 32
provide some potential in flexibility there. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, so you’re saying that because they’re being impacted by the 35
height on both sides… 36
37
Planner Cha: surrounded, yeah. 38
39
Commissioner Reckdahl: You want to give them the benefit of being able to do duplex. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Planner Cha: Right, and just to kind of … yeah to be consistent.. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: But NVR1 over on… like in the Pepper area, that’s surrounded by density 4
too... it just seems strange that we’re treating them differently, and to me they don’t look that 5
different. 6
7
Planner Cha: Yeah, I do see that. I think when we were going through the zoning district, we had 8
determined that those R1 areas would definitely stay as single family homes, whereas the R2 9
area with the Sobrato development going in, there may be some possibility to transition; that’s 10
why we have differentiated, but definitely Planning Commission can liberate and see if that 11
would be appropriate as well. 12
13
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, thank you. 14
15
Chair Summa: Sorry, I may have missed you saying this because I was taking notes and things, 16
but is… on the chart for R1 and R2, is the street yard setback… does that encompass the front 17
yards also? 18
19
Planner Cha: It is basically front yard, anything that is facing the street. 20
21
Chair Summa: Okay, that’s what I thought. 22
23
Chair Summa: But, okay, so… and is it currently 12 ½ feet? 24
25
Planner Cha: That was a proposal from Staff initially for NVCAP. 26
27
Chair Summa: Okay, I see. So is Staff at all concerned about implications to the… that front 28
setback being so small with the lot split… the State lot split law, which… not that we could require 29
parking, but then that becomes… the front setback becomes the only parking under that 30
scenario, cause the State has said you can’t have more than four foot side and rear setbacks. 31
Have we considered that? Because…. 32
33
Planner Cha: There was some discussion, but at the same time you are thinking about maybe it 34
might discourage ADU’s to be located in the front area, as well…. so there was kind of discussion 35
back and forth, and so we just kind of went with the ARB’s recommendation. 36
37
Chair Summa: Okay, but it could potentially become problematic, Staff agrees. 38
39
Planner Cha: There’s a potential. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Summa: [TIMESTAMP 50:34 unintelligible] that the lot split law seems to be being used 2
very much, it could create… .and there was something in our Staff report about an expectation 3
of use of on street parking also, and it could become very tricky in this area under certain 4
scenarios. I did want to ask about the clarification on… and then I’m going to go back to my 5
colleagues... on packet page 33, and this is mixed use development standards, and I understand 6
that we think that daylight plane and this is consistent with ARB opinion, doesn’t mean we have 7
to have those other setbacks… those other portions of sites that were protected by the 150-foot 8
rule on abutting... so at the bottom... so what I'm curious about is that on package page 31, which 9
is multi-family, maximum height… you’ve removed any protection for portions within fifty-feet 10
across R3 and R4, and then later, on packet page 33 portions of 150-feet of abutting residential 11
zoning district, which reflects our current code in general, under MXL and MXH, it says not 12
applicable, but forty-five foot buffer is retained under MXM and… I was just wondering what the 13
logic was there. Packet page thirty-three, maximum height…. Do you… was the question 14
understandable? 15
16
Planner Cha: I’m sorry, could you repeat… 17
18
Chair Summa: So, on packet page thirty-one, for multi-family in R3 and R4, we have retained the 19
daylight plane, but we have no concept of this buffer area for a certain distance for more… for a 20
more dense site… more dense sites at… but lower density sites. So that was removed, and 21
daylight plane exists. Then on package page thirty-three, towards the bottom under maximum 22
height for MXL, MXM, and MXH… MXL and MXH in response to 150-foot but say not applicable, 23
but the middle one says forty-five feet. So, you’ve retained… I don’t know… you know… yeah… 24
and I don’t know if that was a typo… I’m not apining of whether it’s a good idea or not, but we 25
sort of got rid of this buffer zone based on distance from abutting properties in leu of relying on 26
the daylight plane; but here you’ve retained it for that middle density. 27
28
Planner Cha: I think… the… if we actually went through, you would’ve had actually removed that 29
particular role for MX mixed-use district to be consistent with the residential multi-family 30
residential, because we do have a reference to daylight plane, the next row as well. So, I think 31
to be consistent, I think Staff would be okay to recommend removing that particular row as well. 32
33
Chair Summa: Okay, so it was probably just an artifact. 34
35
Planner Cha: Yes, yes. 36
37
Chair Summa: Okay, Commissioner Chang [Vice-Chair Chang]. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Vice-Chair Chang: Thank you, I’m going to go back to my questions. So, regarding the ARB’s three 1
foot threshold for basements, is that something the City Arborists reviewed at all? 2
3
Planner Cha: So, after the ARB meeting, Staff started coordinating with Urban Forestry 4
Department within the City, we haven’t had a conclusion yet, but we’re still trying to figure out 5
what it… what would be the appropriate depth… yeah. 6
7
Chair Summa: Alright, thanks. Okay, on packet page nineteen… the Staff report says… so, second 8
paragraph down, kind of in the middle of the page, last sentence, it talks about the proposed 9
ordinance updates ensure that housing opportunity sites can still benefit from the few areas 10
where the January 2024 rezoning was more permissive than the proposed NVCAP regulations… 11
could you just give us a little education on what those… like… more permissive in what way, just 12
kind of give us a little summary on what that is. 13
14
Planner Cha: So, because there was some rezoning of the housing element sites before, and 15
NVCAP came before the Planning Commission and City Council, we actually compared some of 16
the development standards between the NVCAP and the housing element sites and we… Staff 17
found that most… majority of the sites in NVCAP basically has more permissive development 18
standards, so… but some of a few areas… mostly where GM becomes R3 or NV R3, there are 19
some of the… maybe height might be that the rezoning… housing element rezoning had a higher 20
height allowance, than some other elements. 21
22
Chair Summa: Do you know just… do you have any idea of how much? 23
24
Planner Cha: I… don’t… (interrupted) 25
26
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Okay, so you can find this on packet page thirty-nine. There’s a table 27
there where there’s just two rows added at the very end… and for NV MXM the maximum height 28
is increased to fifty feet for housing opportunity sites. 29
30
Chair Summa: Which packet page again… what packet page? 31
32
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Sorry, packet page thirty-nine. 33
34
Vice-Chair Chang: There’s no table on thirty-nine. 35
36
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Hmm…. Think I’m looking at different [interrupted] 37
38
Vice-Chair Chang: thirty-eight Albert I think… thirty-eight? 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planner Cha: I think there are some changes in ours in between… since published , but so thirty-1
eight… so the last rows it says NV MXM NVR3… originally MXM district we had thirty-five feet 2
proposed, so compared to the housing element sites were… it’s allowing…maximum of fifty feet… 3
the housing element site had a more permissive height allowance, so we have included in there, 4
that’s the same for NVR3 we had initially recommended at thirty-five feet. So, the housing 5
element site had higher maximum height there as well; so, if we go the Staff recommendation, it 6
might be that everything in NVCAP is more permissive than housing element site development 7
standards. 8
9
Vice-Chair Chang: Understood. Okay, because Staff’s recommendation for MXM is actually fifty-10
five, is that correct? 11
12
Planner Cha: Right, fifty-five. 13
14
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay… okay so then, the rezoning that we did affects both MXM and NVR3, 15
or only NVR3? 16
17
Planner Cha: Umm… I’m sorry. 18
19
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: It affects them both…the housing element rezoning affects both of 20
those districts… or it affects the sites that are in both of those districts, right…. because the 21
housing element rezoning only applies to opportunity sites on the inventory. 22
23
Vice-Chair Chang: Got it….so this is [TIMESTAMP 59:09 Unintelligible] by Staff to just sort of 24
simplify this so we don’t have multiple things to refer too, in other words is…. I mean, is that the 25
reason? 26
27
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Well, it’s basically because when we rezoned our opportunity sites, it 28
was in order to meet the projected development right, that we had in our housing element, so 29
we didn’t want the NVCAP rezoning to then, you know, be a reduction in any of those standards 30
that we had already sort of calculated out to be necessary for our housing elements. So, we were 31
comfortable with you know, being more permissive than the housing opportunity site analysis 32
had showed earlier, but we didn’t want to reduce the height. I guess we’re seeing now that this 33
is another… probably a remnant it’s not… wouldn’t be necessary if we go with the Staff 34
recommendation, as it was sort of changed after the ARB hearing, but prior to the ARB this was 35
a necessary piece. 36
37
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, thanks that makes a lot of sense, and then my… while I have Mr. Yang 38
on… for packet page forty… this is another affordability question. So, on packet page forty, 39
16.65.040A, number two; it talks about 15% of the dwelling units in the project at rates affordable 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
to lower income households, so that’s that lower income definition again…. and do you… is that 1
fifty to eighty percent of (crosstalk) … So, then earlier in our conversation when you referred to 2
lower income as well… in the state definition of 100% affordability, that’s also fifty to eighty, or 3
eighty percent AMI, correct? 4
5
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Correct. 6
7
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, thank you…. and then my final question is on the street side setback, 8
so, can Staff give some background as to why the initial Staff recommendation was 12.5 as 9
opposed to 10, or what was the thinking of something more than… for something more than 10. 10
11
12
Chief Planning Official Amy French: This may have had to do with the El Camino Real build two 13
line… it was a build two line concept that was a twelve foot effective sidewalk… so I’m guessing 14
that is where that was drawn from; because we don’t have twelve foot anywhere else in our 15
code, except the build two line. 16
17
Planner Cha: That might be correct. 18
19
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, so then I did see on packet page 31…about the….kind of like 20
the…top…towards the top of the page when it talks about minimum setbacks and street yard 21
setback. There’s a reference for page mill sufficient to create a twelve foot effective sidewalk 22
width, is that why it’s 12.5? Like, why… I’m just trying to understand… like what are the 23
implications of reducing from 12.5 to 10, and… I thought maybe understanding their original logic 24
would help, but frankly I’m just trying to get at implications so if Staff can explain the implications 25
that’ll… that’ll do it for me. 26
27
Ms. French: We’re speculating perhaps it was additional curb area if they were doing some 28
planting areas or such…. because it’s about… well… it’s more like four inches. 29
30
Vice-Chair Chang: And then…. because I’m also looking at…. like… so… why for Ash are we saying 31
five feet…. Ash and Acacia. Are we saying five feet versus…. what’s the…. what’s the logic behind 32
all of these different setbacks? 33
34
Ms. French: Certainly, a five foot… a five foot setback is needed for a side… you know? A sidewalk 35
is often five feet wide right, for two people passing, at a minimum, so that would be you know, 36
the bare minimum. 37
38
AVice-Chair Chang: So, this is a setback from the street…. or setback from the property line? 39
And is the sidewalk generally part of the property, or parti or not. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Planner Cha: So, I… I can’t really… it’s not 100% certain… as I’m speculating here. This particular 2
NVCAP area is to sort of allow higher density to create the neighborhood… walkable 3
neighborhood, transit friendly neighborhood, so we wanted to probably maximize the 4
developability of these lots, so we have probably reduced from the existing setbacks that we’re 5
familiar with, to allow that additional density and flexibility for the designers. 6
7
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, but then…like….why five feet…why is it okay for some streets to be five, 8
and then other ones ten…and then what’s the implication…is there any….what’s the downside, if 9
any, to reducing from 12.5 to 10; in terms of sidewalks, bike lanes, whatever… whatever it is that 10
we might be wanting to do. 11
12
Planner Cha: I don’t think there is a downside in terms of right away improvements… like the 13
bike lanes and sidewalk because usually those are located in right of way outside of the property 14
lines. In El Camino Real and Page Mill area, we do ask some… some of the front yard to be 15
dedicated to right of way to create a more comfortable sidewalks, that’s why we have that… the 16
sufficient setback for… to create effective sidewalk, but usually…it…it’s sufficient to use the right 17
of way area to provide those bike lanes and….facilities for sidewalks, so I don’t think there’s a 18
huge downside to reduce down to ten feet, other than maybe… like the lot split or other single 19
family home development implications, but I think generally high level there shouldn’t be a 20
downside… I don’t think. 21
22
Vice-Chair Chang: If a car…like how deep is a parking space in a garage for example, so if we 23
were wanting to be able to allow for that possibility of a car to be parked….in a driveway or 24
something like that…. how deep would that need to be? 25
26
Ms. French: So, typically a garage we want to have a…like a… one car garage would have ten foot 27
