Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout220412_Item 6.1_Council ReportDATE: April 12, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director VIA: Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager TITLE: 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue PURPOSE The purpose of this Study Session is to receive Council input on the projects at 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, including a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Development Proposal. BACKGROUND Proiect Site and Location The approximately 4.8 -acre project site includes two properties—owned by Alta Housing and Public Storage, respectively—located on the northwest corner of Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue, with additional frontage on Linda Vista Avenue. The site is currently developed with approximately 18 single -story personal storage facility buildings and two single -story buildings: a Public Storage rental office and an unhabitable residential structure, which would be demolished for this project. The project site has a current General Plan Land Use Designation of General Industrial and is located in the MM (General Industrial) Zoning District. 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 2 of 15 Figure 1—Location Map U.S. 101, including an off -ramp to Highway 85 to the north; several industrial offices and research and development offices (one to two stories) to the south; industrial offices and research and development offices (one story) to the east; and a mixture of recently entitled multi -family projects with commercial space (five to seven stories), an existing Google office building (four stories), the Scientology site (two stories), and industrial and research and development offices (one story) to the west surround the proposed development. Proiect Overview The project includes two separate development proposals by Public Storage and Alta Housing, which are being reviewed concurrently. The projects would rearrange the current property lines to incorporate an approximately 0.5 -acre dedication of land from Public Storage (1040 Terra Bella Avenue) to Alta Housing (1020 Terra Bella Avenue) to create a larger affordable housing site. The resulting parcels would feature the Alta Housing site at the corner of Terra Bella and San Rafael Avenues, while the majority of the Public Storage site is located behind the Alta Housing site, with access via driveways on the cul-de-sac side streets (San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues). 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 3 of 15 N 1rr 106' e X661 }"TORY. 7,6566 SF 6 DI)TFRM:.9Y!, 6F .�,�!• 119 PM 330 N 1rr e X661 NOFA Funding I- w- nvasF 311 " � J I MULTI -STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING Figure 2—Combined Site Plan Alta Housing will be requesting Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) funding authorization for the 1020 Terra Bella Avenue site for development of a 100% affordable housing project. This request is anticipated to come before Council in the next few months for consideration. Terra Bella Visioning The project site and surrounding area were studied as part of the Terra Bella Visioning process, which provided an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key land use and development topics for the Terra Bella Area. The resulting draft Vision Plan was intended to be a guiding document to implement a new vision for the area and the basis for a future precise plan 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 4 of 15 or guidance on Gatekeeper applications. While some objectives of the Draft Vision Plan addressed preferred land uses, intensity of development, and general circulation conditions, a vision plan does not establish development regulations or regulate land use and does not include detailed development feasibility and technical studies. Zoning regulations with this level of detail would need to be drafted through a precise plan for the area. On November 18, 2019, the City Council elected not to adopt the draft Terra Bella Visioning Plan and determined a precise plan providing a comprehensive framework for future redevelopment of the area was prudent. There is no current timeline for preparation of a potential precise plan for the area (see Attachment 1—Terra Bella Vision Plan, November 18, 2019). Prior Meetings and Hearings Gatekeeper Authorization On August 5, 2020, the City Council authorized staff resources for consideration of a General Plan Land Use Designation change to High -Density Residential (36 to 80 dwelling units per acre) for the housing site, a General Plan Text Amendment to allow greater industrial intensities under the General Industrial designation and a Zoning Map amendment for the entire site to be designated P (Planned Community) District. The amendments would support two new development projects, including two new personal storage buildings on the Public Storage site and 105 affordable family units on the Alta Housing site (see Attachment 2—Gatekeeper Application Staff Report, August 25, 2020). Neighborhood Outreach Alta Housing and Public Storage have been proactive and provided a joint presentation in late 2020 to the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood group to gather project feedback. As the projects continue through the review process, both Alta Housing and Public Storage will conduct formal community meetings inviting other groups and members of the public to provide input on the project. Environmental Planning Commission Study Session On March 23, 2022, the project was presented for Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) feedback at a Study Session. The EPC provided direction on project design and height change for 1040 Terra Bella Avenue (see Attachment 3—Study Session Memo, March 23, 2022). The direction of the EPC is further summarized in the discussion below. DISCUSSION The following report section provides an overview of the questions for Council which staff is requesting feedback development review and environmental review processes. General Plan Amendment for 1020 Terra Bella Avenue 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 5 of 15 proposed project and identifies for consideration as part of the The proposed General Plan Amendment from General Industrial to High -Density Residential (36 to 80 units per acre) would allow residential development of the 1020 Terra Bella Avenue property for the proposed 100% affordable project. The High -Density Residential Land Use Designation is the highest -density, purely residential land use designation in the General Plan and would accommodate the proposed project with a State Density Bonus request as discussed later in this Study Session report. General Plan Text Amendment for 1040 Terra Bella Avenue Personal storage uses are allowed in the current General Industrial Land Use Designation. However, the General Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation has a maximum FAR of 0.55 for such uses. To accommodate the proposed Public Storage project, the applicant has requested a General Plan Text Amendment to increase the allowed FAR to a maximum of 2.5 FAR. Per the authorized Gatekeeper (highlighted above), the applicant will provide a community benefit as part of the consideration to allow the FAR increase, which includes an exchange of land to create a residential frontage on Terra Bella Avenue and dedication of an additional approximately 0.5 acre of land to Alta Housing (1020 Terra Bella Avenue) to create a larger residential development site totaling 1.04 acres, which will facilitate additional units in the residential development. Zoning Map Amendment for 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue The development site is currently located in the MM (General Industrial) Zoning District, which allows only industrial uses. The MM Zoning District would allow the personal storage use (at a lower FAR), but not the residential project. As such, the applicant proposes the properties be rezoned to the P (Planned Community) Zoning District to facilitate the proposed development projects. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, P Districts are intended to be applied to areas which, by reason of their proximity to other zoning districts, topography, geographic location, size, shape, or existing development, require special consideration in order to be properly integrated into the community and adjacent developed districts and to further the planned circulation patterns, residential densities, planned coverage limitations, and preserve open spaces as required by modern land planning and zoning concepts and techniques. 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 6 of 15 1020 Terra Bella Avenue—Affordable Housing Project As part of the Gatekeeper authorization, the affordable housing project was proposed to be seven stories and 105 units, totaling about 157,000 square feet. Based on community feedback and other design progression, Alta Housing reduced the height of the structure to six stories and increased the unit count to 108 affordable units, totaling 150,084 square feet. The project proposes to take advantage of State Density Bonus provisions with a request to increase density from 80 units/acre to 104 units/acre for a density bonus of 33%. The rezoning of the site to P (Planned Community) would allow the residential use pursuant to development standards (e.g., FAR, setbacks, building heights, etc.) defined by the project for this site. Parking and Circulation The project's vehicle access would occur via two driveways: (1) fronting on Terra Bella Avenue, providing access to an at -grade structured parking level, and (2) fronting on Linda Vista Avenue, providing ramp access to a second -story parking level. The proposed project will be further evaluated with a parking study to identify the appropriate parking ratio to meet anticipated demand. ■ 1 I L M�_ � Imo_ �, . L ;.:.