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.
THE VISION
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
195
Packet Pg. 570 of 758
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
THE VISION
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
196
Packet Pg. 571 of 758
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
THE VISION
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
197
Packet Pg. 572 of 758
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 Buffered 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
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
198
Packet Pg. 573 of 758
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
THE VISION
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
199
Packet Pg. 574 of 758
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
200
Packet Pg. 575 of 758
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
201
Packet Pg. 576 of 758
2 .6
Urban Form
THE VISION
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
202
Packet Pg. 577 of 758
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.
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
203
Packet Pg. 578 of 758
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
204
Packet Pg. 579 of 758
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.
PUBLIC REALM
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
205
Packet Pg. 580 of 758
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.
PUBLIC REALM
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
206
Packet Pg. 581 of 758
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.
PUBLIC REALM
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
207
Packet Pg. 582 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
208
Packet Pg. 583 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
209
Packet Pg. 584 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
210
Packet Pg. 585 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
211
Packet Pg. 586 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
212
Packet Pg. 587 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
213
Packet Pg. 588 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
214
Packet Pg. 589 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
215
Packet Pg. 590 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
216
Packet Pg. 591 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
217
Packet Pg. 592 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
218
Packet Pg. 593 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
219
Packet Pg. 594 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
220
Packet Pg. 595 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
221
Packet Pg. 596 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
222
Packet Pg. 597 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
223
Packet Pg. 598 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
224
Packet Pg. 599 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
225
Packet Pg. 600 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
226
Packet Pg. 601 of 758
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
227
Packet Pg. 602 of 758
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
228
Packet Pg. 603 of 758
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
PARKS
108 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 109
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
229
Packet Pg. 604 of 758
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
230
Packet Pg. 605 of 758
PARKS
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
231
Packet Pg. 606 of 758
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
232
Packet Pg. 607 of 758
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.
BUILDINGS
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' Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
233
Packet Pg. 608 of 758
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.
BUILDINGS
Figure 83
Figure 84
to allow for lively spillover of retail.
Figure 85
118 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 119
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
234
Packet Pg. 609 of 758
6 .3 6 . 4
Portage A venue
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.
BUILDINGS
Figure 86 Figure 87
120 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 121
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
235
Packet Pg. 610 of 758
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.
BUILDINGS6 .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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
236
Packet Pg. 611 of 758
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.
BUILDINGS6 .5
Figure 88 Figure 89
124 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 125
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
237
Packet Pg. 612 of 758
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.
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
238
Packet Pg. 613 of 758
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.
IMPLEMENTATION
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
239
Packet Pg. 614 of 758
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
IMPLEMENTATION
130 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 131
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
240
Packet Pg. 615 of 758
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
IMPLEMENTATION
132 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 133
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
241
Packet Pg. 616 of 758
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.
IMPLEMENTATION
134 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 135
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
242
Packet Pg. 617 of 758
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
IMPLEMENTATION
136 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 137
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
243
Packet Pg. 618 of 758
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 IMPLEMENTATION
Table 22 Examples of Potential State Grant Funding Sources for NVCAP Improvements 138 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 139
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
244
Packet Pg. 619 of 758
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
IMPLEMENTATION
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
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
245
Packet Pg. 620 of 758
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.
IMPLEMENTATION
Table 24 Summary of Major District-Based Value Capture Tools 142 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 143
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
246
Packet Pg. 621 of 758
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
IMPLEMENTATION
Table 25 Infrastructure Improvements and Applicable Funding Sources in the NVCAP 144 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 145
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
247
Packet Pg. 622 of 758
Item 11
Attachment G: Final Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
248
Packet Pg. 623 of 758
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.
Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
249
Packet Pg. 624 of 758
“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 Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
250
Packet Pg. 625 of 758
Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
April 22, 2024
“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.
Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
251
Packet Pg. 626 of 758
Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
April 22, 2024
“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 [email protected].
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 Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
252
Packet Pg. 627 of 758
Kelly Cha, Senior Planner
April 22, 2024
“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 [email protected]. For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please contact [email protected].
Sincerely,
YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
253
Packet Pg. 628 of 758
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: [email protected]
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 [email protected].
Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
254
Packet Pg. 629 of 758
City of Palo Alto
April 22, 2024
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 [email protected].