clear space to meet code, on the inside because there’s walls there. Often on a street parking 28
space is going to be ten…. marked at ten feet for a parallel parking space, ten feet wide; it’s wider 29
than you need it to be, but that’s for the door swings, etc. 30
31
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, so theoretically, (crosstalk) the depth 32
33
Ms. French: Oh, the depth? 34
35
Planner Frick: Yeah, depth is typically closer to twenty feet, roughly but… 36
37
Ms. French: Well…Yeah, minimum parking space is eighteen… 38
39
Planner Frick: Yeah yeah…like for the length…you know… it varies but yeah… 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. French: But in a garage space it would be twenty. 2
3
Planner Frick: But yeah….so I think that’s like why historically why you’ll see a lot of… you know, 4
single-family lots developed with a twenty foot setback, is to allow like the full length of a car to 5
park within the driveway in front of the garage; but just to… I just wanted to kind of jump in a 6
little bit on some of the setback changes. So, the numbers… like the 12.5 feet, those numbers 7
came from like an earlier draft that was from the study session from about a year ago, roughly, 8
and so, you know…. we met with the Planning and office of Transportation Staff to really go over… 9
you know… like, scrutinize those setbacks, and look closely at whether there were any 10
implications of… you know… changing them, and so, ultimately…you know… to sort of answer 11
your question, we didn’t see any drawbacks necessarily of changing to what’s proposed in the 12
Staff recommended redline version; and in particular as it relates to parking because this area 13
has no minimum parking requirements due to the location to the the station, that’s something 14
that you know, we were factoring into some of that analysis for those discussions, if that helps. 15
16
Vice-Chair Chang: Yeah, that does help. Okay, then final question…. on Park Boulevard… that’s 17
where we have bike lines and stuff like that, and often on like larger streets, like Park or Page Mill 18
or El Camino, we’re concerned about setbacks because of bike lanes, or wanting to be able to 19
construct things in that area, is that a concern at all for any of the proposed setback changes that 20
are being made? 21
22
Planner Cha: No, if you see…. the street sections, it actually proposes the bike lanes and sidewalks 23
all outside of the property line, so all within the right of way… so there isn’t any problems or 24
issues. 25
26
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, thank you. 27
Planner Frick: And just… if I may, just following up as well; so, the changes to the street sections 28
was also you know…. a result of kind of how these changes were for the setbacks as well, because 29
we really want it to look holistically like you’re saying it… like how does it work functionally as 30
part of like the redevelopment vision for the NVCAP. 31
32
Chair Summa: And then, just one last question about setbacks, on packet page 30 under 33
minimum setbacks, there’s an additional note that said: setback lines imposed by special setback 34
map pursuant to Chapter 20.8 of this code may also apply; I think this duck tails on to what 35
Commissioner Chang [Vice-Chair Chang] was saying, so would we… I’m assuming that’s a special 36
setbacks that we have on arterial streets. 37
38
Ms. French: That’s correct, the special setbacks are marked on the special setback map all over 39
town. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Chair Summa: So, are…is that consistent with the setbacks being proposed, also retain….of…for 2
the future use of what multimodal streets probably, the special setbacks with the new setbacks. 3
4
Planner Cha: I don’t believe so… are… the questions is whether the setback would impact the 5
improvements on the right of way, like bike lanes or sidewalks… 6
7
Chair Summa: Not the public right of way, the setbacks imposed on privet property. 8
9
Planner Cha: Private property? 10
11
Chair Summa: Yeah, it seems…I’m just asking if it’s contradictory. 12
13
Ms. French: Yeah, I think what…we don’t have a…special setback map handy, I don’t think in our 14
slides. 15
16
Chair Summa: I do. I think I might. 17
18
Ms. French: If you give us a minute, we can pull that up. 19
20
Chair Summa: Yeah, I mean you can…maybe we should discuss that later because if….I mean 21
there’s a chance that…that cell is not accurate or in….ya know, in congress with the other setback. 22
23
Ms. French: I think in our regular zoning code…when there’s a special setback there’s…that 24
becomes the default and people can come through and request a variance from special setbacks, 25
but the usual setbacks, for instance in an R1 zone is twenty feet, and then on a street that has a 26
special setback, well, that’s twenty-five feet and those can [unintelligible] situations, right. 27
28
Chair Summa: And I don’t even know if Park has a special setback, I don’t recall off the top of my 29
head, so, okay. So, if I am seeing another question from Commissioner Reckdahl. 30
31
Commissioner Reckdahl: Couple questions. Talking about setbacks, some of the setbacks have 32
numbers from the property line, and some say sufficient to create a twelve foot, effective 33
sidewalk width, why do we have an effective sidewalk width, why wouldn’t you just figure out 34
how…where the property line is and have a number? 35
36
Ms. French: So, again, this dates back to the El Camino Real design guidelines that set that, it’s 37
the combination of eight plus four, I think eight was the setback and four was the planter strip or 38
something, to make a twelve foot. So, with the question is why don’t we just…map it on the map, 39
because each…I mean some…sometimes there’s a planter strip, sometimes there isn’t, ya know… 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes, but if…so, you talk about that eight plus four, where would the 2
property line be on that, at the curb? 3
4
Planner Cha: So we have this sufficient setback to create the effective sidewalk because, some 5
of the right of way distance, or width is different as you go along the street; sometimes we have 6
to ask the property owners to dedicate… or by easement… have a little bit more than some of 7
the other property owners, maybe few blocks away, so you….we have initially said maybe zero 8
to ten foot the range, but ya know, we don’t know what it’s going to be so we just change it to 9
sufficient setback to make sure we have twelve foot, and that can be changed by property. 10
11
Planner Frick: So, if it’s helpful…so the…basically on an individual property basis, it could vary 12
where…you know a specific feature is located in relation to the property line, like a sidewalk, and 13
the intent of it is to make sure that as the plan develops and the corridors develop, that that 14
vision is coherent in terms of like…the features that will be developed as the build out occurs. 15
So, the effort…why it’s indicated differently, is because…ya know, Staff believes that it’s 16
important that those specific sidewalk widths are able to be accommodated through the 17
buildout, kind of along… 18
19
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, and so when you define sidewalk width, is that from the property 20
line, or is that from the existing street? 21
22
Ms. French: Well, it would typically be from the curb. So there’s a diagram on packet page 72 23
that might help; showing the clear walkway and the tree bed, the clear walkway being eight, and 24
the tree bed, and at the edge of the tree bed, it’s assuming it’s a planter strip there, that’s the 25
curb. So, you start measuring at the curb, and that goes back towards the property. 26
27
Planner Cha: So, also, El Camino Real Street section also reflects that as well. So, that shows four 28
and eight that Amy previously mentioned. 29
30
[crosstalk] 31
32
Planner Cha: So, the El Camino Real Street section also shows that how much you have to actually 33
push into the property to create that effective twelve foot sidewalk. 34
35
Ms. French: Measured from the curb. 36
37
Planner Cha: Measured the curb…. that’s packet page I think 7.1. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Reckdahl: Item 7. And so….is this because El Camino isn’t parallel to the property 1
lines or the property lines zig and zag, why is…why did El Camino decide to have this 2
property…this sidewalk width, as opposed to everyone else just saying from the property line. 3
4
Ms. French: Yeah, I believe it’s part of that exercise back in 2002, there was the sidewalk width 5
was sometimes eight feet, sometimes less; it varied up and down El Camino, so it’s a larger 6
conversation about exactly about El Camino, but that’s where this is derived from, that exercise 7
back in 2002. 8
9
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, heritage. Okay, second question is on the daylight plane. When 10
I look at…on packet page 31, it refers me to a section in the code that shows a daylight plane, 11
and I’m used to the daylight plane being like ten feet at the property line, and then going up at 12
forty-five degrees or thirty degrees; in this one it starts at twenty-five, is that….so when I look at 13
the code that’s cited there on packet page 31, the daylight plane starts at the property line at 14
twenty-five feet, and then goes up at forty-five degrees from that, and that seems to be a 15
significant changes, is that the way it’s supposed to be, or is this a typo? 16
17
Ms. French: I believe that’s intentional, and I don’t know if you have additional questions about 18
the…the Architectural Review representative could answer questions about logic on some things. 19
20
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, that’s all I have for now, thanks. 21
22
Chair Summa: Okay, and for clarification a special setback does exist on Park, I just checked the 23
zone map, but it starts at Lambert, and goes south and I’m sure that was for the intention for 24
bike lanes, so…okay, so I would like to go to the Public now please. 25
26
Chair Summa: Do we have any… 27
28
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao: Yes, I have….one speaker card from Yugen Lockhart. 29
30
Chair Summa: Thank you. I can’t see right now. 31
32
Chair Summa: Good evening. 33
34
Yugen Lockhart: Hello Council, Yuden Lockhart, do I need to spell it? No… okay, other ones… 35
Most of you know me, so anyways. I’m an Olive Avenue resident, I’ve been there my entire forty-36
six years of life, born in the house, so this is my neighborhood. I know all of the neighbors on 37
Olive at least, and even some on Pepper. I’ve watched this neighborhood evolve quite a bit… so 38
this is kind of my backstory, but I’m still living on the street, my brother lives next door, my 39
parents have an apartment on the site of our dwelling. Ya know, we’ve been observing…. kind 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
of chaos, and so… so I’m here…. I’ve actually changed my speech about four times while sitting 1
here this evening. And…. it… I’m just confused about even why we’re trying to approve at this 2
juncture…you know we paused a lot of this NVCAP stuff for quite a while, and approved…I had a 3
list but….it’s a whole bunch of projects you know…the Acacia, the charities, the fries thing was 4
quite an adventure, but these are approved projects going on, even the Foot Locker, which is 5
3225 El Camino, it’s been stalled for years, and they’re up to four-stories right now, is active; so 6
really this….my point is, there’s not many construction projects left within this neighborhood, ya 7
know we got….I’m going to call it the Verizon store, that’s a pending….maybe coming up, and 8
everybody’s hot and heavy to build up the parking lot of Cloudera, as the big brown square on 9
the charts that we’re seeing; and bulldozing a bunch of beautiful Redwood and Pine trees to 10
make those high density housings that are twelve and a half feet of the sidewalk…..so….and then 11
I’m looking….this last bit of conversation talking about all the residential getting allowed to move 12
closer to the street, probably actually not a big thing for me, but at the same time it feels like the 13
residence is everybody’s been dancing around all of us...this...this entity that just can’t be 14
adjusted and we must stay in 850 square foot houses, tiny for Palo Alto, but you….meanwhile, 15
everybody else has already gotten special permission to grow well beyond the stand….the 16
previous standards, but now we’re setting up new standards for the couple more big 17
developments that are going to try and get into this neighborhood, but it’s mostly just blocking 18
all the individual houses from doing anything. Seems like the biggest obstructed people of this 19
whole NVCAP, and we’ve all been just demanding that transportation is one of the people of this 20
meeting is make sure the flow of this neighborhood seems like square one for a development 21
project. My pet peeve is….oh my gosh I’m losing….the Hanson Avenue, leading into, I’ll call it 22
where the Foot Locker is there, it should actually veer way off to the right to go to Lambert, make 23
a ring road, and then make all the other smaller projects….roads as veins instead of arteries. Olive 24
Avenue is a major artery, everybody’s cutting the corner, El Camino everybody in transportation 25
says we can’t make a right turn on El Camino, cause it’s State run, that seems kind of bologna to 26
me, but whatever, and we’re talking about setbacks, but most of those projects are already 27
approved, so…you know why are we worried about approved projects, when everybody’s going 28
to ask for special dispensation anyways, so those are a couple of my rants on this. You know, as 29
far as residential dwellings on Olive Avenue, if anybody goes through that street, it…every single 30
instance is…was almost special. We’ve got a little batch of houses, and then we’ve just got a 31
couple of brand new house with Junior ADU and rear ADU, they were going to do two more next 32
to that, they changed their mind on keeping the house, but throwing the ADU’s in the back. 33
Meanwhile, we talked about that at Olive and Ash, there’s a two-story commercial building, and 34
the zoning has got them as a special dispensation, that should just be R1 with everybody else, let 35
the building stay, no body’s asking to bulldoze it, but at the same time, why is that one a special 36
issuance, we should just have a red ring, according to that drawing, and then everything zoned 37
in accordingly, this is just my opinion. Looks like I’m out of time, but….good luck, but I don’t 38
recommend approving it, I’d say stall and wait until you guys are done, so it….especially with he 39
Fries allocation to the city of Palo Alto, I would say stall it until you guys have decided what you 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