� m Figure 3-1020 Terra Bella Avenue Affordable Housing Ground -Floor Plan Design The architectural design for this component of the Gatekeeper project is modern in appearance. The design utilizes a simple building form with flat roofs and prominent window trims, broken up along Terra Bella Avenue (to the south) by a third -floor courtyard providing open space to the proposed tenants. The project provides additional open space by way of an entry plaza at the 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 7 of 15 intersection of Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and pockets of publicly accessible amenities along the Terra Bella Avenue frontage. The Terra Bella Avenue frontage will also provide ground -floor units entries and other directly accessible common amenities and entries, such as the bike storage/fix-it room, and the landscape design will incorporate a mixture of California native plants and climate -adaptive species. These elements help scale and soften the building's appearance and proposed on- and off-site trees would contribute to a greater sense of enclosure. The proposed building materials include a mixture of board -formed concrete, cementitious-lap siding, AEP standing -seam metal siding, and aluminum windows and accents. These materials are applied to accent different building areas, with particular attention to the primary building corners along Terra Bella Avenue. WMAUFaftl Figure 4—Housing Project Aerial View from Terra Bella Avenue Staff anticipates continuing to work with the applicant to refine the project design through the development review process, including continued community input and feedback arising from EPC, NOFA Committee, City Council, and Development Review Committee meetings. At this time, staff recommends continued refinement of the design to: • Enhance building base: The proposed design includes several positive aspects such as ground -floor porch entries and publicly accessible landscape amenities. To continue to 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 8 of 15 delineate and provide prominence to the building base, staff recommends the following areas for design revisions: — More comprehensive color/material application. Staff supports wrapping finish treatments (colors and/or material accents) around all side and rear elevations. — Deemphasize garage entries. Staff recommends further refinement of building accents and landscape design to diminish the appearance of prominent garage entries on Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue. — Refined public amenities and frontage landscaping. Staff recommends maximizing frontage landscaping zones, native plant species, and large -canopy trees and continued work to refine the design of proposed publicly accessible frontage amenities to ensure they are attractively designed, functional, and limit impacts to adjacent residential units. — Relationship between podium and frontage open space shall be activating and inviting. — Distinguish the corner plaza and main entry. Staff recommends revisions to further emphasize the corner entry and plaza so it is more strongly delineated from adjacent building areas. • Upper -Floor Design: The proposal includes angled accents at the building corners, varied window design, special detailing of the multi -story building area above the central courtyard, and a strong ground -level canopy element at the main building corner. However, other locations see upper floors overhang the building base or otherwise providing prominent views of less articulated upper floors. Staff has not identified any specific design recommendations for these areas but recommends further design review through the Design Rule Checking process to identify recommendations to ensure the upper -floor design is well -integrated with the building base and provides visual interest given the scale and prominent views of the new building. • Color and Materials Palette: Staff has some concern about how well the current mix of materials work together and recommends further consideration of the proposed color/materials palette to ensure visual interest for upper floors, strong definition of building base, and a well -integrated appearance. 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 9 of 15 EPC Direction The EPC was generally supportive of the project's preliminary design and site layout as well as staff's preliminary design recommendations and provided the following additional feedback: • Create a warmer front facade, but only by way of low-cost modifications. • 100% affordable projects have limited budgets. Design modifications should ideally be cost -neutral. • Staff is encouraged to work with the applicant to meet State deadlines to help secure State NOFA funding for the affordable housing project. Council Question No. 1: Does the Council support the design comments and direction by the EPC or have additional feedback for 1020 Terra Bella Avenue? 1040 Terra Bella Avenue—Personal Storage Development As part of the authorized Gatekeeper application, Public Storage proposed to construct two 5 -story personal storage buildings totaling 437,135 square feet in two phases, with the building directly behind the Alta Housing site to be constructed first. The current proposal has been modified from what was shown as part of the Gatekeeper authorization, including one 6 -story building (Phase One) along Linda Vista Avenue and one 4 -story building (Phase Two) along San Rafael Avenue, behind the Alta Housing project. The revised project includes less floor area (408,964 square feet) and more parking than the original proposal (see Table 1, below), but the increased height and modified phasing are the notable changes from the original proposal. Table 1: Comparison of Changes Submittal Stories Height FAR Parking Gatekeeper Two 5 -story 72' (five -story) 2.66 FAR 53 spaces Proposal structures One 6 -story and one 85' (six -story) Current Proposal 4 -story structure 64' (four-story) 2.5 FAR 75 spaces The surrounding neighborhood has changed in recent years with new and substantially remodeled office and mixed-use developments occurring around more traditional industrial buildings and uses. The north side of Terra Bella Avenue has or would see some of the most significant changes to this area, including this Gatekeeper project and the entitled/under-construction five- to seven -story mixed-use development by Sares Regis at 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 10 of 15 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard. Newer two- to three-story office buildings have also been constructed or are currently under review in the vicinity. I"r Figure 5—Neighborhood Height Context The evolving context of the neighborhood has guided staff analysis of the proposed changes to the project proposal. Specifically, the increased height in the Phase -One building—from five stories (72') in the original plans, to six stories (85') in the current submittal—can be supported as it would be similar to the existing/future scale of nearby development, where five- to seven -story buildings range in height from 70' to 88' in height. However, additional design work may be needed to support this increased height and more prominent building view and to ensure the proposed buildings will fit into the evolving mixed-use neighborhood, as discussed in more detail below. Parking and Circulation The project's vehicle access would occur via two driveways: (1) fronting on San Rafael Avenue, and (2) fronting on Linda Vista Avenue, providing access across the site. The project proposes 75 surface parking spaces, in lieu of the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 209 spaces, and with most of the parking spaces tucked behind the proposed buildings and/or inset from public street frontages. The proposed parking reduction is based on Public Storage experience with parking demand at their other locations and will be evaluated for adequacy through a parking study. 