Sincerely,
Larissa Sanderfer
Transportation Planner II
PA2401
Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
255
Packet Pg. 630 of 758
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.png
Outlook-xppccy5s.png
Forwarding 3 of 3
KELLY CHA
Senior Planner
Planning and Development Department
(650) 329-2155 | [email protected]
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/0a79fb1c/8pMnObfe90eBGV0as8meoA? u=http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/
From: Gennifer Wehrmeyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 4:59 PM
To: North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan <[email protected]> Cc: Shree Dharasker <[email protected]>; Raybould, Claire <[email protected]>; CPRU-Dropbox <[email protected]> Subject: VW File 33840 - NVCAP SEIR Review at Matadero Creek
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of 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 proposed work in greater detail on or adjacent to Valley Water right of way. In accordance with Valley 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 Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
256
Packet Pg. 631 of 758
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 and 42, 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 facility must not: increase our costs to maintain the facility; reduce maintenance access; reduce the level of flood protection currently provided by the channel; and create channel instability.
Additionally, proposals must: include a net benefit to Valley Water (including the reservation of lands in Valley Water fee title for the Valley Water’s use in fulfilling future mitigation planting requirements for its stream maintenance program); provide sufficient additional right of way to Valley Water to operate and maintain the modified facility (including all areas required to contain the same level of flood protection currently afforded); include regulatory permitting; provide appropriate mitigation (that do not include use of Valley Water right of way for mitigation planting); and be a geomorphic, stable channel that will not increase erosion or sediment deposition or increase 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 provide comments. Valley Water expects adjacent landowners to provide right of way to accommodate any desired recreational facilities and amenities that are not conducive to 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 through the 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 “less than significant impact” regarding impacts related to drainage relies on the proposed naturalization 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 removal of 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 Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
257
Packet Pg. 632 of 758
unclear. Any plans for replacement of Lambert Ave Bridge should be submitted to Valley Water 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 Valley Water relinquishing the exclusivity of its easement. Further discussions will be needed between 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. Valley Water also provides stream stewardship and is the wholesale water supplier throughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program. In accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, any work within Valley Water’s fee title right of way or easement or work that impacts Valley Water’s facilities requires the issuance of a Valley Water permit. Under Valley Water’s Well 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 that intersects 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 interfere with 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 regulatory framework because Valley Water’s 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (mentioned on page 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 following detail near the beginning of the paragraph: “The 2021 GWMP is the first periodic update to 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 of Palo 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’s historical 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 Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
258
Packet Pg. 633 of 758
Santa Clara Subbasin and not within the recharge zone. Therefore, any rainfall or irrigation that infiltrates the Project site would recharge the shallow aquifer above the confining 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 (Prohibit dewatering 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, potential dewatering 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 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (see Chapter 5 and Appendix H). We recommend that any 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 groundwater that 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 existing regulations (including the NPDES General Construction Permit and MRP) would not substantially 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 Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06085C0017H, effective May 18, 2009, the majority of the project site is within 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 flood elevations 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 wells are to be destroyed by the Project and if any abandoned wells are identified during the Project, 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 the Project footprint. Any proposed groundwater dewatering near these sites should be Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
259
Packet Pg. 634 of 758
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 plans show 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 only supports one creek crossing. Please reference Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection 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 infrastructure as a part of the NVCAP plans. Re-development of the site provides opportunities to minimize 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 consider implementing 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 water connections 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 installation of 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-family developments and individual spaces within commercial buildings to encourage efficient water use.
G. Weather- or soil-based irrigation controllers.
21. Lighting described on Page 63 must be directed away from the creek. Please explain whether wildlife can trigger motion sensors, as this would counteract efforts to protect habitat 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. Please reference 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 and 16 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 be allowed.
If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at [email protected]
or at (408) 694-2069. Please reference Valley Water File 33840 on further correspondence regarding this project.