want to do, that way you can get your own special dispensation too, that can be taller; because 1
there’s no residences around it, anyways, good luck. 2
3
Chair Summa: Thank you so much for your comments, it looks like we have one more caller on 4
Zoom.5
6
Ms. Dao: Yes, I have one on….one raised hand on Zoom from Cedric. 7
8
Cedric dLB: Hello, thanks for having this meeting. Yeah…I think one of my concerns was….with 9
that…notion of having underground structures being able to go all the way up to the edge of the 10
property line, below a certain depth….I hope that you…..is sounds like you are discussing that 11
with the City Arborists and other knowledgeable people who would know what is a sufficient 12
depth. I did a quick search online, and I found a database of the maximum root depths of 13
different California plants, and ya know…given that….you know granted that’s the maximum root 14
depth, so I don’t know what the required minimum root depth would be, but only twenty-seven 15
percent of the plants had a three-foot or less maximum root depth, so some of the trees, like the 16
Oaks can go down really quite deep…surprisingly deep; tens, eighty-feet, you know, it’s a….it’s 17
pretty impressive really, so I really think you need to be careful with that, particularly, if you think 18
‘oh this is interesting, let’s do this everywhere across Palo Alto’, I think that….that’s really quite 19
dangerous direction to go. We do need to protect our natural spaces, and I did also note 20
the….one of the Commissioners I think was talking about this strange setback for the MXM on 21
Page Mill, it’s listed as five-feet, instead of ten feet or twelve feet, that may be because of existing 22
buildings, but it seems to me that if you want to achieve a ten or twelve foot effective sidewalk 23
width, then you just need a zone for that, and when those existing buildings get rebuilt at some 24
point in the future, you’ll get the ten feet instead of being stuck with whatever the depth is right 25
now. Yeah, so, I think that’s all I have for now at this time. I think that the daylight plane envelope 26
is an interesting way to….try to constrain the building mass and….ya know, let it go as high as it 27
can go within that envelope; I was a little concerned by the notion that some types of projects 28
might be able to completely get around the daylight plane, so, I don’t know if you need some 29
regulations to prevent that particular way of ending up with a giant building right next to smaller 30
ones if those regulations can be somehow subverted…can you put some other regulation on top 31
of that, that can’t be subverted so easily . Great, thank you. 32
33
Chair Summa: Thank you so much, and that concludes our public hearing on this topic, and at this 34
time I would like to ask Chair Baltay if he would like to stay with us for some of the conversation, 35
or… yes, I’m seeing a nod okay, thank you very much. So, I will bring it back to the Commission, 36
and Commissioner Hechtman, thank you for lighting your light. 37
38
Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you, so actually in this round I’ve got some questions, I wanted 39
to do those after public comment. I thought those comments were interesting, thank you for 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
sharing them with us. So, the first question is really procedural. So one of the Staff 1
recommendations tonight is that we recommend to the City Council that they certify the SEIR, 2
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; but what we have tonight, is just the one of two 3
parts of that, right, because the SEIR is comprised of the draft SEIR, which is what we have, and 4
the final SEIR which is, sort of a layer on top of that, that has any…usually minor changes that 5
might happen to the draft, plus it has the comments, we’ve got four comments, three written, 6
one oral; and the responses to those comments. And from the Staff report, I think those 7
comments came in recently because the window just closed. We don’t have those response to 8
comments, and so, I don’t think we can do exactly what Staff if asking tonight and recommend 9
that the Council certify something we haven’t seen. But what I do think can do, is we can make 10
that recommendation in a qualified way, something like subject to the City Council determining 11
that an adequate response has been provided to comments, in the final SEIR. I think if we phrase 12
that motion that way, then we get past the fact that we haven’t seen that, and it doesn’t have to 13
come back to us. So, I wanted to find out upfront if Staff and Mr. Yang thought that that is a way 14
we could move forward, past this tonight. 15
16
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Yes, I think that would be acceptable; the other approach we could take 17
is…Staff probably should have phrased that first part of the recommendation as just consider the 18
SEIR, because that’s all that the Planning Commission is really required to do, is to consider the 19
document and it doesn’t have to be the final one. 20
21
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so maybe that’s actually preferable, because I remember this 22
from many prior projects, that that’s what we’re done, consider, and so I think if we do that we 23
don’t make a motion on the SEIR, instead, as a preface to our motion to the rest of it, that we 24
say, that we considered and can say the draft EIR, but not the final EIR, and then make our 25
motions. Okay, so that’s the procedural issue. The questions I have, really have to do with the 26
ordinance, and so let me just kind of walk through them. I’m going to start with Table 1, which 27
is the permitted and conditionally permitted uses. So, if I understood correctly from Ms. Cha 28
earlier, I think all of the P’s and dashes and CUP’s we see here, those were essentially transported 29
from the base zoning district; to which we’ve now added an N, because it’s in the NV, right? 30
31
Planner Cha: That’s correct. 32
33
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, alright. So, that’s the origin of it, and you know, as I look 34
through it there were a few sort of head scratchers, because I don’t know if the…I didn’t go back 35
to look at the base Table to see if we have a base Table with actually all eight of these categories 36
in one place, but when I look at all eight together, you know I had a few questions that I want to 37
ask, so…and so I’m going to start on packet page 25. Again, these are Table 1 questions. So, I see 38
that ADU’s and JADU’s are a permitted use in every zoning category except the public facilities, 39
the PF; and so, I’m thinking about an ADU or JDU in any of the higher density particularly NVR3 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
through the most dense, and I don’t see how that can actually happen, so I’m just wondering if 1
that’s there because there’s something in the state law that says they have to be allowed in every 2
residentially zoned district. 3
4
Planner Cha: That’s correct, so ADU’s are allowed in single and multi-family districts. 5
6
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay. 7
8
Planner Cha: That’s why, yeah you see it all Ps there. 9
10
Commissioner Hechtman: Alright, thank you. In the educational, religious, and assembly uses I 11
was just kind of curious we have CUP’s allowed only in the R4…NR4 and NXL, and I’m wondering 12
so….actually, this is kind of a highlight, did Staff, I know you transported all these, but once you 13
had done that, did you…did you sort of look at these and ask does this still make sense, or should 14
be…they be spread more broadly, or was the thought that just this is how it applies throughout 15
the rest of the city, we shouldn’t mess with it. 16
17
Planner Cha: Generally, the latter, but we can definitely consider if you think that there should 18
be some of the zoning district that we can…that we should allow with conditional uses, but 19
generally we’re following the city-wide directions. 20
21
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, and honestly while…I may quibble with some of these things 22
and think this could fit here, this could fit there, I think that consistency throughout the city code 23
is worth more. So, I’m not going to ask about any of those; the only other comment I’ll make in 24
Table 1 is that I notice you have community centers twice, it appears on packet page 26 right 25
under the public quasi-public uses, and then again on 28, at the bottom of agricultural and open 26
space uses, so I do think that one can be consolidated. 27
28
Planner Cha: Yes, that’s correct, we’ll fix that. 29
30
Commissioner Hechtman: I think I had a couple more questions. Packet page 37, there’s this 31
section of the new ordinance 18.29.100 non-conforming uses and non-compliant facilities. So, 32
the text is at the top of page 37, but in the Staff reports that we get, and maybe it’s even…I think 33
it’s online too, is you’ve got the Item 2 box blocking a few words. So, my first question is, what 34
are the words under the box in the first line, after chapter. You may have a box blocking yours 35
too. 36
37
Ms. French: We do, we’ll have to go online and see what it says on the online version. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so let’s come back to that. So, I wanted to ask though, I went 1
and looked 18.70, and….in fact I…did you find it? 2
3
Planner Cha: Yeah, so it says any uses or facilities rendered non-conforming or non-complying 4
by this chapter shall be subject to chapter 18.70. 5
6
Commissioner Hechtman: Shall be subject to… 7
8
Planner Cha: Yeah. 9
10
Commissioner Hechtman: That’s what is hidden. Okay. 11
12
Planner Cha: That’s the existing one… 13
14
15
16
Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, everything else we can see. Okay, so I did go look at 18.70 and 17
itactually kind of surprised me, but the vision there is 18.70.07B, in any district, a non-conforming 18
non-residential use of the site shall be….I’m skipping some of the language….shall be terminated 19
in accord with the following provisions and schedules, when occupying or using facilities designed 20
and built for residential use non-conforming shall be within ten years from the date such use 21
became non-conforming, whichever is later. So, really my question here is there’s a lot of office 22
in the NVCAP area, and what is the practical effect of including this provision…. what’s the 23
practical effect of 18.70.070 on that office space? 24
25
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Yeah, so to...ya know….to the extent it becomes non-conforming, then 26
it will…need to terminate….I believe within…within ten or fifteen years, unless there is a site 27
specific amortization study that’s completed, that would set a different period. And so, 28
practically what we would expect is for…..ya know these sites to prepare an amortization study, 29
and petition the City to have a site specific schedule established for them, and…yeah, that’s what 30
I would expect. 31
32
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, that’s helpful. So, that amortization study could buy them 33
another five years, or could buy them whatever the amortization study shows, right? 34
35
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: Right. 36
37
Commissioner Hechtman: Newer in, longer out, basically…typically. Okay, so in this preferred 38
plan that we’re looking at, it indicates that there’s, I think we’re reducing office in the NV area 39
by, I think it’s 278,000 square feet, right? And so, that particular square footage reference there, 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
those are on certain parcels…well, I should ask, are those on certain parcels, and that’s what they 1
add up to, so that we know which 278,000 square feet are going to need to terminate in ten years 2
without an amortization schedule, or does that provision to the NVCAP mean all 744,000 square 3
feet of office in the NVCAP is terminating in ten years, except if they get an amortization schedule, 4
they may go longer, which if that’s the case…to me that is inconsistent with the contemplation 5
of the NVCAP that we’re reducing from 744,000 by whatever is…278,000 less than that. So, I’m 6
trying to understand how this is going to work, with the office that’s in the NVCAP. 7
8
Planner Cha: So, just to answer, the specific question about 278, I don’t believe that the study 9
identifies specific sites, it is just the square footage that we have…kind of identified or 10
determined to accommodate that additional housing units. So, it can be…the existing offices in 11
the ROLM area, it can be some of the existing offices in CS districts, but we don’t have any specific 12
site locations identified. 13
14
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay. Right, that’s helpful, and then the final question and I’ll end 15
here, this is on packet page 39…and this is one where I just need a little bit of understanding. 16
Toward the bottom of the page it’s section 1665030, subpart A2, for projects on sites five acres 17
or more and all townhome projects in the NV districts, twenty percent are…need to be made 18
affordable, right. So, I think the townhome projects will those….is that just going to be the NV2, 19
or can it be NV3? 20
21
Planner Cha: It can be in multi-family depending on the density they’re proposing. So, for the 22
NVR3 site, which is the Sobrato site, there were some entitlement improved, that had seventy-23
nine units approved on that particular site, and those are town home projects as well. 24
25
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, so the concern I had, I think was when I looked at our new map 26
and this NV2 that runs, that I want to say it’s along the Olive spine right, there’s a former R1’s 27
now.. 28
29
Planner Cha: Now R2, yeah NVR2. 30
31
Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, the R2, and it looked like there were twenty individual lots 32
there. 33
34
Planner Cha: Mmhmm. 35
36
Commissioner Hechtman: And so, my question is, if I bought one of those and built a new 37
townhome, how do I comply with the twenty percent made available, is that an in lieu fee at that 38
level? 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planner Cha: I think that Albert will definitely help. 1
2
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: So, if it’s just built…at ya know, such a small scale that you’re at a fraction 3
of a unit, that would be paid as [unintelligible] 4
5
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay. 6
7
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: But there’s also a unit threshold at which the inclusionary ordinance 8
just doesn’t apply. So, it would really depend on the specific project. 9
10
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, but if it’s below the threshold it’s an in lieu, and it’s not that if 11