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 11 of 15 Design The personal storage buildings provide a modern industrial design and material palette. The simple building form responds to the angled property line along U.S. 101 and the interior layout of storage units. The design proposes strong vertical and horizontal orange trim bands around the building, providing some articulation of otherwise flat wall areas and delineation of corner window treatments. Other building materials include clear and spandrel glass, a mixture of concrete/cementitious materials, stucco, and metal panels. On the sides that do not face the highway, projecting wall areas and windows are used to try to break up long building facades. Figure 6—View from Linda Vista Avenue The concept includes primary building entries with transparent glazing along each street frontage, and the proposed landscape design includes several new street trees and a mixture of ground covers and shrubs, along with parking lot landscaping and buffer plantings along interior property lines. Adjacent to U.S. 101, the applicant is proposing several trees in a slim landscape strip along the U.S. 101 off -ramp to Highway 85, which could help soften the appearance of the structure as visible from the highway. Overall, staff appreciates the effort made to activate the Public Storage frontages and the addition of trees fronting U.S. 101. However, staff feels the landscape plans need more variety and the site can accommodate additional trees to help this site blend in with the evolving mixed- use character of the area. Similarly, while the building design has improved since the initial 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 12 of 15 formal submittal, staff believes the current design of the Personal Storage buildings still needs some work to achieve improved neighborhood compatibility and high-quality design commensurate with the increased visibility of the taller buildings. Staff has identified the following areas of focus for updating the building designs to better fit with the area: • Site/Landscape Design: Staff recommends an increased mix of high -canopy and accent trees as well as attractive fencing and under -story plantings, compatible with adjacent and nearby residential development in the landscape areas along the Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue frontages and buffer landscape areas abutting the freeway and adjacent properties to the south. • Building Character: The site has prominent visibility from the freeway, and, while the Phase Two building will eventually be largely tucked behind the Alta Housing project, the Public Storage buildings also have high visibility from the freeway, adjacent public street frontages, and above shorter commercial buildings to the south. Despite this context, the design still reads as fairly flat, closed off, and industrial, particularly on more south -facing facades oriented towards adjacent/nearby residential areas. To achieve greater compatibility with the neighborhood, staff recommends the following design revisions: — More clear glass throughout the buildings. Staff supports the use of clear glazing at main building corners and ground -floor lobby areas but recommends including a more extensive pattern of transparent windows to serve as an organizing element on each building facade, particularly in areas with off-site visibility, instead of the limited spandrel (opaque) window locations currently shown. — Improved wall movement and detailing. In part due to the site geometry, each freeway -facing (north) elevation has an interesting stepped facade, with spandrel corner windows accented by orange frames. Other elevations—particularly south - facing facades—have less wall movement, using shallow multi -story projecting wall areas clad in varying materials to try to breakup long facades. Staff generally supports the overall objective to break up long wall areas but finds the current design still emphasizes the height and bulk of the buildings. Staff recommends further refinement of both the stepped, corner features and other projecting wall accents so they are better proportioned, provide more varied interest across the project, and are more effective in breaking up the large blocky buildings into smaller wall areas that deemphasize, rather than accentuate, the building scale. — Strong building base. To ensure that the building base complements the streetscape design, staff recommends enhanced pedestrian -scaled features, materials, and colors that enrich the pedestrian environment. 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 13 of 15 Better integrated and varied rooflines. Staff recommends use of varied roof forms to break up long, continuous parapets and provide a more distinct "top" to the buildings. Enhanced colors and materials. Staff recommends a more interesting mix or application of materials and/or colors to enhance the building character. The predominantly gray/taupe and beige colors appear dull and too monochromatic, and staff recommends proposed colors and material application be revisited to ensure they accentuate revised wall movements and detailing. EPC Direction The EPC was generally supportive of the project's preliminary design and site layout as well as staff's preliminary design recommendations and provided the following additional feedback: • Support the height changes for the personal storage buildings. • Asked staff to work with the applicant to include more trees. • Noted the new buildings would be a substantial improvement from the existing structures and that substantial additional design modifications beyond staff's preliminary recommendations did not seem necessary. Council Question No. 2: Does the Council support the design comments and direction given by the EPC or have additional feedback for 1040 Terra Bella Avenue? 1040 Terra Bella Avenue—Commercial Housing Impact Fee Waiver Per the City's commercial housing impact fees, commercial projects are required to pay a housing impact fee based on square feet. The fee is intended for commercial projects to pay their fair share on housing impacts, based on the Commercial Housing Impact Nexus Study. Pursuant to Section 36.40.65 d.3 of the City Code, a waiver of commercial housing fees can be granted by City Council for nonresidential development projects with no employees or fewer than one employee per 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. Furthermore, to be eligible for a waiver the building must be designed and built such that it cannot be converted to a use capable of housing a larger number of employees except by major reconstruction. The Public Storage facility is asking for a waiver of the approximately $1.1 million in commercial housing impact fees. The applicant believes the fee waiver is applicable to their development as the personal storage development will have two to four employees for the proposed 437,135 square foot facility, and the building is solely intended for storage and any deviation from a storage use would require substantial improvements and modifications of the buildings, which would require City review and approval. 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 14 of 15 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends consideration of the fee waiver since the project qualifies based on: (i) the number of employees; and (ii) the design of the building, which would require substantial improvements to modify them for another use. City Council Question No. 3: Does Council support consideration of the waiver of the commercial/industrial housing impact fees for the project? 1040 Terra Bella Avenue—Public Storage Development Agreement Request Public Storage is also requesting a Development Agreement (DA) (Attachment 6) to facilitate a longer, phased development time frame for their project. The preliminary deal terms, recently proposed by the applicant, have not yet been reviewed by staff at this preliminary stage. Primary proposed deal terms include a seven-year entitlement time frame and an approximately $630,000 public benefit fee. As part of the development review process, staff will review the terms and negotiate a draft Development Agreement. The draft Development Agreement will be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and brought to Council for review and consideration in conjunction with the EPC's recommendation on the General Plan and Zoning amendments, and development project. RECOMMENDATION This Study Session gives Council the opportunity to provide input on key project topics to guide the applicant and staff in refining the project design through the remainder of the development review process. Staff requests Council feedback on the following questions and any other project related comments: 1. Does the Council support the EPC design comments and direction or have additional feedback for 1020 Terra Bella Avenue? 2. Does the Council support the EPC design comments and direction given or have additional feedback for 1040 Terra Bella Avenue? 3. Does Council support the waiver of the commercial/industrial housing impact fees for the project? 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue April 12, 2022 Page 15 of 15 NEXT STEPS Following the Council Study Session, the projects will continue through the development review and CEQA process and will return to the City Council for final consideration at a public hearing. PUBLIC NOTICING The City Council's agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners within a 750' radius and other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting. EM/4/CAM 808-04-12-22SS 201957 Attachments: 1. Terra Bella Vision Plan Staff Report, November 18, 2019 2. Gatekeeper Application Staff Report, August 25, 2020 3. EPC Study Session Staff Report, March 23, 2022 4. 1020 Terra Bella Avenue Plans (Alta Housing) 5. 1040 Terra Bella Avenue Plans (Public Storage) 6. 