Thank you,
Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
260
Packet Pg. 635 of 758
Gennifer Wehrmeyer
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CIVIL
Community Projects Review Unit
Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division
[email protected]
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
Item 11
Attachment H: Public
Comment Letters on Draft
SEIR and Draft NVCAP
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
261
Packet Pg. 636 of 758
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
W
ay
Jacaranda Lane
Oregon Expressway
Peral Lane
California Avenue
Page Mill Road
Emerson Street
Fernando Avenue
Park Boulevard
MimosaLane
Alma Street
Sheridan
Avenue
Page Mill
Road
El Carmelo
Avenue
Birch Street
Orinda Street
Acacia Avenue
El 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 400100
Feet
Rev: November 30, 2023
Street Yard Setback
Sufficient to create 12' sidewalk
0 5
10 20
NVCAP Zoning Districts
NV-R1
NV-R2
NV-R3
NV-R4
NV-PF
NV-MXL
NV-MXM
NV-MXH
NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
Street Yard Setback
Item 11
Attachment I: Map of Street Yard
Setback
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
262
Packet Pg. 637 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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. I t 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 22 nd 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
263
Packet Pg. 638 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 18 th, 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 18 th. 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 18 th of this year, after a lot 39 of review and discussion, we kind of narrowed down parts that we thought were important. 40 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
264
Packet Pg. 639 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
265
Packet Pg. 640 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
266
Packet Pg. 641 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 30 th 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
267
Packet Pg. 642 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
268
Packet Pg. 643 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
269
Packet Pg. 644 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
270
Packet Pg. 645 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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
Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
271
Packet Pg. 646 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
272
Packet Pg. 647 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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
Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
273
Packet Pg. 648 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
274
Packet Pg. 649 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
275
Packet Pg. 650 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
276
Packet Pg. 651 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
277
Packet Pg. 652 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
278
Packet Pg. 653 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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
Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
279
Packet Pg. 654 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
280
Packet Pg. 655 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
281
Packet Pg. 656 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
282
Packet Pg. 657 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
283
Packet Pg. 658 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
284
Packet Pg. 659 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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. S o 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 . A nd 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
285
Packet Pg. 660 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
286
Packet Pg. 661 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
287
Packet Pg. 662 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
288
Packet Pg. 663 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
289
Packet Pg. 664 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
290
Packet Pg. 665 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
291
Packet Pg. 666 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
292
Packet Pg. 667 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 V MT 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
293
Packet Pg. 668 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
294
Packet Pg. 669 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
295
Packet Pg. 670 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 over all 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 close r 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
296
Packet Pg. 671 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
297
Packet Pg. 672 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
298
Packet Pg. 673 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
299
Packet Pg. 674 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 18 th 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 18 th. 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
300
Packet Pg. 675 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
301
Packet Pg. 676 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
302
Packet Pg. 677 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
303
Packet Pg. 678 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
304
Packet Pg. 679 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
305
Packet Pg. 680 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
306
Packet Pg. 681 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
307
Packet Pg. 682 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 w e 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
308
Packet Pg. 683 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
309
Packet Pg. 684 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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
Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
310
Packet Pg. 685 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
311
Packet Pg. 686 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
312
Packet Pg. 687 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
313
Packet Pg. 688 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
314
Packet Pg. 689 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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
Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
315
Packet Pg. 690 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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 Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
316
Packet Pg. 691 of 758
_______________________
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 t hat 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
Item 11
Attachment J: Draft
Verbatim Minutes Excerpt
Item 11: Staff Report
Pg.
317
Packet Pg. 692 of 758
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: Police
Meeting Date: June 18, 2024
Report #:2406-3131
TITLE
Approval of (1) Professional Services Contract No. C24187724 with LensLock, Inc in Amount Not to Exceed $1,181,400 for Replacement of the Police Public Contact Audio/Video System for a Period of Five (5) Years; (2) Police Audio/Video Technology Surveillance Use Policy; and (3) Approve a Budget Amendment in the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund and Capital Improvement Fund (2/3 vote required); CEQA status – not a project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:
1) Approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Contact No.
C24187724 (Attachment A) with LensLock, Inc. (LensLock) to upgrade the police public contact audio/video system for a term of five (5) years and a total not-to-exceed $1,181,400, including $1,074,000 for basic services and $107,400 for additional services; and
2) Approve the LensLock audio/video system Surveillance Use Policy to enable the recording of police officer or community service officer contacts (Attachment B); and 3) Approve an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Appropriation (requires two- thirds approval by the City Council):
a) Supplemental Law Enforcement Services (SLES) Fund
i) Increasing the transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund by $11,397; ii) Decreasing fund balance by $11,397;
b) Capital Improvement Fund
i) Increasing the transfer in from the SLES Fund by $11,397; and ii) Increasing the expense appropriation for Department Technology Upgrades and Improvements Project (PD-20000) by $11,397.
Item AA1
Item AA1 Staff Report
Item AA1: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 693 of 758
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Video technology has become instrumental in law enforcement training, evidence collection, and for officer safety, oversight, and accountability. The current technology is at end-of-life and the vendor has discontinued support. The Department released a Request for Proposal for an upgraded audio/video officer-initiated recording platform. The system will be used to document public contacts, to include, but not limited to traffic stops, parking enforcement, suspect interviews, witness interviews, victim interviews, and any other citizen contact in response to a call for service or when investigating criminal activity through user-activated audio and video recordings. Approval of the agreement, the surveillance use, and the budget amendment is required to continue the contract for services with a police audio/video recording platform service provider.