I’m only building two, I’m going to have to round up no matter what, and I have to make one of 12
those affordable. Okay, alright, those are my questions, thanks, I do have some comments in the 13
next round. 14
15
Chair Summa: Thank you, Commissioner Chang [Vice-Chair Chang]. Umm…no. I’m not seeing 16
any lights, so…so we can go on to comments. Would any one…okay, Commissioner Chang [Vice-17
Chair Chang]. 18
19
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, so I… I don’t know process-wise Chair, if there’s a way…if we want to 20
just kind of quickly talk about our areas that we might want to discuss further, because, that way 21
we can maybe…you can focus…focus our discussion. 22
23
Chair Summa: Well, Staff did prepare a slide with potential discussion areas, maybe they could 24
bring that up, would you like that? 25
26
Chair Summa: Thank you for that, okay…so there may be others, but this is what… 27
28
Vice-Chair Chang: And so, do we want to take these one by one right now, and should I limit my 29
comments to the first, or… 30
31
32
33
Chair Summa: I think we can go through comments, we don’t have to go through them one by 34
one, I don’t think. 35
36
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, so first of all, I….it sounds like there’s just been so many revisions of 37
this, and I think Staff did pretty good job at trying to rationalize everything and refer to existing 38
code, so I really appreciate that; because it just makes things easier, and easier to change. We 39
know, with looking at our retail code that it’s going to be really difficult to change, so thank you 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
for all the work that you put into this. I have not so many concerns about lot coverage, I think 1
my concerns are more around the setbacks and the maximum height as they relate to…..the 2
NVMXM in particular, and then…the sidewalk width concern that I have, I think ducktail with 3
setbacks. So, my concern is that we’re suggesting fifty-five instead of forty-five for….NVMXM 4
and I’m concerned, despite daylight plane, because of density bonus provisions, also we….on the 5
PTC saw, an example of our project…for what was Palo Alto Commons, right behind single family 6
homes, and we saw what it looks like when there’s a very big project that doesn’t violate any 7
daylight plane…..constraints, and it’s pretty massive, and I….my understanding of the NVCAP 8
process, is that….residents were concerned about hulking buildings right next to them, and even 9
if it is only quote/unquote a forty-five foot building, it’s going to be massive. There’s an impact 10
of massing even when daylight plane isn’t an issue, and in this case, if the daylight plane begins 11
not at ten feet, as Commissioner Reckdahl mentioned, but actually at twenty-five feet, then it’s 12
even more of a concern. So, I would be in favor of with respect to NVMXM going back to the 13
original plan…that was kind….that the preferred option that City Council had…chosen, and going 14
back to forty-five. Because, if you look at…if you want to pull up the map, you can see….my area 15
of concern is specifically for the NVMXM…I think it’s…that’s at Oregon and El Camino, between 16
Pepper and Olive, and then between Olive and Acacia, because that’s going to be pretty awful 17
for those folks, and I think that the intention when it was….when heights were initially established 18
was…..it with those properties in mind. So, and then, on the setbacks, again, I think I…I don’t 19
have any objection, per say, I’m just not quite…like there’s so many different setbacks 20
everywhere, that I kind of can’t tell where they are, and I’m just concerned, but I think if…so I’d 21
like to hear what my colleagues say about that, I don’t have any objection to ten versus twelve 22
and a half, because it doesn’t seem like we’re….changing….much there. But, we can’t fit a car in 23
the front anyway, so…that’s not an issue. On the basement issue, I do think that as Mr. Baltay 24
said, it’s probably best to address that, in a city-wide way; so I would punt on that one, that’s my 25
opinion. Then, I have a few smaller ones, such as on page 35, we talk about hotels, and where 26
hotels are allowed, which are basically only in the MXM and MXH areas, and I can’t understand, 27
why, if we’re allowing hotels, that we would have hotels have the least FAR. So, if you look at 28
the bottom of packet page 35, where it talks about C hotel regulations, and it’s C2. It says hotel 29
where they are permitted may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0 to one, and I’m kind of thinking 30
why, why are we going to limit hotels to 2.0 to one, when the whole rationale behind having 31
them at all, is to help generate revenue, so why would we want…like…you know, we’re driving 32
along El Camino Real, or driving along this area, and all of a sudden all the buildings around the 33
hotel are taller than the hotel, we just let the hotel be the same height. So, I think we should 34
relax the hotel FAR to 3.0, and furthermore, like hotels are the only thing that are required to be 35
parked, so they’re not going to actually have any negative impact if they’re larger. [NO 36
MICROPHONE] No, hotels are allowed to be required to be parked under the State law, yes, 37
under the…so that’s the one of the exceptions to the half mile radius. So, those are my 38
comments. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Summa: I’m not seeing any lights, does anybody want to go…Commissioner Reckdahl? 1
2
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, I’ll echo some of those, I agree with the hotel is a 3.0, that seems 3
more consistent. Also, the below grade…I support in spirit of the below grade, but I think we 4
need more investigation, talk to the Urban Forester, look at street trees, also look at….if you 5
wanted to put a bike lane over the top of that, is that going to interfere with the construction of 6
the bike lane. Three feet seems a little skimpy, over on San Antonio with seven feet, that made 7
more comfortable, that it really would impede us, but I think that’s a separate issue. The daylight 8
plane…I…that…it’s….if you’re the one building it, it’s a…it’s a burden if you’re the one living next 9
to it, it’s a savior, and I really feel uncomfortable starting at twenty-five feet at the property line, 10
and that…and then going up from there; that’s really going to have the impact of all those…all 11
those properties along Olive. So, I would say that we should even though the density bonus may 12
waive it, I would start at ten feet and go up at forty-five, I think that’s a better protection for 13
those. For the lots when you abut a low-density lot, and then also along Park, the bike lane, that’s 14
such an important bike lane, I think we need a twenty-foot special setback again along Park, I 15
think that’s only prudent. Over at Bargan Mart, we skimped on the setback there, and that’s 16
really complicated the rail crossings, and so, if we had a little more setback there, we’d have 17
other options that would make for a better rail crossing, and I wish we had. 18
19
Chair Summa: Commissioner Templeton? 20
21
Commissioner Templeton: Hi, thank you. My…my general comment here is, that we’ve been 22
working on this project for a very long time, it’s been iterated numerous times, and we had that 23
listed, thank you, and that’s helpful to understand how we got where we are. It’s sort of in one 24
way relieving that we are talking about some minor changes at this point, but I also want to keep 25
in perspective that it’s important to move forward and stop keeping these properties tied up in 26
process. So…regarding the height…. can we go back to the height graph again...the one with the 27
lower numbers, the chart, the plan that Vice-Chair Chang was looking at. 28
29
Vice-Chair Chang: It’s the preferred plan heights. 30
31
Commissioner Templeton: That one. I’m…I’m trying to really understand what…. Commissioner 32
Chang said. 33
34
Vice-Chair Chang: So, I think Staff’s proposal is that it should be forty….fifty-five where there’s 35
forty-five, and I’m concerned about it with respect to the few MXM zones that are in the first 36
three blocks from Oregon. 37
38
Commissioner Templeton: I understand that you’re concerned, but I don’t know why. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Vice-Chair Chang: Oh, fifty-five feet instead of forty-five? 1
2
Commissioner Templeton: Yeah. 3
4
Vice-Chair Chang: Because it’s going to be even taller, and higher over….forty-five is fine, it’s the 5
fifty-five that I’m not excited about because, it’d be even taller, and even higher hulking over 6
these homes. 7
8
Commissioner Templeton: Oh, I…I actually disagree, I think that… make it taller…like this is the 9
area, if we’re going to go and we’re going to develop it, let’s develop it. So, I…I think that the 10
height argument that the ARB made is pretty… sound, and I’m not too worried about that, 11
because as they mentioned, as the Chair mentioned, like it’s still subject to requirements 12
about…the daylight plane and stepping back, and things like that; I felt like that’s a pretty rational 13
explanation. So, I’m not as concerned about that as Vice-Chair Chang but thank you for 14
explaining. I also heard the public comment about being able to allow the residents of the single 15
family properties there to think differently about how to build on their site; that’s a really rational 16
counter argument, so if I were going to change anything, that’s what I would do to allow them to 17
enjoy their home, a little bit…have a little bit more space or tolerance for building out, so that’s 18
kind of where I would think about that. The daylight plane….yeah, I…I think that….the proposal 19
that…that Staff has given, and the proposal that Commissioner Reckdahl has given are both fine 20
to me, but I’m…my concern here it, haven’t we hashed this out?...like haven’t we in the previous 21
umpteen meetings talked about this?...like how did we arrive at this, and why are we second 22
guessing it again at this point. Staff do we know?...how we arrived at the numbers that we’re 23
using, and why. 24
25
Planner Cha: The numbers, the setback [interrupted] 26
27
Commissioner Templeton: Yeah. 28
29
30
31
Planner Cha: Where the daylight…well that was already, or is just merely referencing in NVCAP 32
chapter to the existing objective design standards chapter, or section, that includes the daylight 33
plane regulations, so… [interrupted] 34
35
Commissioner Templeton: So, all I’m asking is was there any changes involved. 36
37
Planner Cha: No changes involved in that. 38
39
Commissioner Templeton: Okay, so is there any…so was it reviewed at all? 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Planner Cha: It was actually reviewed with ARB, so we were discussing it at…at the hearing, and 2
we did talk about the twenty-five feet, but we were…I believe ARB and Staff were comfortable 3
enough to move forward, just refer the existing section. 4
5
Commissioner Templeton: So, thank you. For that reason, and no other, I would say I’m 6
comfortable with it to; I’d be happy to move forward, and then I took some notes here, and I 7
can’t read my own hand writing, the last thing we talked about, I guess it’ll come up again if it’s 8
important. [off-microphone: dishwasher soap] Dishwasher soap, yeah, that’s what it is, you silly. 9
Okay, so in other words, generally I feel comfortable moving this forward, and with the Staff 10
recommendation with all of the caveats that Mr. Hechtman brought up, I do think that the 11
setbacks are…it’s interesting that perspective we’re taking on this, we’ve heard some ideas on 12
being consistent, and I think, I like that, I like consistency, I think it’s a very attractive option. I 13
think those sidewalks are really popular, and will be… continue to be popular, well used, and so I 14
like the idea of having a bigger sidewalk. Ya know, I still keep thinking about how many people I 15
see every day biking on those sidewalks, because we don’t have bike lanes, separate project, but 16
just bringing that up, like it’s…it’s important for us to have the space for all the different modes, 17
and certainly the sidewalks on El Camino are too small, so if that’s something we can fix, at least 18
partially through this, then that’s fine with me, otherwise…I say we can move on, oh, the other 19
thing was the…the basements. Yeah, I mean we need our trees…and…it’s very attractive to 20
maximize the space, but for the same reason we can’t maximize…ya know, the entire lot 21
coverage, we can’t maximize it underground either, so if…if I needed to weigh in on that, that’s 22
how I’d weigh on…on that. Than…Thank you. 23
24
Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Aiken. 25
26
Commissioner Akin: Thank you, Chair. Generally, I’m quite supportive, so, I had very few 27
comments to make during the earlier phases, I did want to follow up on a few things though. 28
Observation on the SEIR, thank you Commissioner Hechtman for driving the clarification of that 29
process, we need a statement of overriding considerations of course, but…what struck me, was 30
that we needed it for two reasons: the historic structures, I think everyone is aware of, but also 31
the air quality impact, because both the VMT per capita and trip count per capita are going up; 32
so this is a sign we should be looking at this kind of development a little more carefully, this is 33
not yielding the kind of sustainability improvements that we had hoped to get. So, there’s a 34
warning…there’s a red flag there that…it would do us well to pay some attention to. I was 35
comfortable with the suggestion for using daylight plane as the massing control device, until it 36
was clarified that the plane measurements…start at twenty-five feet, which took me aback. 37
Nevertheless, as I look at the height maps here, I wonder how much practical difference there is 38
between a maximum height of forty-five feet and fifty-five feet, because even….starting at 39
twenty-five feet I suspect the daylight plane constraint is the more severe over most of these 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
lots; this is not something you can do on the spur of the moment, but an interesting thing to do, 1
would be to figure out what the maximum heights are for these MXM areas in particular, using 2
the daylight plane as the constraint, because I suspect most of them are well below the forty-five 3
feet, but it’s hard to tell just from eyeballing the diagram. I am also concerned about the…trees 4
and the effects of below grade structures going all the way out to the property line… it’s a creative 5
idea, but our canopy coverage requirements are already below target, and I suspect given the 6
emphasis on increased density and lot coverage throughout the city, that our canopy with likely 7