1040 Terra Bella Avenue—Development Agreement and Fee Waiver Request RECOMMENDATION Attachment 1 DATE: November 18, 2019 CATEGORY: Public Hearing DEPT.: Community Development TITLE: Terra Bella Vision Plan Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Terra Bella Vision Plan, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 1 to the Council report), including a Master Plan requirement for implementation. BACKGROUND Project Overview The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development, but a number of Gatekeeper applications were submitted for the area. As a result, the Terra Bella Vision Plan process started in April 2018 as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and to develop strategies to guide future development. The Terra Bella Visioning process provided an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key land use and development topics for the Terra Bella Area. The resulting Vision Plan (see Exhibit A to Attachment 1— Vision Plan) is a guiding document to implement a new vision for the area. While some objectives address preferred land uses, intensity of development, and general circulation conditions, the Terra Bella Vision Plan does not establish development regulations or regulate land use, zoning, or properties. It does not include detailed development feasibility and technical studies. Zoning regulations can be implemented through a future Terra Bella Precise Plan or by evaluating individual Gatekeeper applications in the area. The Terra Bella Visioning process has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and two Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and City Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 2 of 13 Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Attachment 2. City Council Meeting—April 2, 2019 Most recently, the City Council held a Study Session on key policy considerations and provided the following direction: Preferred Land Uses: Council supported a Lower -Intensity Land Use Alternative 6 (refer to Attachment 3) with a focus on achieving better transition to single- family residential neighborhoods; preserving small business in the area; and an option for up to five -story residential building heights south of Terra Bella Avenue along Middlefield Road with the ability to expand the adjacent Crittenden Middle School site. Figure 1 show the proposed land use vision based on this direction. Figure 1: Proposed Land Use Vision OLP MIDDLEFIELD WAY fid. r IA AVIAMA w+ a ■ ` 4%�. \4p� �Y4�Irwr i 414tdE •�# jRr # ai ,ZU11% �"�` r � SIAAce iteYi■nuai ***#* M, •; r7x6cr *# Q�t�F!';• � LifrKs ■ i'R■A eilu AYt r#4� %■# 4 M�#Mllel 0941 1w`p"t ■ a '4"40 • � � +nElusspilr - l.auerau r • m r repr 1 aMir" � , •■+ Mr. � • ffps�dt+4 wl IkwrlemisM �' Rrf�Arn�al ■ +► AL S a. IS N D 250 SOD 1.000 Filt Residential lup to 3 StorieSp Residential (up I 5 stoneO Residential fup to 7 stories) Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use wrSh Retail --------- C.- Office Office (up to 3 stories) :• •� • •': Plan Bwrsdaty Office (up to 5 stories) w'wv NeighborhoodTrarxiuons Light Industrial ) OITKe ;up to 2 stones) light Industrial/ Office ;up to a stories) Potential School Dedication NewSImet • • New PedestnanANke Path Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 3 of 13 • Development Strategies: Council supported including key development strategies for achieving the vision for the area. These key strategies address local school needs; jobs -housing linkage; neighborhood transitions; affordable housing; parking and traffic mitigation/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM); small business preservation; and parks and open space. These have been incorporated in the Vision Plan in Chapters 3 and 4, and are also discussed later in this report. • Precise Plan Option: At the April 2019 Council meeting, staff presented a comparison between a Precise Plan and individual Gatekeeper project review. A majority of the City supported creating a Precise Plan in the future to achieve the goals of this Vision Plan. The City Council also supported the idea of requiring a Master Plan for the west of Shoreline Boulevard Plan area. EPC Meeting— October 2, 2019 The EPC reviewed the draft Vision Plan and recommended approval with the following minor modifications listed below and shown as red -line changes in the draft Vision Plan (see Attachment 4): 1. Transition Strategy: Add another diagram under the transition strategy discussion with a shallow angle view to provide better transition between existing single-family residential (SFR) land uses and new development to reduce visual impact from future five -story buildings (see Chapter 3, Page 29). 2. Landscape Screening: Strengthen the wording of landscape screening language to achieve maximum screening between existing SFR and future development (see Chapter 3, Page 29). 3. Community Benefit: Add residential permit parking as an option under community benefits when considering future developments (see Chapter 4, Pages 37 and 38). The EPC also noted that traffic congestion in the area should be emphasized in the Council report. Thirteen (13) community members provided the following comments: • Concerns over impacts of future development on the surrounding SFR neighborhoods. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 4 of 13 • Concerns over traffic congestion in the area and additional traffic from future uses, especially at the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. • Uncertainty over feasibility of retail uses along Shoreline Boulevard citing the existing traffic congestion. • Need for additional setbacks and additional transition strategies to reduce impacts to the existing SFR developments in the area. • Concern over the impacts of the land use Vision Plan on existing industrial land uses which are shown as residential uses in the Vision Plan. This may reduce the marketability of these uses. • Need for lower -intensity development in the area. ANALYSIS The Vision Plan is organized into five chapters. The following is a summary of each chapter. 1. Chapter 1 includes background information about the area, key considerations in the Plan area, and how the Plan relates to other City regulations and plans. 2. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the policy foundation of the Plan, including guiding principles and the community outreach effort. A summary of the community workshops and stakeholder interviews is included in Appendix B. 3. Chapter 3 includes the land use vision and development character for the area, design guidelines for buildings, frontages, open spaces, and transition strategies. 4. Chapter 4 includes development principles for future development and an implementation framework. The Plans major strategies include: Jobs -Housing Linkage, Affordable Housing, Small Business Preservation, Public Open Space, School District Strategy, and TDM. 5. Chapter 5 includes the transportation network vision for the area and street design concepts. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 5 of 13 Vision Plan Key Strategies In previous Study Sessions, the City Council and EPC discussed and supported several key strategies for the Plan area. These strategies are a key component for implementing the vision for the Plan area and are summarized below. 1. Transitions Throughout the visioning process, there has been considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. This strategy has been incorporated in the Plan and includes increased building setbacks; upper -story step -backs; 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes; orienting primary windows away from existing homes; providing landscape buffers; and limiting balconies. The Vision Plan also includes standards with guidelines for transitions along Rock Street and the Stierlin Estates neighborhood (refer to Chapter 3). The EPC recommended the shallow -angle view transition strategy graphic (see Chapter 3, Page 31) to ensure reducing visual impacts from future five -story buildings. Further view analysis showed that two- to three-story residential buildings directly adjacent to the property line will block the view of the five -story buildings behind them, except for when there is a break in the buildings. However, required landscaping should help screen views in this gap. Transition Standard No. 5 on Page 29 requires view studies for new development, which should provide this kind of detailed analysis for projects. 2. Parks and Open Space Strategy During the visioning process, creating new parks and open spaces in the area was identified as a top priority. Community members expressed a strong desire that new open spaces be publicly accessible and include green spaces, not just hardscaped plazas. The Plan vision identifies new, publicly accessible parks and open spaces on both the east and west sides of Shoreline Boulevard to serve the needs of the Plan area. Per the current City park land dedication requirements, the preferred land use development for the Vision Plan area would require 16 acres of park land. Based on the development potential, the Vision Plan identifies a minimum 4 -acre park land dedication on each side of Shoreline Boulevard (refer to Chapter 3). The park land requirement can be met through land dedication; privately owned, publicly accessible open space; sharing of school open space; and park in -lieu fees. The vision also includes additional sharing of open space on the Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 6 of 13 west side of Shoreline Boulevard with a possible future school site extension. Conceptual open space locations are shown in Figure 3. Creating new parks and open space will require a coordinated effort between the City, property owners, and project developers, including land dedication by residential projects, City purchase using Park Land Dedication In -Lieu funds, and creation of public plazas and open space by nonresidential projects. The Vision Plan open space guidelines state that the new nonresidential development should provide on-site, publicly accessible open spaces under private ownership, such as plazas, landscaped areas, and public art installations. Specific locations and sizes would be determined during the project review process. The Plan also prioritizes new park and open space locations near housing, commercial uses, and public paths. a O WCK ST Figure 3: Vision Plan Conceptual Open Space OLD MIDDL€FI€LD WAY Z - g rAAVENIDA O z Z 44— 1 ■ 1 ' 1 r bra Cdr ■ : 4 rra ■ ' R�6 rar n �'oiv iFCQaaaa o • arr °oRN,,w 34 as a, K S "Ak4"D54q 3't s }rg S9N ID69VF S T.RRA BELIA AVE ��a*a � 1 1 ^q�fi 1 aai rc 1 O }1 N ■u■u■ A0 250 500 1,000 Feet ' Plan Boundary r�_1 New Street New Pedestrian/Bike Path Terra Bella Vision Plan • Cm or M--,, VRV s�N nRoo war 0 3F d SAN -G DR S GRRi2a WAV Conceptual Public Open Space' Conceptual Joi nt-Use School Park Site* Existing Parks/Open Space C' - Trails . Exact kcatron will be determined as pard cf masterplan/development review process. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 7 of 13 3. Small Business Preservation In previous discussions, the City Council has supported preserving small businesses in the east of Shoreline Boulevard area to maintain smaller, more affordable spaces for start-ups, small businesses, and nonprofits. The Plan requires new development projects to provide support for small businesses, such as including small, flexible work spaces within new buildings, rent subsidies for small or local businesses, and relocation assistance (refer to Chapter 4). 4. Parking and TDM Guidelines Concerns about spillover parking into existing neighborhoods and parking demand from new development were emphasized by the community throughout the visioning process. All the new developments in the area will have to meet the City's TDM requirements and also meet aggressive parking reduction targets. The Plan further includes a target for no net new trips generation from employment generating uses, i.e., office and research and development uses (refer to Chapter 4). 5. Affordable Housing The Plan envisions the Terra Bella area as including a variety of housing types at varying income levels. The City Council has stated that the Vision Plan should help to create as much affordable housing as possible. The Vision Plan states that any new residential development projects in the area should provide 20 percent affordable units (refer to Chapter 4). This goal is higher than the City's current affordable housing requirements but is consistent with some of our recent Precise Plans, including the East Whisman Precise Plan. 6. School Strateu During the visioning process, various stakeholders, including the school district and community members, expressed interest and the need for addition/ expansion of school facilities to accommodate demand from future growth. Similar to the North Bayshore and East Whisman Precise Plans, the Vision Plan also identifies a local school strategy as a key requirement and potential measure to reach higher development intensities (refer to Chapter 4). New development under any master plan shall propose a local school district strategy to the City, intended to support schools serving the Vision Plan area, including the adjacent Crittenden Middle School Site to the west along Middlefield Road. The strategy may include, but is not limited to, land dedication for new school development; additional funding for new school development; Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) strategies to Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 8 of 13 benefit developer(s) that provide new school facilities; or other innovative strategies supporting schools. A Citywide school strategy was discussed at the City Council Study Session on October 15, 2019. At this meeting, Council supported the proposed School Land Strategy, including City and developer contributions in the form of shared open space, land dedication, and off-site TDR. Staff will return to Council in early 2020 with further analysis and options for appropriate voluntary contributions from office and residential developments in exchange for higher floor area ratio. 7. Jobs -Housing Linkage The City adopted a jobs -housing linkage strategy with the East Whisman Precise Plan. The Precise Plan emphasized the need for a better jobs -housing balance in the City by requiring commercial development to support and facilitate residential development. Job -housing balance has also been identified as a key strategy in the Terra Bella area. The Vision Plan requires a "jobs -housing linkage" program to ensure residential development is balanced with office and R&D growth. The expectation is that all new office and R&D development will help facilitate residential development through jobs -housing linkage strategies, which could include: direct construction of housing, dedication of land suitable for housing, contribution of fees to offset costs for residential development, residential development partnerships, purchase of existing office square footage from residential developers who demolish office buildings, and other creative strategies or partnerships that support or facilitate housing development (refer to Chapter 4). 8. Implementation Alternatives At the April 2019 Study Session, the City Council recognized the need for a Precise Plan to achieve goals of the Vision Plan. The City Council also supported the idea for a Master Plan for the west of Shoreline Boulevard area. Though a Precise Plan for this area is not a priority work item for the City, the need for a more organized development process has been emphasized at various occasions by the City Council. The following are several implementation alternatives: • Option 1: Prepare a Precise Plan and allow no Gatekeepers in the meantime. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 9 of 13 • Option 2: Require a Master Plan for each side of Shoreline Boulevard. No Gatekeeper projects are allowed in the area without a Master Plan. • Option 3: Review Gatekeepers on a case by case basis. • Option 4: Hold off on all Gatekeeper project requests in the area until completion of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 10 of 13 Table 1: Implementation Alternatives Description Advantages Disadvantages Time Frame Option 1: Complete a Precise Plan • Comprehensive technical studies; Cost approximately $1.2 million 2 years once Precise Plan prior to allowing any • Detailed policies; authorized new Gatekeeper projects • Clear development standards by City in the area. and requirements for future Council development; • Helps implement open space and other strategies. Option 2: Require a master plan for • Comprehensive technical studies; • East Side Master Plan may 1 year once Master Plan each side of Shoreline • Detailed policies; be more complicated due to authorized Boulevard. • Specific development standards; smaller and numerous by City • Additional community outreach; properties; Council Individual projects will . Might take less time compared to • Also requires Gatekeeper be reviewed against a Precise Plan; authorization. regulations and • East and west sides can develop standards developed in independently; the Master Plan. • Can implement open space and other strategies. Option 3: Review individual • Projects could proceed faster. • No comprehensive study; —1.5 to 2 Gatekeepers Gatekeepers on a case -by- • Not as efficient or effective years per case basis. as other options; project once • Requires more staff time; authorized • May not be able to achieve by City areawide goals as they may Council not be priority in individual developer proposal. Option 4: Delay any new • Comprehensive update to a • Requires more staff time; 3 to 4 years Citywide Gatekeeper project Citywide guiding document; • Longer process; once General authorization until • Extensive community outreach; • Significant cost (TBD) authorized Plan Update Comprehensive General • Additional technical studies. by City Plan Update. Council Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 11 of 13 In response to City Council direction and in the absence of a Precise Plan, staff recommends, and the Vision Plan includes, a Master Plan process as the best solution to achieve the Plans vision without doing a complete Precise Plan. Any development not consistent with existing zoning and the General Plan will require a Gatekeeper authorization and a Master Plan application. A Master Plan process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella Avenue to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new, publicly accessible streets and open spaces while allowing project flexibility. The Vision Plan provides requirements for a Master Plan for the east and west sides of Shoreline Boulevard. The Plan also lists the minimum components and key development strategies (as discussed below) for the Master Plan application. These development strategies are potential measures to reach higher development intensities above current zoning. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Vision Plan for further details. Should the Council prefer a different implementation strategy, the motion should clearly state that. Staff notes that east and west of Shoreline Boulevard have a very different character and parcel configurations as shown in Figure 2 below. Therefore, individual Master Plans for the east and west sides are recommended. It should also be noted that a master plan will also be a Gatekeeper project and will need Council authorization. OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY 3 Figure 2: Plan Area Parcel Map a m z O Z f g LAAVENIDA Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 12 of 13 N0 250 500 1,000 Feet Legend A0-0.5 acres - 2.0-3.5 acres ® OS - 1.0 acres 35-5-0 acres Terra Bella Vision Plan 1.0.2.0 acres 5.0.10-0 acres r� Project Boundary •rWr■ Cm 0r M..x — V[t�w Gatekeeper Timing Parcel Size At the June 18, 2019 meeting, the City Council decided to delay review of the Gatekeeper requests until the third quarter of 2020, when there is a better idea of available staff resources to process the applications. At this meeting, Council decided that timing for Gatekeeper projects in Terra Bella can be decided along with Terra Bella Vision Plan adoption. Considering no addition to staff resources and addition of new work items based on Council Goals, staff does not recommend considering any new Gatekeeper projects, including the Master Plan, until the third quarter of 2020. FISCAL IMPACT—The cost of the Vision Plan is included in the Adopted Budget. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 13 of 13 CONCLUSION The Terra Bella Vision Plan includes key strategies for how the City may consider future development in the area. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend modifications to the Terra Bella Vision Plan. 2. Do not accept the Terra Bella Vision Plan. 3. Provide further instruction to staff. PUBLIC NOTICING The City Council agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders, including the school districts, were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: http: / /www.mountainview. gov/ depts / comdev/ planning/ activeprojects / terrabella.asp Prepared by: Diana Pancholi Senior Planner Martin Alkire Advanced Planning Manager DP -MA/ 5/ CAM/ 807-11-18-19CR/ 18660 Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director Daniel H. Rich City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution—Terra Bella Vision Plan 2. Previous Meeting Summary 3. City Council Study Session Memo, April 2, 2019 4. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report, October 23, 2019 Attachment 1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW RESOLUTION NO. SERIES 2019 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TERRA BELLA VISION PLAN WHEREAS, on October 23, 2019, the Environmental Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and thereafter forwarded its recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Terra Bella Vision Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2019, having given notice as required by Chapter 36 of the Mountain View City Code, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Terra Bella Vision Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mountain View that the Terra Bella Vision Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been reviewed and approved by the City Council and is hereby adopted. DP/ 2/ RESO 807-11-18-19r Exhibit: A. Terra Bella Vision Plan terra beLLa vision plan C i AP -. Exhibit A City of Mountain Views November 2019 FA 0 Lipi table of contents Plan Context and Location Key Considerations in the Plan Area Relationship to Other Plans Vision Guiding Principles Community Conversations and Engagement Process Vision Plan Frontage Types and Character Transition Areas Parks and Open Space Floor Area Ratio Maximum FAR Jobs -Housing Linkage Small Business Preservation Parking and TDM Master Planning Process Transportation Network Reversible Bus Lane New Internal Access Roads Walking and Bicycling Connections Street design concepts Appendix A: Existing Conditions Appendix B: Community Workshop and Online Survey Results 6 8 9 12 13 15 20 25 28 32 36 37 39 39 40 44 48 48 48 50 52 acknowLedgments City Council • Lisa Matichak, Mayor • Margaret Abe-Koga,Vice Mayor • Christopher R. Clark • Alison Hicks • Ellen Kamei • John McAlister • Lucas Ramirez Former Councilmembers • Ken Rosenberg • Pat Showalter • Lenny Siegel Environmental Planning Commission • Pamela Baird (Chair) • Margaret Capriles • Robert Cox (Vice Chair) • William Cranston • Preeti Hehmeyer • Kammy Lo • Joyce Yin City Managment • Daniel H. Rich, City Manager • Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director • Michael Fuller, Public Works Director • Jesse Takahashi, Finance and Administrative Services Director • Krishan Chopra, City Attorney Former City Management • Randal Tsuda, Former Community Development Director • Jannie Quinn, Former City Attorney Former EPC members • John Scarboro Vision Plan Project Staff • Diana Pancholi, Project Manager, Community Development • Martin Alkire, Advance Planning Manager, Community Development • Stephanie Williams, Current Planning Manager, Community Development • Renee Gunn, Public Works Consultant Team • Raimi +Associates • Nelson\Nygaard • Seifel Consulting Additional Support Provided by: • Mountain View Chamber of Commerce 1� introduction io _ � T Introduction Located in the northern part of Mountain View along Shoreline Boulevard just south of Highway 101, the Terra Bella neighborhood consists mainly of low -intensity office and light industrial uses surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods. During the 2030 General Plan update process, the City, in collaboration with the community, identified a number of change areas in the city fortargeted growth and development. Terra Bella was not identified as a change area and therefore no specific vision was identified for the area during the 2030 General Plan update process. However, after several years of interest from developers and property owners to build housing and higher -intensity office in the area, the City Council directed staff to study existing conditions n the area and launch a process to understand the community's vision for the future for this area. This Vision Plan guides the transition of the Terra Bella area to a neighborhood with a greater mix of land uses, with new homes, spaces for small businesses and non -profits, open spaces, and multiple mobility options. The Vision Plan is based on community input gathered during the summer of 2018 through spring of 2019. It highlights common preferences, as well as topics with diverging input. This Plan includes preferred land uses, intensity, character, and development principles which will provide a foundation to review and evaluate future development projects in the area or recommend further study or analysis. It also identifies mobility, open space, and other key opportunities and strategies. Purpose and Authority The purpose of the Terra Bella Vision Plan is to: • Define a vision and guiding principles forfuture development • Provide direction on the preferred use, intensity, and character of future development • Identify mobility, open space, and other improvements in the area • Provide recommendations for future study and analysis The Vision Plan provides a foundation to review and evaluate future development projects in the area. The Vision Plan does not replace the existing zoning code or augment building safety codes or other non -planning related codes. All applications for new construction, substantial modifications to existing buildings, and changes in land use shall be reviewed for consistency with the Terra Bella Vision Plan. Additionally, any new development not consistent with the current General Plan orzoning designation forthe area will require City Council "gatekeeper authorization" to amend the General Plan orzoning designations. w z Plan Context and Location Z O The Terra Bella Vision Plan area covers approximately 110 acres south of Highway 101 and east of State Route 85. The area is bounded by West Middlefield Road to the LL south and Crittenden Middle School/ Whisman Sports Centerto the west, and is bisected by North Shoreline Boulevard. The area is characterized by a mix of industrial O uses, office buildings, single family homes, and public facilities. The Plan area abuts the North Bayshore Precise Plan area to the north beyond Highway 101. Figure ~ 1-1 shows the Plan area boundary. U 11 Figure i -i. Plan Area Boundary "I - t- 4v io l.tir 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Plan Boundary 1 ! ! 1 k 0 1 1 1 —*day, — Terra Bella Vision Plan CI YY OF MOON IM N VIEW TEMA EALA AVE -"4 Key Considerations in the Plan Area The project team analyzed background information and existing conditions in Terra Bella to provide a general understanding of the Plan area's land use, urban form and character, open space, mobility, and environmental conditions. The detailed data and analysis can be found in Appendix A Existing Conditions. The issues and opportunities identified through this analysis were used to develop the Plan vision, guiding principles, and recommendations. The following is a summary of the key considerations in the Terra Bella area. 1. Parks and open spaces. Though there are public parks located outside of the Terra Bella area, there are no public parks or community gathering spaces within the neighborhood. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is in need of additional open space to meet the City's goal. 2. Traffic and parking. Traffic congestion is a key issue in the area, particularly along North Shoreline Boulevard which funnels vehicles in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore. Appropriate mobility policies and mitigation measures should be applied to new development to reduce the number of new vehicle trips and parking spillover to nearby neighborhoods from new development. 