BACKGROUND
The Police Department (Department) has used enterprise recording technology with contacts for the last decade, both for body-worn and in-car audio/video equipment. It began as body-worn officer-initiated audio recording and, in 2013, advanced to include in-car video recording to supplement the body-worn audio. Operational policy was established, and current Public Safety Video Surveillance System policy can be found on the Department website 1. A few years later, body-worn video was included with the audio and since, the Department has had both officer- initiated body-worn and in-car audio/video recording. The technology has proven to be indispensable for police work. The hardware is owned by the City and many parts are at end-of- life. In 2023, the current vendor announced they were discontinuing support of the system.
Officer-initiated fixed audio/video has been in interview rooms and holding cells for decades.
These systems are distinct from the newer body-worn and in-car systems. The Department explored replacement of all three platforms: body-worn, in-car, and fixed interview audio/video recording systems to coordinate with the Public Safety Building implementation.
ANALYSIS
In recent years, high profile incidents throughout the country accentuated the need for transparency and accountability in policing. In many cases, the video has provided clear documentation of what occurred during incidents in the field. The video evidence has exonerated officers of false accusations, enhanced training and, in rare instances, provided the basis for corrective action.
The proposed five-year contract calls for LensLock to deliver and support ninety (90) body worn cameras, thirty-five (35) in-car systems, and fifteen (15) interview room systems. LensLock will complete the installation of the patrol-vehicle-mounted in-car systems using their network of 1 Palo Alto Police Department Policy Manual, May 1, 2024, policy 378 - Public Safety Video Surveillance System:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Police/Public-Information-Portal/Police-Policy-Manual Item AA1
Item AA1 Staff Report
Item AA1: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 694 of 758
national installers. Interview room systems will be installed by the general contractor as part of the construction of the Public Safety Building (PSB). Body worn cameras and in-car cameras will be replaced every thirty (30) months. Interview room cameras will be replaced every forty-two (42) months.
Procurement Process
Table #1: Summary of Request for Proposal Process
Request for Proposals Name/Number Police Mobile Video Services (RFP 187724) Total Days to Respond to RFP August 10 to September 18, 2023 (39 calendar days)
Pre-Proposal Meeting N/A
# of Company Attendees at Pre-
Proposal Meeting
N/A
# of Proposals Received Six
Proposal Price Range $565,000 - $924,420, (Five years)
On August 10, 2023, the Request for Proposal (RFP) was posted on the City’s eProcurement portal. Six proposals were received in response to the RFP. Police and Information Technology staff reviewed each firm’s qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP.
The proposals were evaluated and determined to be responsive to the criteria identified in the RFP. LensLock was selected due to the quality of their services, the experience of their staff, and their ability to provide future services. Lenslock will own the hardware and software. The difference between the total dollar value of the RFP bids received, as noted in the above table, and the final contract are due to increases in unit quantities. The final quantity ordered did not impact the price per unit the vendors quoted for products and services. LensLock’s Software-as- a-Service (SaaS) platform provides a method of gathering, maintaining, and storing digital evidence., LensLock‘s Hardware-as-a-Service (HaaS) model allows for in-car and body worn camera systems to be replaced every thirty (30) months and interview room systems every forty-two (42) months. In addition, LensLock offers unlimited redaction by way of their Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) Level 4 certified employees.
The additional installation services offered by LensLock will include removal of existing in-car systems and rewiring the vehicle for LensLock’s system. The LensLock proposal best accomplishes the City’s needs as requested in the RFP and is reasonable for the scope of work Item AA1
Item AA1 Staff Report
Item AA1: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 695 of 758
requested. The recommended contract will implement a design-build, turnkey project which includes design, provision or all parts and equipment, and installation of the in-car video system. A contract contingency of $107,400 (which equals ten (10) percent of the total contract) is requested for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project.
An evaluation committee, comprised of city staff from the Police and Information Technology Departments, convened to review proposals and conduct interviews with the top three scoring firms. The committee reviewed the firm’s qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria outlined in the RFP, including work quality, the firm’s experience and effectiveness, quality and completeness of the proposal, prior performance, the firm’s financial stability and ability to provide services.
Surveillance Evaluation
(1) A description of the surveillance technology, including how it works and what information it captures;
The audio/video system will have a comprehensive enterprise Digital Evidence Management System (DEMS) which is fully integrated with the in-car, interview, and body worn camera systems that capture audio and video. The system’s metadata will automatically flow into the evidence management application where video assets are verified as original or exact duplicates (non-edited data) and managed as evidence.