decrease, rather than be maintained or increased; so that…that makes me wonder if…three feet 8
of soil is enough, if we’re not going to be able to plant the types of trees that were native to this 9
area, are we going to permanently change our tree canopy in a negative way. This is particularly 10
an issue in southern end of the city, but as you see here, it’s going to be a problem elsewhere as 11
well. Alright, I think that’s good for the moment, thank you. 12
13
Chair Summa: Okay. Thank you everyone and staff, this has been a really long process and it’s 14
kind of hard to keep all the iterations together, we even had some confusion today, but I think 15
we got it all straightened out. I’m really happy to hear we have over a year… that we have that 16
extension because my bottom line is we’re so close but not quite there and I share a lot of the 17
concerns that you’ve already heard stated and in thinking about what Commissioner Templeton 18
said and she was reacting to a member of the public, I’m not sure why we have R-2 and 3 at 30 19
feet, next to their thirty-five foot neighbors, at all. And if that would give more flexibility to those 20
neighbors, while also giving the neighbors that didn’t want those… that residential feel to go way, 21
and so… I think kind of… that’s a good idea. I’m very concerned, in no particular order, I also think 22
we need more information… we don’t certify as the Titles that … but I think we need the draft 23
SEIR to be more complete. Including the statement of overriding considerations before we can 24
make a recommendation on it. And my concerns dove tail with a lot that you’ve already heard. 25
So, I think, I just looked up the special setback which ends northbound at Lambert, and we really 26
need to think about improving… this was always an issue on the NVCAP, I was on the NVCAP 27
working group, always an issue to improve the bike lanes situation within the NVCAP. So, I think 28
we need to think about that more with regard to development standards. I think that we need 29
to know more about the daylight plane, and I had not heard about the twenty-five foot change, 30
the basement issue has to be vetted fully with our urban forestry department, and the setbacks 31
are confusing so it might be good just to clarify them. And the forty-five foot height that 32
Commissioner Chang [Vice-Chair Chang] mentioned in MXM, I think is appropriate. And you 33
know, it’s sad that we can’t… that we feel that we can’t risk going higher in some of these places 34
because of the impacts of State Laws that we have no control over, but I would say that is a pretty 35
important place to have it, to try to control it a little because it’s the shallowness of the lots along 36
El Camino in this area and the proximity to the low density residential. I think… I think that covers 37
it for me. I also think, and I’m not sure what to do about this and maybe it hopefully won’t become 38
a big issue, but the lack of space in the front setback for pull in parking is problematic also, but 39
maybe it’s not there right now, but it's really problematic to create more of that once again, 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
under the State Laws that we can’t control so, as to whether hotels should be 3.0, I guess I think 1
it’s okay for hotel to be consistent with its neighbors as long as it’s neighbors are all at that height 2
and FAR. And as long as we figure out the daylight plane issues. So, that is where I am right now, 3
and I would be very happy to see this come back with a little nuanced work that we could get it 4
through rather quickly, especially given the fact that we have more time. And I think there were 5
enough little kind of areas in here that needed kind of fix up work that it would give staff a little 6
more time to make sure there aren’t those kind of you know, artifacts from other versions and 7
stuff, but I’m going to go now to Commissioner Hechtman. 8
9
Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you. So, after my last round of questions I was sitting here sort 10
of freaking out about the thought of terminating 750,000 square feet of office until I looked at 11
the table and realized that in the XL/XM and XH categories, office of all three categories is a 12
permitted use, so, that frame of mind doesn’t even apply in those three categories, which is 13
primarily where the office is. I was wondering if… and perhaps this is in the FEIR or the DEIR, and 14
I’m sorry I didn’t look for it, if in the other four categories… I don’t think there’s any office in the 15
R-1, and what is going to become the NR2, I think is on one of the other slides, currently R-1, is 16
going to R-2, so there’s probably no office there, but was there any kind of analysis done of 17
essentially, what is the square footage of office that is facing that termination. So, it would be 18
probably in the NR-3 and NR-4. 19
20
Planner Cha: I don’t have that information right now. 21
22
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay. Alright, if I had been on my game I would have thought about it 23
earlier, sent a question in to tee you up, but that’s fine. Again, my belief is really, if there is office, 24
most of it… well, it could be in the 3 or 4. It is a concern of mine, but it’s not a concern of mine 25
strong enough to sit on this six year old project. So, some other minor issues. I think it’s a really 26
interesting idea to come forth from the ARB about allowing the below surface garages to sink 27
sufficiently to allow a really good planting medium above them. I’m glad that’s going to the 28
forestry department, and I think that’s really where it should reside. You know, a couple of 29
competing issues here… 1) is the cost to go down farther, right? And that is a restraint. It is an 30
impediment. The benefit we’re getting is a more robust urban forest but I think we have to 31
balance those so I think it should be part of the urban forestry departments consideration is it 32
okay if certain native plants can thrive in three feet of soil and those are the ones we put there. 33
And the ones that need four, five, six, or more, we don’t put those there. I mean that’s a good... 34
we’re balancing these things. The height issues in the two places where the ARB and staff have 35
differing opinions, I have no issue at all with the ARB’s logic. I think it’s right, but I’m recognizing 36
that staff… ARB, like PTC, is a little bit insulated from the City Council. Staff is not. Staff have to 37
take this plan and convince the City Council to adopt it. And my feeling is staff thinks it’s maybe 38
a little more palatable to the City Council with these two deviations from the ARB 39
recommendations so I’m going to trust staff on that, so I’m supportive of those two places and 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
again, they adopted it seems like everything else the ARB had suggested which is really an 1
impressive list of suggestions. As for the list of the setbacks and those things, those four items 2
that we were invited to talk about, I’m really not going to comment on any of those.This has been 3
six years in the making, and we’ve learned tonight from staff that at the sort of street level 4
exercise they went through to try to visualize how these things would actually lay out, how the 5
setbacks and building heights would work together and they’ve had hours and hours and have 6
spent hours and hours doing it and I’m going to trust that staff, with years of feedback from the 7
working group, PTC, and the ARB, and City Council, has got it in a good place and so I don’t have 8
any comments on that. I was really interested in the comments of our first public speaker tonight 9
you know… one of the foundational premises of the working group when it started this process, 10
as I understood it, was to protect the R-1. And what I heard tonight from I think a resident of the 11
R-1, is you’ve actually put me in a box. Because everybody around me is upzoned, developing, 12
and I’m stuck. And I think that’s a really interesting perspective and I wish we had heard it earlier 13
in the process. My thinking overall is this needs to get adopted. Once it’s adopted, if there are 14
problems with it, it can be amended. But for now I think we just need to get this forward and off 15
of our plates, which really brings me to my biggest issue which to me is my 800 pound gorilla that 16
nobody has raised yet, and that is economic feasibility. So, if we look at packet pages 48 and 49, 17
one of the objectives established by the Council when this process started was, we need a 18
determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan. And in this case the plan is the 19
preferred plan that we’re sending to the City Council. So, that was one of the objectives they set, 20
which dovetails with Palo Alto’s Municipal code Section 19.10, which we have on packet page 10, 21
which requires determination of the economic feasibility of the plan. And then we look at packet 22
page 50 which are the comments that came out of prior PTC and ARB meetings, PTC 6, Economic 23
analysis to show shortfall. Response: No economic analysis was done due to budget constraints. 24
So, as I’m understanding it, we have not satisfied an objective of ours and we have not met the 25
code requirement. And the reason this is of particular concern to me is that back in 2021 we had 26
an economic analysis done as part of the PTCs work and that predated many of our current 27
Commissioners, but at the time, the composition of the Commission really wasn’t interested in 28
what was called I think Alternative A, the low density version, which actually is now the preferred 29
plan that is going to Council. We thought that density was too low. And so, we wanted an 30
economic analysis but to save money, we said just do it of alternatives B and C. Or actually they 31
are 1, 2, 3, right? Just do two and three. Right? Two was kind of the medium density and three 32
was very high density. So, two was closer to the density of one, but about double. So, the price 33
tag that came back for two was $130 Million. That was the subsidy that would be necessary to 34
bring it to fruition. Three was $37 Million, and we came up with actually a 3.2 that penciled out, 35
that was cost neutral, right? But we never did A, and at the time I did like a cocktail napkin 36
calculation that A could cost over $200 Million in subsidies, but that was two years ago, and a lot 37
has changed about this plan that we have now. The primary changes are, number one, the 38
anticipated density of A back then was 860 units; well first of all, most of this cost is providing the 39
BMR’s. That’s really the subsidy driver. And it’s relationship to office which can provide funding. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, back then the maximum buildout was 8… it was a range of 500 to 860, now we’re at 530. So, 1
by lowering the ceiling, I think that will bring down the cost. Another big change is back then we 2
were looking at… there was no parking relief contemplated, we had testimony from the Economic 3
specialist that each parking stall cost about $100,000 dollars and that was a huge cost and so now 4
we’ve eliminated parking, and so I think that is a good thing. The biggest think I think is in the 5
plan two years ago we were reducing office space from 750,000 to 8,000 square feet. So, 740,000 6
square feet of office going away. Now, we are only losing 278,000, so there’s more office to 7
support this density and the below market housing. So, I’m optimistic that … whatever the 8
number is, it’s not going to be beyond our budget, or funds that we can budget for. And so the 9
reason I asked my very first question tonight was, when are we going to lose these grant funds, 10
is I was concerned that there might be a timing issue that we need to adopt this plan. It turns out 11
we don’t, but honestly I think we need to get this done. So, what I’d like to see in the motion 12
that’s eventually made is that we recommend not only adoption, but that as the Council’s first 13
action before enacting any of the …. Before taking further steps beyond what’s currently on their 14
plate with the NVCAP, that they complete that economic study as required by our ordinance and 15
their objectives, so that as they move forward everybody knows the cost of the endeavor that 16
we’ve approved. So those are my comments. 17
18
Chair Summa: So… I am very impressed you remembered all those numbers. But I bet you had to 19
look them up. But, and I think we all want to get this done, it’s just that, I mean I’m surprised you 20
don’t want the economic study to be done… that you don’t want that to be done before Council 21
sees it, but, I don’t know, given your interest in it… but I think we all want to get it done really 22
quickly, but we have time… we can get some of these details ironed out and I think it would be 23
more successful a plan, is kind of my perspective. But I am impressed you remembered all those 24
numbers. But the preferred plan that we see here is not option 1. It’s what the… it’s what Council 25
preferred, is what I think. So…. The preferred plan that we’ve got to now is all the work that 26
Council did after our recommendations on the three levels of density, is really what it was… and 27
some associated economic analysis. So, anyway. I see that Commissioner Templeton has her light 28
on. 29
30
Ms. French: Also, we’d like to have a note about the economic study, which Council did not fund 31
when we expanded the scope. So, part of that is… was not for us to do because it wasn’t 32
authorized to do, funded to do, back when. So, that’s just a note. Also, I wanted to have a note 33
about hotels if you get there again but… about that. 34
35
Chair Summa: Tell us about hotels now. 36
37
Ms. French: Okay, City wide the maximum hotel FAR is 2.0, so we’re talking downtown, all 38
commercial zones, it’s a citywide limit… 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Summa: Standard. 1
2
Ms. French: Yeah, so, you start tweaking it in one area you have to kind of look…. 3
4
Chair Summa: Thank makes sense. 5
6
Ms. French: And that could be something that our economic retail studies are starting to look at 7
with the retail committees, and such. Maybe in isolation it’s going out there a little bit. 8
9
Chair Summa: Okay thank you for that. Commissioner Templeton. 10
11
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you Chair. Ms. French, I think the intention of the comment 12
about the economic analysis is not that you didn’t do it, but that Council doesn’t have it and they 13
are about to make a very expensive decision. So, we should… I think it was really intelligent and 14
helpful comment from Commissioner Hechtman that maybe we should consider getting that on 15
Council’s agenda as soon as possible so they can make an informed decision, because you know 16