3. Walking and bicycling conditions. Major auto -oriented roadways including US -101, SR -85, Shoreline Boulevard, and Middlefield Road create high stress conditions and substantial barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access in, out and through the area. Additionally, long block lengths in Terra Bella, particularly west of North Shoreline Boulevard, has resulted in poor pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by reducing opportunities for crossings and direct routes. Building pedestrian/bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), protected bikeways and full-time bike lanes, and breaking up large blocks with streets or greenways can improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 4. Mix of uses. Terra Bella consists of predominately office and light industrial uses, with limited residential and retail uses. The result is a commuter -oriented environmentwith limited neighborhood amenities.A diverse mixof uses and activities should be encouraged in Terra Bella while maintainingthe unique character of the area. 5. Development and building character. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of Shoreline Boulevard, includes large suburban office parks. In many cases, buildings do not face directly onto the street and have deep front and side setbacks, with little interaction between private properties and public areas. Active and well-designed building frontages are crucial for creating a more inviting, pedestrian -oriented environment that will attract people to walk, gather, shop, and spend time. 6. Residential adjacency. The Terra Bella area is bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast, including Rock Street and the Stierlin Estates neighborhood. Future development should be designed to respect and benefit the adjacent single-family neighborhoods by providing additional amenities for residents, improving multimodal access, and creating appropriate transitions to existing homes. Z 7. Small business preservation. Terra Bella, particularly the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard, is home to an eclectic mix of small businesses, light industrial Z uses, and non profits. Redevelopment of the area could continue to put upward pressure on property values and rents, leading to displacement of small pbusinesses. The Vision Plan includes several strategies to preserve small businesses in the area. I O 8. Environmental conditions. Contaminated sites in Terra Bella, particularly the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund site west of North Shoreline Boulevard, pose a concern for new development. While cleanup activities are still ongoing, further studies and remediation will likely be required as new development is U considered in this area. 8 PLan Structure The Vision Plan is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 2: Vision and Guiding Principles describes the vision and guiding principles to direct future development and improvements in Terra Bella. Chapter 3: Land Use and Community Design describes the overall land use vision for Terra Bella and includes standards relating to land use, development intensity, height, transitions, frontage type and character, and parks and open space. Chapter 4: Development Principles Framework provides guidance on desired community benefits in the Plan area, including affordable housing, small business preservation, parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and other contributions from property owners and project applicants. Chapter 5: Mobility establishes the overall street network, street design, bicycle and pedestrian networks, and other transportation improvements in the area. Appendix A: Existing Conditions provides a description of the current conditions in the Terra Bella Vision Plan area related to land use, urban form and character, open space, mobility, and environment. Appendix B: Community engagement summaries describe the engagement activities and input provided by the community throughout the process. ReLationship to Other PLans 203o General Plan The General Plan includes policies for Citywide development and general land use. The Vision Plan is guided by the General Plan's goals, policies, and urban design direction. Zoning Ordinance The City of Mountain View's Zoning Ordinance establishes zoning districts, permitted uses, development standards, and procedures to align with the General Plan. These regulations apply to properties and projects in Terra Bella. The land use and development standards and guidelines in this document do not supersede the land use and development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Picvcle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan The Terra Bella Vision Plan builds on the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2013 Pedestrian Master Plan. These transportation plans provide strategies and improvements to encourage active transportation. Relevant projects and improvements are shown in the Mobility Chapter. 1.1 Shoreline Boulevard Transportation Study A 2014 study of the Shoreline Boulevard corridor recommended a package of comprehensive of new treatments for the street. Among these treatments, the study recommended a reversible transit lane extendingfrom Middlefield Road north to Plymouth/Space Park Way in North Bayshore. The lane would be used by northbound buses on weekday mornings and by southbound buses on weekday afternoons. It would feature median and curb -side stops at Terra Bella Avenue and Pear Avenue. In addition to North Bayshore transit service, regularVTA routes and othershuttle services would be eligible to use the lane. Key design features will include dedicated transit signals, physical barriers, pavement markings, and high visibility signage. Additional recommendations include protected intersections, protected bikeways along Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road, and a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over US -101. Mountain ViewAutomated Guideway Transportation Feasibility Study In 2018, the City of Mountain View completed a study that evaluated innovative ways to address the anticipated increase in commutertraffic between Mountain View's Downtown Transit Center and North Bayshore. The study assessed how the introduction of an automated guideway transportation (AGT) system might successfully integrate into other transportation improvement strategies and projects throughoutthe City overtime. Based on the evaluation, the study concluded that an Automated Transit Network (ATN - automated vehicles operating on a network of guideways, including both personal and group rapid transit) and autonomous transit vehicles were best suited for the study area which includes the North Shoreline Boulevard area. North Bayshore Transportation Access Study (2017) The North Bayshore Transportation Access Study recommends serving the North Bayshore area with a fleet of buses and autonomous vehicles (AVs) that travel along RT Jones Road and Charleston Road in the short term. In the long term, the study recommends conducting an analysis of AVs on the Highway 101 alignment and light rail on the RT Jones alignment. Recommended infrastructure improvements include a Charleston Road Bridge crossing at Stevens Creek, new transit centers at the Bayshore/NASA Light Rail station and Moffett Boulevard, and a series of dedicated AV stations throughout the area. w Z H Z O i LL O } H U 10 Ch� the vision io A Cdr' S rin and cimaina Prinenn The Terra Bella area transitions into a complete neighborhood with a wider diversity of uses, open spaces, and amenities. Terra Bella continues to serve as an employment area in Mountain View, home to both large and small businesses, including light industrial and manufacturing, office, retail, and service uses. Existing local small businesses and organizations remain as a valuable part of the neighborhood fabric. Residential units accommodate a range of incomes, ownership types, and life stages. The intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue serves as a multimodal, mixed-use hub for the community. North Shoreline Boulevard is transformed into a complete street and an active and vibrant mixed-use corridor with shops, restaurants, services, and hotels that caterto both office workers and residents. Residents and workers have easy multimodal access to parks and open spaces. Neighborhoods east and west of North Shoreline Boulevard integrate different land uses and buildings to create a pedestrian- and bicycle - friendly, human -scaled, well-designed urban environment. Buildings are located close to the sidewalk to create a distinctive urban street. Buildings with doors and windows oriented to the street support lively and comfortable pedestrian activity. New buildings are designed to respect the scale and character of adjacent residential neighborhoods, such as Rock Street and Stierlin Estates. Terra Bella is a well-connected neighborhood, with multimodal access to major employment and commercial centers, Caltrain, light rail, and regional open space amenities, such as Shoreline Park and Stevens Creek. Transit investments along North Shoreline Boulevard improve service to key destinations, including Downtown and North Bayshore. Large blocks are broken up into human -scale blocks that make it safer, easier, and more comfortable to walk in and around the neighborhood. New pedestrian and bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), low - street facilities, and streetscape improvements promote active transportation throughout the area. Guiding Principles The Terra Bella vision is supported by the following guiding principles. The principles connect the overarching vision with the Plan's land use and mobility plan and development principles. These guiding principles establish a reference point for stakeholders and decision -makers as new development is reviewed. s. Maintain Terra BeLLa as an area for employment Terra Bella maintains a mix of employment generating uses including office, R&D, light industrial, retail, and service uses. Local small businesses and non -profits, alongside larger companies, contribute to an economically -diverse area. 2. Create neighborhoods With balanced and integrated Land uses Terra Bella transitions to a more complete neighborhood with a mix of uses, including office, R&D, light industrial, residential, retail, service, and open space. New retail, services, and parks support housing development and surrounding neighborhoods, and create a vibrant neighborhood with both day and nighttime activity. I Maximize Land use flexibility The Plan provides flexibility to allow individual property owners to develop residential, mixed-use, office, light industrial, or commercial uses, responding to market changes and other factors. 