Global Positioning System (GPS) technology allows for an equipped device’s geographic location to be ascertained and tracked remotely. For the in-car and body worn camera systems, the device’s location metadata will help locate where the vehicle or officer was at a specific point in time when an incident occurs. This is critically important in forensic situations when the location of the vehicle or officer is in question.
(2) Information on the proposed purpose, use and benefits of the surveillance technology; Purpose: Across the nation, public outcry has demanded accountability for all levels of law enforcement. The implementation of in-car, body worn, and interview room systems, supports law enforcement agencies ability to provide that accountability. In-car, body worn, and interview room cameras are essential tools for fact-based evidence that provides total transparency for an officer’s actions in the line of duty. Accurate, transparent reporting of crime data and use of force incidents is an important way police agencies can build trust and confidence within the communities they serve.
Item AA1
Item AA1 Staff Report
Item AA1: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 696 of 758
Benefits of Usage: The use of in-car, body worn, and interview room systems provides several potential benefits:
•Officer Safety: The traffic stop is the most common form of civilian interaction with the police. Using in-car and body worn cameras is a proven way to mitigate potential dangers. •Agency Liability and Internal Control: In-car, body worn, and interview room cameras are not only reactive tools that can expedite the internal investigative process and provide conclusive evidence of guilt or innocence, but they are also proactive in preventing misconducts as officers and citizens typically conduct themselves more professionally when being recorded.
•Training and Education: Not only are officers using in-car, body worn and interview room camera systems as an effective tool for self-critique, but they are also using them as training resources for new officers. New officers can review their actions with their training officers immediately after an event occurs and review any positive or negative police behavior depicted in the recording.
•Transparency and Community Perception: It is expected that all officers be equipped with body worn cameras, police vehicles be equipped with in-car cameras, and interview rooms be equipped with cameras. The public recognizes that these camera systems not only help prevent the abuse of authority, but they also serve as a valuable tool to ensure the integrity of the agency. This creates trust between the community and their local police department, as citizens often believe that if their officers are being filmed, they will not hide anything.
(3) The location or locations where the surveillance technology may be used; The technology will be used wherever officers and their vehicles are deployed. The technology will also be used in police facilities and interview rooms. (4) Existing federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the surveillance technology and the information it captures; the potential impacts on civil liberties and privacy; and proposals to mitigate and manage any impacts;
The technology is subject to Palo Alto Police Department Policy 446 (“Field Based Video Policy”), which regulates the use of this equipment. In addition, use of the recordings is subject to Constitutional and state law limits when used in criminal and civil matters. The recordings are also subject to public disclosure in some cases pursuant to the California Public Records Act, as amended by SB 1421 and SB 16.
The Constitution, state laws, City policy, and professional standards balance the use of this technology in terms of civil liberties and privacy. The combination of the surveillance policy and established PAPD policy ensure that the technology is only used for legitimate law-enforcement Item AA1
Item AA1 Staff Report
Item AA1: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 697 of 758
purposes. Use of this technology is ultimately subject to the judicial system, which works to ensure that the technology is used according to law.
(5) The costs for the surveillance technology, including acquisition, maintenance, personnel and other costs, and current or potential sources of funding.
Without additional services, the ongoing cost of the service will total $1,074,000 or $214,900 annually. The contract will come at a total cost of $1,181,400, including the additional services, if required. The funding for the contract is from the Capital Budget Project PD-20000 - Police Video Recording Systems Replacement.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The current revenue and expense budget in the FY 2025 Adopted Capital Budget for the Police Video Recording Systems Replacement project (PD-20000) is $203,503 for FY 2025. $214,900 is expected to be the system cost every year (before any additional services). The Department will use the current proposed funding and make up the difference with the request to transfer $11,397 from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (commonly referred to as COPS) fund balance to the FY 2025 Capital Budget to fund year one of PD-20000.
Funding for the subsequent years of the contract is already established in the Capital Improvement Budget for Department Technology Upgrades. This funding was established for the current system. With this new purchase, additional funds of less than $20,000 each year will be requested in upcoming budget cycles as needed. This purchase is subscription-based.
Implementation is expecting in Fall of 2024. Ongoing costs are built into the subscription.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
This contract was reviewed and coordinated with internal departments including legal, procurement, and financial functions to ensure alignment with City policies and procedures.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
These services do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act under regulation 15601(b)(3).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract with LensLock, Inc. C24187724
Attachment B: Surveillance Use Policy
APPROVED BY:
Andrew Binder, Police Chief
Item AA1
Item AA1 Staff Report
Item AA1: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 698 of 758
P
rofessional Services
Rev. Dec.15, 2020