how we can be here in Palo Alto sometimes. We can look back and go .. why wasn’t that done? 17
So, I think we can possibly try to resolve those obstacles that you mentioned. The other thing I 18
wanted to ask was we’ve had a discussion up here about timing and I have gone back to my 19
original question which is what are the constraints… like if we were to change the timing, come 20
back and ask for responses to our commentary tonight, does that effect anything as far as you’re 21
concerned? 22
23
Planner Cha: I don’t think there is. Timing wise it’s not a concern at this moment just because 24
we got extension just before the PTC hearing. But it’s just that as many of the commissioners 25
have mentioned, it has been seven years and counting. And, we have heard from a couple of 26
developers who are interested in developing their lot with the new development standards and 27
higher density and they’re waiting for the NVCAP adoption to happen. So, there are some of 28
those developers waiting for the NVCAP to be done so there is some concern with that. If it gets 29
a little bit delayed, they would have to wait longer and it might not actually pencil out for their 30
financial feasibility or whatever do wait until the NVCAP is done so it might not … it might may 31
be an issue with those potential projects in the future. 32
33
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. This body is generally not concerned with time pressure 34
from applicants in that way, so I’m not sure that’s the most compelling thing to say here, so what 35
I’m trying to get at is… are we going to be able to reschedule or can you guys come back before 36
you go to Council? What’s the actual timing situation here. 37
38
Planner Mr. Frick: So that’s actually I good question, I think I want to provide a little bit more 39
context on like the impact of delaying this. So, as Ms. French mentioned, we had at one point 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
requested additional funding to complete this and that wasn’t approved by City Council, based 1
on our understanding, and so right now we don’t have a consultant that’s working on this project 2
and so another sort of concern in addition to what Ms. Cha outlined is that in terms of like the 3
staff resources to continue to work on this, it does impact our ability to follow through on 4
additional items that are within the Work Plan for the PTC as well as the Council. And some of 5
those other projects as well. So, just wanted to mention that as part of the context of the 6
equation of the delay. To the ability that we can answer questions or any concerns at this 7
meeting, like we’re happy to kind of continue if there are remaining concerns to discuss those. 8
Obviously, we could, based on the grant timelines, bring this back if that’s the desire of the PTC. 9
10
Ms. French: It would definitely be an allocation of resources concern. As far as other projects we 11
would have to add it back into the PTC Work Plan, which we already approved, you already 12
approved, but … because we were envisioning being through it before July. So. 13
14
Commissioner Templeton: Okay, all of that is very helpful. Context, I’m a little concerned that 15
your comments were a little vague and you’re… the thing is, and this is the first thing I said 16
tonight… is we’re going to have a lot of comments. Three of us were involved with this 17
commission and we’re very much care about this project. It’s a huge project, it’s actually a major 18
project and if we haven’t prepared properly and haven’t thought through these scenarios that 19
are brought up tonight, I don’t know how you expect us to approve it tonight. We can’t … a lot 20
of good points were brought up and you’re not ready to answer them because you need more 21
work on it and if you recommended that we take this project off the work plan because it’s done, 22
we’ll something has changed. There was a pending application to get an extension. Right? So we 23
have to think about … that’s not a compelling argument either. We have to do a good job and we 24
have to finish this, and this is…. The decisions we’re making about this project are going to last 25
for fifty years. These are major investments in our community, especially in the south Palo Alto 26
area. So, I wanted to approve it all tonight, I get it, I have the same hope that you do, but we’re 27
not ready. We have questions. Right? And, they have to be answered in order for us to move 28
forward. That’s our responsibility as Commissioners, is to look after the decisions that are being 29
made on behalf of the City, right? To ask the tough questions and make sure that we’re thinking 30
it thoroughly through. So, As much as I want to move forward quickly as well, the best way to 31
handle that will be to get our questions answered quickly, come back and keep it on the schedule 32
with Council. And if that’s not possible, then you need to think about your priorities. Thank you. 33
34
Chair Summa: Okay, sorry. Commissioner Hechtman. 35
36
Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I’m wondering if there’s a middle ground here. Somebody just… 37
first I wanted to just clarify, when I talked about the absence of an economic analysis on this plan, 38
that was in no way intended to be a criticism to staff, that was a Council decision, right? The 39
Council made that decision and now they have a plan coming toward them without a component 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
that’s required by the ordinance and that’s on them. And so I’m just daylighting that so that we 1
can figure out how to make them aware of it. I’m … I guess my inclination is I want to.. I’d like to 2
move this… because we have these open issues, right? We have these, what I’ll call design or 3
parameter issues that we’ve raised, we have this feasibility… economic feasibility issue. I’m 4
wondering if we should make a recommendation to basically take the Council’s temperature. And 5
to say… we think that there are these open issues that really need more study by the Planning 6
Commission. But we’re presenting it to you, to decide whether you want to send it back to us, 7
and that’s how we alert them to these details that we feel are missing from various 8
commissioners, and the absence of the economic study. And if the Council wants to allocate the 9
resources, right, to staff, to do more work on this plan, which in one scenario is done, then they 10
can send it back to us. But if they … but if a majority of them thing enough is enough, let’s approve 11
it… then they’ll have that ability also. So, that’s kind of the middle ground that I’m thinking of…. 12
Is… and you can even keep the June 18th date under this scenario and they could still approve it 13
or send it back. And maybe that’s a conversation… the money for the study is maybe a 14
conversation that can happen with the city manager, between now and June 18th. But anyway, 15
that’s me trying to thread the needle. 16
17
Chair Summa: Thank you for that. So, I’m not hearing a majority here that wants to move it 18
forward with the way it is, so, there is outstanding issues of development standards that I believe 19
we would like fixed. So, the way I see it, the way I thread the needle is we either recommend it 20
with those conditions, or we can’t recommend it at this point. And I don’t think that’s holding the 21
project up, and I think … I’m personally not comfortable telling the Council, hey… reconsider 22
you’re decision to not do more financial analysis. That was their decision. So, that makes me feel 23
a little uncomfortable. So, I’m wondering… so that’s kind of the way I see it… I see that 24
Commissioner Reckdahl has a light. 25
26
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don’t think we’re that far away, I think we could do it tonight, but it 27
would need some work, but in some ways what I’m worried about is we’ll give comments back 28
to staff and they’ll come back and we’ll do this all again, same some second verse, third verse, 29
fourth verse… you know, a month or two from now and are we better off if we can come to 30
consensus on the open issues, say here we approve this but we think there’s work to do XYZ and 31
let Council digest that. 32
33
Chair Summa: That sounds… I’m hap… That’s a good idea, Commissioner Chang [Vice-Chair 34
Chang] and then Commissioner Templeton. 35
36
Vice-Chair Chang: Well, I was going to try to move us along because I think there is some 37
consensus that we need to… that some things need to change, but I’m not sure that it fully needs 38
to come back to us unless Council decides… like… if we were to say Staff go away and work on an 39
economic feasibility study, that doesn’t do anything for us because there’s no funding for that. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
So, we may as well make a motion with the changes to the development standards that we want 1
and then we can add something in the motion that says that we think it might be a good idea to 2
do an economic feasibility study and then let Council decide. So, I was going to try and make a 3
motion, but I don’t know if we are… oh, yeah… sorry. 4
5
Commissioner Templeton: So, I’d be happy to explore that as well, but right now, just thinking 6
about Commissioner Reckdahl’s comments, like how are we… we asked a bunch of questions that 7
they didn’t have answers. How do we work through that? 8
9
Vice-Chair Chang: Which questions do you think we have… just… I’m just confused. 10
11
Commissioner Templeton: Everything that you brought up. Literally. Every single thing. So, like 12
I don’t think we got answers to those questions, we didn’t get answers to how deep that the 13
parking lot needs to be, and those kinds of things. 14
15
Ms. French: How deep does a parking space need to be? 16
17
Commissioner Templeton: No. (crosstalk) 18
19
Chair Summa: Where you start measuring the ceiling height between…. 20
21
Commissioner Hechtman: If we lower the underground parking to accommodate a planting 22
medium … 23
24
Chair Summa: Above 25
26
Commissioner Hechtman: How deep does that planting medium need to be, I think that’s …. 27
28
Commissioner Templeton: To accommodate Trees (crosstalk) 29
30
Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, we just don’t have an answer. 31
32
Planner Mr. Frick: So just to clarify the staff recommendation regarding that topic that was 33
brought up by the ARB, we’re recommending that we do need additional study about that policy, 34
not just for the NVCAP area but as it applies City wide, so, that’s what staff’s recommendation is 35
regarding that, is that it’s premature to have a specific standard for that, for the NVCAP area 36
solely, without looking at it wholistically, how that’s applied citywide because there has been you 37
know, different interpretations over the years as our… (interrupted) 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Templeton: Thank you. And we’ll get to those individual topics, I just want to 1
make sure I understand Commissioner Reckdahl’s vision about what we’ll do if we continue with 2
this and also ask the Chair if we’re going to knock some other Agenda item off. Thank you. 3
4
Chair Summa: I didn’t hear the last part, what’s that? 5
6
Commissioner Templeton: Will we be exchanging another agenda item off of this to take the 7
additional hours it will take to do this? 8
9
Chair Summa: I think to have a full discussion in real time right now would take longer than what… 10
we would have to jettison an item. And I think it makes more sense for staff to hear our concerns 11
and come back to us, and I don’t think that’s holding this project up, a lot has really not made the 12
NVCAP… the NVCAP kind of bumped along instead of rolled and I don’t think that this is a 13
significant… and I don’t think that there’s that many issues, but for the six of us to go through 14
those issues tonight, would take hours. So, that…. 15
16
Commissioner Templeton: So, I would love to hear from Commissioner Reckdahl because that 17
was exactly my concern. Thank you, Chair. 18
19
Commissioner Reckdahl: I mean some of this things for example do we want twenty foot 20
setbacks, special setback along Park. That would be easy for us to come to a consensus … yes or 21
no. Do we want to change the daylight plane? I would think that would be fairly straightforward 22
to say yes or no. So, I … maybe I’m optimistic but to me it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be that 23
difficult to identify where… you know take a straw poll of what we want on each of the items. 24
And maybe we’re more divided that I thought we are. But… 25
26
Commissioner Templeton: Okay, we’ll let’s give it a shot. 27
28
MOTION 29
30
Vice-Chair Chang: I was going to attempt, and then if we don’t like the motion, then great. I think 31
I have a list, and maybe I need some help with some amendments… So I was going to move the 32
staff recommendation but change the language to say Consider the SEIR, instead of certify, and 33
then to strike the statement overriding considerations part unless by law we are required to look 34
at that. I don’t think so, so just to strike that part since we haven’t seen it. And then… So, I would 35
say move the staff recommendation, change certify to consider, strike everything that talks about 36
the statement of overriding considerations, and the rest of number one, so we’re also not 37
adopting, we’re considering everything. And then, with these modifications. So I would suggest 38
that we extend the special setback that the City has along Park that currently stops at Lambert, 39
extending it all the way to Page Mill, so extending it through out… through the length of the 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
NVCAP, changing the height back to the preferred … what’s it called, preferred plan for 1
specifically NVMXM to 45 feet, and I believe the last one is to change the daylight plane to start 2
at ten feet rather than twenty five feet. I think that’s everything. Oh and then the final note would 3
be that we would also suggest… that we ask City Council to consider completing an economic 4
feasibility study. 5
6
SECOND 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Second. 8
9
Chair Summa: I’m going to take a minute to read my notes. Because it’s… Oh so staff was not… 10
staff doesn’t think we need to add the basement tree planting above it because you’re not 11
planning on putting it in. 12
13
Planner Mr. Frick: So, just to clarify, the staff recommendation is to not… address that differently 14
than anywhere else in the code but if it’s the recommendation of the PTC, we’re… you know, we 15
can take that to the Council to consider something different about that aspect of what the ARB 16
recommended. 17
18
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 19
Chair Summa: Okay, thank you for that. Did the maker want to include allowing R-1 and R-2 to 20
go to 35 feet along Pepper and Olive? 21
22
Vice-Chair Chang: Sure, I just don’t know if that creates any… you know, we had a discussion… 23
can we discuss… So, before I accept that amendment, I think there was some consensus up here 24
about the value of having things be the same throughout the city, as much as possible, so I just 25
didn’t know if doing something like that, which I’m in favor of by the way, because of what we 26
heard for public comment, but if doing something like that would create administrative 27
difficulties… 28
29
Chair Summa: Isn’t the standard 35 feet in R-1? 30
31
Planner Cha: I believe it’s 30 feet. 32
33
Ms. French: It’s 35… it goes up if it’s a tall pitch. 34
35
Chair Summa: And R-2, RND, isn’t it also 35? Or is it the same, I mean I don’t believe it’s a change, 36
I don’t think it’s a change, really. 37
38
Ms. French: Yeah, there’s flood zone considerations, etc.… that bump it up. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, then what I would say, since we’re changing it for R-2, NV R-2 anyway, 1
then it seems to me it makes sense to change it for NV R-1 as well so I would add that amendment 2
to the motion. Do I have a second? 3
4
SECOND 5
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes. 6
7
Commissioner Templeton: I thought we were going to discuss the daylight plan setback before 8
the motion was made, something… 9
10
Vice-Chair Chang: I think we can always discuss a motion after the motion is made, right? 11
12
Chair Summa: Yes, we can still discuss it. And I was also going to ask about adding … I don’t think 13
we can say what they should be right now, but that staff should review the street setbacks. There 14
was a lot of concern on the body about those. 15
16
Vice-Chair Chang: Yes, there’s concern but I think staff also told us that they did review is pretty 17
carefully. So, maybe to address that would we want to just … I mean I think what would be helpful 18
before this went to Council, regardless… may there would be a diagram that shows those 19
setbacks because it is… in table form only right now, so it’s hard to understand what the setback 20
is everywhere, through this little area, but I think as long as it’s more understandable, staff has 21
said that they’ve done the work and they thought about it with all the cross sections. 22
23
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT # 2 24
Chair Summa: Maybe it would be to provide it in a … flat information for the council report in the 25
manner you just suggested, in addition to the table. 26
27
Vice-Chair Chang: I’m all for that. So, adding to the motion another point about providing 28
additional information to Council on the street setbacks in a graphic or map form. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: Oh, yeah, I accept that. 31
32
Planner Cha: Just the clarify, the addition, the diagram request, that’s similar to like height map 33
where… okay, so on a map form… 34
35
Vice-Chair Chang: Yes. 36
37
Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Hechtman: So, kind of digging down into what I count now are six point in the… 1
six modifications… from staff? 2
3
Vice-Chair Chang: Yes. 4
5
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay. So, second is change the height on the NVMXM back to 45 feet, 6
Can staff pull up that Height diagram that showed the whole NVCAP? 7
8
Planner Mr. Frick: The preferred plan slide? 9
10
Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I want to see what it’s next to right? And what those heights 11
are. 12
13
Planner Cha: I might need a couple of minutes. 14
15
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay. While you’re doing that, let me ask a question on number three, 16
changing the daylight plane to start at ten feet rather than 25 feet… is this is a… do we have a 17
citywide daylight plane figure? 18
19
Planner Cha: The objective standards apply to city wide, and so it is a city wide standard. 20
21
Commissioner Hechtman: And is that citywide standard 10 feet or 25 feet? 22
23
Planner Cha: I believe (interrupted) 24
25
Commissioner Hechtman: or some different number? 26
27
Planner Cha: Yeah, residential is different. 28
29
Ms. French: The daylight plane is different for single family zones R-1, than it is for you know, 30
multi-family, that kind of thing, so it varies, depending on the zone. 31
32
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay so for single family city wide what is it? Is it 10? ARB says it’s 10. 33
34
Ms. French: Ten feet up, 45 degree over from the property line. 35
36
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay. So… and then R-2 is something maybe more than ten? 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think R-2 is the same as R-1. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, alright. And so, so what staff was … the proposal that came to 1
us, it was proposing in some situations a different daylight plane than otherwise applicable 2
throughout the city, to meet some of the goals… you know, to meet some of the goals of the 3
NVCAP growth. Is that right? So R-1 would be 25, where as R-2 would be ten. 4
Planner Cha: We will follow whatever the Citywide requires… We will check the requirements, 5
sorry, but whatever the city wide requirements apply, we’ll consistently (interrupted) 6
7
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay … because I… that might have been a misconception on the 8
Planning Commission that … because I’ve heard an effort to change here, I would think on this 9
issue we would just apply the city wide standard, whatever it is… unless you have a reason 10
(interrupted) 11
12
Vice-Chair Chang: Well, the concern was in the table. It specifically referred to daylight plane 13
referring to particular section of code. 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: The way the daylight plane works in the code is that if you’re R-1 has a 16
daylight plane, then the R-1 daylight plan applies. But if you’re in a zone that doesn’t have a 17
daylight plane, then you refer back to this… 18.24.050, and that tells you the daylight plane for 18
all the misfits that don’t have their own daylight plane. 19
20
Vice-Chair Chang: And because this is a new zone, it’s not… it’s NV R-1, not R-1, it would then… 21
a 25 foot would apply. That’s why. 22
23
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, but is the intent of your motion to have the new NV zoning track 24
the base zoning exactly? 25
26
Vice-Chair Chang: Yes. 27
28
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, alright. And so, then my question of staff is does staff have a 29
different intent? That the NV daylight plane not track the base zoning daylight planes exactly? 30
31
Planner Mr. Frick: Yeah, so the intent for staff was to have it track the objective standards, as it 32
relates to the daylight plane. So the city wide standards, and so the… the rational for that was 33
that if some study changes how that’s applied city wide, then that would also apply to this area. 34
35
Commissioner Hechtman: Right. Okay, alright, then I think that was the intent of the maker of 36
the motion. That that be true. That it track… whatever happens in R-1, happens in NV R-1, R-2, 37
and V. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Vice-Chair Chang: So, yes, that is my intent, however, as written right now, in the ordinance, it 1
wouldn’t. 2
3
Commissioner Hechtman: Right… right. And so what… I guess my … I’m quibbling on semantics, 4
right, then rather than quantify it… let’s you know, state the quantitative intent. 5
6
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT # 3 7
Vice-Chair Chang: So, I think what Commissioner Hechtman is suggesting is that I change the 8
motion so that point about changing the daylight plane to start at ten feet, should instead read 9
the daylight plane in NV R-1 and every other zone, should conform to it’s equivalent zone in 10
municipal code. 11
12
Commissioner Hechtman: yeah. 13
14
Vice-Chair Chang: In the existing code. 15
16
Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, okay. So, another quibble… oh… let’s go back to (interrupted) 17
18
Vice-Chair Chang: We need Commissioner Reckdahl to (interrupted) 19
20
SECOND 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes. I accept. 23
24
Commissioner Hechtman: Alright then, so I just wanted to take a look, because we had two of 25
the elements dealing with height, and so the NVMXM that is included in the motion to come back 26
to 45, are those the two on El Camino on either side of Portage? 27
28
Planner Cha: It’ll be for entire MXM, so anywhere that says 45 here, will … so… this is a staff 29
recommendation…. So with the 55, here will become 45. 30
31
Commissioner Hechtman: Oh I see. All the 45, and the 65 stay 65. 32
33
Planner Cha: Right. 34
35
Commissioner Hechtman: Okay, and meanwhile, the 30’s, directly behind the 55’s, are going up 36
to 35, another aspect of the motion. 37
38
Planner Cha: According to the motion, yes. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Friendly Amendment #4 1
Commissioner Hechtman: According to the motion, yes. Okay. So, alright. So, I would just tell 2
the… well let me state my position. I don’t have any objections with the R-1’s going from … the 3
R-1 and R-2 going from 30 to 35, but I wouldn’t support bringing the 55’s down to 45, and so I’d 4
hope that we could pull that out of the motion and do it separately. So, that I can… Number 2, 5
change height on NVMXM to 45, I ask that we vote on that separately because I’m trying to build 6
the rest of it that I can support. And then in terms of ask Council to consider economic feasibility, 7
I think I would just word that a little differently that part of our recommendation is to confirm 8
Council’s awareness of the economic feasibility study requirement of our municipal code. 9
10
Vice-Chair Chang: Accepted on the economic feasibility study. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Accept. 13
14
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay, then regarding the request to vote separately on the second point about 15
changing the height for NVMXM, I’m fine with doing that because I think if we provide more 16
granularity for Council on where we have agreement and disagreement, that’s a good thing. 17
18
Planner Cha: Just to clarify, sorry, but this 65 above Ash street will be also… supposed to be 55 19
because those are MXM districts as well. That was missed when we were making the diagram, 20
sorry. So, the 65 here next to green park area should (Crosstalk – interrupted) 21
22
Vice-Chair Chang: Should read 55 23
24
Planner Cha: According to the staff recommendation. (crosstalk) 25
26
Commissioner Hechtman: And so if we see those as the deeper blue 55 feet, this aspect of the 27
motion is really changing all of the 55, including those two, to 45. 28
29
Planner Cha: That’s correct. 30
31
Commissioner Hechtman: So, yeah, with that I would be … if we can pull out item 2, ‘d be happy 32
to support the motion, although I think we need to start it … is our motion is not what we 33
considered but I think the way you do this with the EIR stuff is … having considered the draft SEIR, 34
we recommend everything you said. 35
36
Chair Summa: If you change the wording like that, I would like you to make a separate vote I’m 37
requesting because I find it very difficult to vote on something where we haven’t got the 38
information yet. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Hechtman: Actually, you’re raising a good point, I kind of short cut the… you’re 1
talking about the comment I just made about the SEIR, right? 2
3
Chair Summa: Yes. I think it might be appropriate then to have that then be a separate vote also. 4
5
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT # 5 6
7
Commissioner Hechtman: Then again, it’s not… the preface to… it’s not actually a separate 8
motion, it’s the preface, because we’re not really moving anything about the SEIR, we’re just 9
saying we saw it. Right? And So, but to clarify, most of the statement in Item 1 of the staff 10
recommendation, we don’t repeat. So, the motion would start having considered the draft 11
supplemental environmental impact report, the PTC recommends to Council that, and then we 12
jump to number two. So, we don’t talk about statement of overriding considerations because we 13
didn’t see them, we don’t talk about the findings because we didn’t see them; or the mitigation 14
measures. 15
16
Chair Summa: I see. 17
18
Commissioner Hechtman: Right? 19
20
Vice-Chair Chang: Ok, I accept that change, as well. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Accept. 23
24
Vice-Chair Chang: And we’re going to remove… I think for the height discussion, we’re going to 25
remove that from consideration of this motion, and then we’ll vote on a separate motion about 26
height, or we’ll have a discussion about height and then vote. 27
28
Vice-Chair Chang: Commissioner Reckdahl, are you okay with removing the second point about 29
height from the motion and voting on it separately? 30
31
Commissioner Reckdahl: We can either make it one motion and split the motion or we can have 32
two motions. I think in someways it’s cleaner to just split the motion and vote separately, but I’m 33
flexible. 34
35
Vice-Chair Chang: I don’t understand the difference between the two options. 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: we’re getting late at night here. Let’s break it into two separate 38
motions. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Vice-Chair Chang: Okay. We’re going to break it into two separate motions. Great. 1
2
Chair Summa: Commissioner Akin did you have your light on? 3
4
Commissioner Akin: I did, but my issue has just been resolved by making it the second motion. 5
6
Chair Summa: Okay. Commissioner Templeton. 7
8
Commissioner Templeton: I’ll do it when we go to the next motion. 9
10
Chair Summa: Are we ready to vote on everything except item 2, which is going to come as a 11
separate motion? Okay. Can you please call the vote Ms. Dao? 12
13
VOTE 14
15
Ms. Dao: Commissioner Akin 16
17
Commissioner Akin: Yes. 18
19
Ms. Dao: Vice Chair Chang 20
21
Vice Chair Chang: Yes 22
23
Ms. Dao: Commissioner Hechtman 24
25
Commissioner Hechtman: Yes 26
27
Ms. Dao: Chair Summa 28
29
Chair Summa: Yes 30
31
Ms. Dao: Commissioner Reckdahl 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes 34
35
Ms. Dao: Commissioner Templeton 36
37
Commissioner Templeton: Yes 38
39
Ms. Dao: Motion carries 6-0. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
MOTION PASSED 6 (Akin, Chang, Summa, Hechtman, Reckdahl, Templeton) 6-0-1 (Lu Absent) 2
Commission Action: Moved by Chang, seconded by Reckdahl. Pass 6-0-1 3
4
Chair Summa: Alright, now on to motion number 2. 5
6
Vice-Chair Chang: I think we need to have a little bit more discussion about this because I am … 7
as I look at the staff diagram, I’m a little bit more concerned about it. So, I’m just going to… since 8
I have my mic on, I’m going to keep talking. So, my concern about the NVMXM height is specific 9
to … it looks four parcels. And yet I think that it’s a real concern there. So, if I could, I would have 10
different heights for NVMXM on the right side near Lambert and Ash, and … versus those three 11
parcels that are from Oregon… or maybe four parcels from Oregon to Acasia. 12
13
Planner Cha: Just to clarify, you’re recommending that anything left of Acasia to the… Acasia to 14
be the dividing line … for the height? 15
16
Vice-Chair Chang: Yes, that’s what I would like, but I don’t know what kind of administrative 17
headache this would create. I mean I don’t know why we wouldn’t just take some of these …. 18
You know if we believe the daylight plane solves the problem, part… and we’re not… I think that 19
there’s also a massing problem but only as it relates to R-1, or NV R-1 housing, so it makes me 20
wonder why we wouldn’t just take all the other NVMSMs and make them NVMXHs. But that…. 21
So I’m not making a motion right now, I’m just discussing. 22
23
Chair Summa: Maybe it would be helpful to put up the zone map. The proposed zone map. Thank 24
you. 25
26
Commissioner Templeton: Can you also recap what your reasons are for wanting to change 27
those? I still… don’t get it. 28
29
Vice-Chair Chang: So, my reason is if you’re living in R-1 and you’ve got a three story building 30
behind you that is really massive and you know, you go into your yard and you feel like you’re 31
just completely dwarfed. And so, that is my concern and if it’s the difference between say a 45 32
foot building and then another ten feet is quite substantial when you’re standing at the base of 33
the building, which these R-1 lots would be. So…. But those NFMXMs that abut the park, I have 34
no concern whatsoever about those being the 55 or maybe even 65 feet. So, I think that’s where 35
I stand on this. And I didn’t know if other commissioners had thoughts. 36
37
Commissioner Templeton: Well, I would say that people live on Lambert, on the other side of 38
that one you just said you have no problem with. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Vice-Chair Chang: Yeah but there’s a street there between, you’re backyard isn’t right up on it. 1
A street is like an additional 25 feet. 2
3
Commissioner Templeton: Chair let me know when it’s my turn. 4
5
Chair Summa: I’m sorry what? 6
7
Commissioner Templeton: Let me know when I can speak. 8
9
Chair Summa: Oh, you can speak now, I thought you were speaking. 10
11
Commissioner Templeton: No. Vice-Chair Chang and I were just going back and forth until you 12
called on somebody. So. Thank you. From my perspective, we really, we’re going to create some 13
interesting aesthetics by having such differential along El Camino. And that’s another annoying 14
possibility. It may not be as annoying as having a giant building in your backyard, but we do have 15
the daylight plane consideration to think about how it’s going to step back, so that’s one concern 16
for me. And then I’m thinking like that part that’s NVR-4, that’s business but it’s going to 17
residential in the future, is that what we’re saying for that space? You know, I trust the 18
Architectural Review Board enough to design it in such a way that it won’t be hideous and have 19
an objective position to the neighboring houses but you know, maybe that’s what you’re saying. 20
How do we ensure that? But my concern is like, let’s make the most of it… this is a huge project, 21
a huge space, a huge opportunity and I think I’m not as concerned about the parts along Oregon 22
and El Camino and if we can make other gestures like we have done tonight, to the neighbors 23
living in R-1 and R-2, it might be acceptable trade-off. Right? So, we have to think about the 24
possibilities and not just the worst possibilities, but maybe reasons why it could work as well. 25
And, for me, that’s making me feel comfortable going to 55. You know, 45 is not awful, 50 I think 26
is kind of our standard around here, and 45 is five down and 55 is five up. And it’s not… on building 27
it’s not really that dramatic and if that’s what the experts who reviewed this are recommending 28
then I’m not sure I want to shorten these buildings and reduce the amount of homes we can get 29
there. Thank you. 30
31
Chair Summa: Thank you. Commissioner Akin. 32
33
Commissioner Akin: Thank you Chair. Now that we have daylight plane starting at ten feet to 34
match conditions elsewhere in the city, I think it quite likely that the ARBs wisdom applies here 35
and that is going to be the constraint on height and massing for the MXMs from Oregon to Acacia. 36
So, I suspect the height limit is a lot less critical than it was, before making that change. Secondly 37
the MXMs over along Lambert, do I understand correctly that we hope to put some of our BMR 38
development in this area? 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Planner Cha: Related to the Sobrato development it will be within the NVPF. 1
2
Commissioner Akin: Oh, it will be in the PF. Okay. The main thing that I was going at was that 3
we may well want additional height for that project, and if that’s the case, we may well accept 4
additional height in these MXM areas that are nearby. Perhaps they should be MXHs. And that 5
would be a relatively simple change. 6
7
Commissioner Templeton objection to the MXM…. To the extra height directly across R-1’s on 8
Lambert is well taken, but I am willing to buy into Vice-Chair Chang’s argument that the extra 9
width of the street makes a difference. So, My inclination is to rely on the daylight plane as the 10
ARB suggests between Acacia and Oregon, and go to MXH along Lambert. Thank you. 11
12
Chair Summa: Commissioner Reckdahl. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. If it wasn’t for the density bonus law I would totally agree with 15
Commissioner Akin. But if someone can waive the daylight plane and then use the base height 16
to… and then add on to that… well 33 it’s affordable… so, those two things combined means that 17
the people over on Olive and Pepper could really be surrounded by tall buildings and we’d have 18
had nothing to do with that. Couldn’t do anything about that. So, by keeping that MXM by Olive 19
and Pepper lower, I think were giving the best to protect those people… still 45 is not a bad 20
height … ten years ago we’d consider that a huge building and now it’s still significant. But then 21
over on Lambert and Portage, I would accept moving those up… moving those MXMs to MXHs. 22
23
Chair Summa: You’re supporting keeping MXM at 45 feet? 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: yeah, keeping … what I’m concerned about is the MXMs that are over 26
by Pepper and Olive, and I’m afraid that this daylight plane will not protect us because it will get 27
waived, potentially get waived by the density bonus law. But I’m less concerned about that over 28
on Lambert and Portage. So I would be open to upzoning those but keeping the ones over by 29
Olive and Pepper low. 30
31
Chair Summa: Okay, I will just interject really quickly that also the daylight plane… there’s no 32
provision to protect the new park away from… in terms of daylight plane. So, I just wanted to add 33
that and then I’m going to go in order to…. Chang, and Hechtman. 34
35
Vice-Chair Chang: Well, I was ready to make a motion so I think I don’t need to speak right now. 36
37
Chair Summa: Okay, Commissioner Hechtman. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah, I was trying to figure out if there was a motion on the floor. But 1
I think there are two concepts on the floor right now, if I’m understanding correctly, 2
Commissioner Chang’s [Vice-Chair Chang] I think modified concept is to reduce the height of the 3
NVMXM … or keep the height at 45 feet but only from Acacia north. Right? And then there’s a 4
separate concept which Commissioner Akin has brought up about taking the NVMXM along 5
Lambert and changing that to MXH, if I understood that right. Right? So, it’s got two concepts, 6
maybe two motions coming our way, but definitely should be two different motions. I guess let 7
me comment on them separately. So, the … in terms of the height of the NVMXM north of Acacia, 8
I guess my thoughts are… I wouldn’t support that motion, we’ve already…. the NV R-2 that we’re 9
showing on the right side of this diagram according to the left side of this diagram is currently R-10
1, so we’re already… and maybe it was part of the… if that’s correct, maybe it’s part of the housing 11
plan zoning element …. Housing element rezoning that we’ve already sort of provided economic 12
benefit to those parcels. Tonight, we’re recommending that the NV R-1’s, which currently have a 13
generally a thirty foot height go to thirty-five. So, we’re providing an economic benefit to them 14
as well. Now, part of that group is surrounded by that NVMXM, most of which are along two of 15
our major streets, El Camino and Oregon. That’s the place to put density. And so, I think we need 16
to keep that at 55, trust the daylight plane to do it’s work, recognize the benefit we’ve given to 17
the R-1s in the middle of this neighborhood, and basically hold the 55 there. On the Lambert 18
stuff, I guess I’m hesitant to change the zoning of that on the fly. I don’t know if the draft SEIR 19
was done in a way that would accommodate that additional density. You know, when I look on 20
packet page 14 at the table of designations, the H version is at 3.0 to 1 FAR compared to 2.0, so 21
it’s at fifty percent increase and the upper range for the MXM at 70 units is close to the lowest 22
range at the H. Because that’s a 61 to 100. So, while it may be a good idea in the long run, I 23
wouldn’t support it tonight, for those reasons. I think we would really have to study it and confirm 24
it was in the SEIR. Because if it’s not, then we’ve got an impact that hasn’t been analyzed. 25
26
Chair Summa: I would agree with that and I would say that you don’t have to worry about 27
reducing impacts, if you think there are going to be changes in the EIR but you do have to worry 28
about adding impacts. So, I would agree with that. Commissioner Templeton. 29
30
Commissioner Templeton: I’m not sure if I can remember what I pressed my light for, hold on a 31
sec, give me just a second. No, I don’t think I’m going to get it. Thanks. 32
33
Chair Summa: So, I would suggest that we have the original second motion pertain to MXM… did 34
you have an epiphany? 35
36
Commissioner Templeton: I did. My question was for Mr. Yang, and I just wanted to confirm 37
that we fully understand the legal implications of discussing adjusting our heights to circumvent 38
the … what is the law, you think… the density bonus. Thank you. 39
40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Mr. Yang, City Attorney: So I don’t see this as circumventing the density bonus, but you know, 1
heights… this whole area is regulating it’s density through FAR and so what we’ve done is we’ve 2
determined that these FARs combined with these heights and setbacks can accommodate these 3
reasonable densities that we’re projecting, but it’s all going to come down to what type of project 4
gets proposed and if someone is eligible for a density bonus, they’ll be able to increase their FAR 5
by some percentage and then they can waive any of these other development standards to 6
accommodate that additional FAR. But it shouldn’t be a significant waiver because we’ve already 7
sort of modeled out how this FAR can fit in the other standards. 8
9
Commissioner Templeton: Thanks, I’m just concerned because like, we know what heights will 10
be acceptable and we’re constraining ourselves based on the density bonus, I just wanted to 11
make sure I understand to what extent we’re allowed to do that and not … so it sounds like we’re 12
fine so let’s move on, thanks. 13
14
Chair Summa: Okay, I was going to suggest that the maker and the seconder might decide if they 15
want to incorporate the Lamber MXM to MXH. 16
17
MOTION #2 18
19
Vice-Chair Chang: No, I think what I’ll do is just make the original motion which is to change the 20
MXM height back to the 45 feet in the originally proposed plan because I am concerned about 21
what Commissioner Hechtman said so I don’t want to change the… I mean we can do that later. 22
But I think that leave the… across the whole area, yes. 23
24
SECOND 25
26
Commissioner Reckdahl: Second. 27
28
Chair Summa: Okay. Are there comments? Commissioner Templeton your light is on but that’s 29
probably my fault. If no one else has anything to say then we can go ahead and take the vote. 30
31
VOTE 32
33
Ms. Dao: Commissioner Templeton 34
35
Commissioner Templeton: No 36
37
Ms. Dao: Commissioner Reckdahl 38
39
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes. 40
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
1
Ms. Dao: Chair Summa 2
3
Chair Summa: Yes 4
5
Ms. Dao: Commissioner Hechtman 6
7
Commissioner Hechtman: No. 8
9
Ms. Dao: Vice-Chair Chang 10
11
Vice-Chair Chang: Yes. 12
13
Ms. Dao: Commissioner Akin 14
15
Commissioner Akin: Yes. 16
17
Ms. Dao: Motion carries 4-2-1. 18
19
MOTION PASSED 4 (Akin, Chang, Summa, Reckdahl,) -2 (No: Templeton, Hechtman, Lu Absent) 20
Commission Action: Moved by Chang, seconded by Reckdahl. Pass 6-0-1 21
22
Chair Summa: Thank you very much everyone. 23
24
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we want to consider Lamber and have that be contingent on staff 25
finding out whether that would violate the EIR? 26
27
Chair Summa: I don’t but if you do you should recommend it. 28
29
Commissioner Akin: Since I made the proposal, I will officially say that I find Commissioner 30
Hechtman’s argument compelling and I don’t want to risk compromising this EIR. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay. Fair enough. 33
34
Chair Summa: Okay. I believe that concludes … so the original motion covered part III, Adopt draft 35
ordinance I believe… 36
37
Ms. French: Yes. 38
39
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that
the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Chair Summa: So, I think that concludes this item. Good evening Chair Baltay, thank you for 1
joining us and I’m going to recommend a break, how about 8 minutes? Yes? OH, I’m sorry, it’s 2
the last meeting that I’m probably going to Chair and so I wanted to be consistent. Would you 3
please like to speak to your No’s? 4
5
Commissioner Templeton: I would, thank you so much Chair. I just want to say that it’s really 6
important that we get the housing where we can get it and I’m concerned this will reduce the 7
number of units and that’s why I didn’t want to support it. Thank you. 8
9
Chair Summa: Commissioner Hechtman would you like to speak to your no? 10
11
Commissioner Hechtman: No further comments, thanks. 12
13
Chair Summa: Okay, does 8 minutes sound good? Okay, see you back here in 8 minutes, which is 14
9:12. 15