4. Promote housing at variety of income levels and ownership types The Terra Bella area provides a variety of housing types, both market rate and affordable housing, and creates more housing choices in the neighborhood to serve a diverse demographic of new and existing residents. New housing includes a mix of ownership and rental housing. 5. Create walkable blocks with buildings that support the public realm A fine-grained network of pedestrian -oriented streets provides safe, efficient, and attractive walking and biking routes throughout Terra Bella. Human -scaled building design and active frontages help shape and define the public spaces, creating an inviting pedestrian environment, and enhancing neighborhood character. 6. Respect the character of adjacent neighborhoods, such as Rex Manor, Rock Street, and Stierlin Estates New development in Terra Bella is designed to respect surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. New projects provide context -sensitive design transitions in bulk, height, and massing. Appropriate buffers, including setbacks and landscaping, are provided between new development and existing single- family homes. 13 7. Create new public parks and open spaces Terra Bella adds new neighborhood parks, plazas, community facilities, and other public open spaces to provide a place for the community to gather, socialize, and play. 8. Minimize vehicle trips and congestion The Plan prioritizes walking, biking, and transit throughout the area. New transit investments along North Shoreline Boulevard better connect residents and workers to jobs and services in Downtown and North Bayshore. Parking management solutions, such as sharing of spaces between uses, district parking supply, structured parking, and parking demand reduction measures, discourage single -occupancy trips and encourage more efficient use of parking resources. g. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity The Plan focuses on better pedestrian and bicycle connections to destinations throughout the neighborhood. An interconnected street grid, sidewalk enhancements, and new bicycle facilities provide safe, direct, and pleasant walking and biking routes for residents, employees, and visitors. 1o. Preserve space for a number of small, employment -generating uses Terra Bella supports an environment where diverse businesses can flourish and thrive. The area east of North Shoreline Boulevard features small and flexible work spaces to support retention of existing small businesses and light industrial uses. 11. Ensure new development provides community benefits New development in Terra Bella provides public benefits servingthe whole community, such as parks and public space, support for local schools, small business support, public art, community facilities, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and shared parking. 12. Promote environmental sustainability Terra Bella features sustainable and innovative development that includes green building, energy efficiency, water conservation, and stormwater management best practices. 14 Community Conversations and Engagement Process The Terra Bella visioning community engagement process took place from June 2018 to April 2019. Several community engagement tools were used to gather a wide range of community input, including three community workshops, one-on-one meetings, online surveys, stakeholder interviews, and Environmental Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Common community preferences that were emphasized repeatedly by participants at workshops, public meetings, and through online tools are highlighted throughout this plan. Community Workshop 1 - June 2, 2o18 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project, and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. Participants generally supported introducing a more balanced mix of land uses and higher -intensity development in Terra Bella but also voiced concerns in the following areas: 1. Transitions to existing residential neighborhoods. Existing residents expressed concern that new higher -intensity development would create shade and privacy impacts on adjacent single-family homes. 2. Traffic and parking. There was concern that new development would increase traffic and parking spillover in and around existing neighborhoods. 3. Current lack of parks and open space. Community members wanted to ensure the provision of parks and open space in the area to meet the needs of both current and future residents. 4. Potential displacement of existing small businesses. Community members and business owners expressed concern that new development in the area could lead to the displacement of existing small businesses. A summary of the workshop and online survey outcomes are included in Appendix B. Neighborhood Petition Following the first community workshop, the City received a petition signed by 100 residents of the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood expressing community support for future development with proper transitions along existing residential developments. The petition also expressed community interest in preserving existing large trees in the area, the need for parks and open spaces with the future developments, and support for low- to medium -intensity development (office and residential) in the future. Some of the community concerns included potential shade, view, and privacy impacts from higher -density development, as well as traffic congestion and parking spillover into existing neighborhoods. 15 Community Workshop 2 - August 25, 2019 The second workshop was held at the Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included a large group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use vision plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. Most participants supported a land use vision with new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well as additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Viewpoints diverged over preferred heights and densities for future development with some participants favoring higher -intensity development and others preferring a lower -intensity scenario. A summary of the workshop is included in Appendix B. Stakeholder Meetings In the fall of 2018, the Vision Plan team met with over20 stakeholders including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. The purpose of these interviews was to listen to stakeholders with a unique interest in the Plan area and identify issues, opportunities, and ideas on a range of topics. Overall, there was general agreement among stakeholders in the following areas: • Create a balanced mix of uses, including parks, residential development, retail, and light industrial/maker spaces Create shared business spaces, such as General Industrial and Office Z uses, within one building D • Create a more pedestrian and bicycle -friendly district, including safe 0 X routes to nearby schools LL 0 • Create a clear identity and gateway signage for the neighborhood U 16 • Allow denser development, particularly away from existing single-family neighborhoods • Provide an appropriate transition between existing single-family residential neighborhoods and future development. Stakeholders also expressed the following concerns regarding new development in the area: • Transitions between future development and existing single-family residential neighborhoods • Incompatibility between light industrial and residential uses • Upward pressure on rents for business and commercial spaces • Cut -through traffic and parking spillover in and around existing neighborhoods • Potential traffic impacts of closing the SR 85 on-ramp • Impacts of future development on neighborhood school capacity • Neighborhood safety issues. The stakeholder meetings included a roundtable with small businesses and non-profit organizations housed in the Terra Bella planning area. 17 Community Meeting #3 - January 28, 2019 A third community meeting was convened at Crittenden Middle School. The discussion focused on transitions to the single-family residential neighborhoods along the northwestern boundary of the Plan area, near Rock Street. Ten people attended the meeting, including five homeowners from the Rock Street neighborhood. Residents expressed concerns over potential five to seven -story residential development adjacent to their properties and instead suggested allowing taller residential development closer to West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard. A summary of the workshop is included in Appendix B. W Z Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 18 6\0� hl Owe— Nate bauRm ��'� a b V- �S a4w- need 1� �r�c�.r a o rx • WIZ G %11%7/ 0 Am ­Vw w Z z 0 X LL 0 } H U 20 3. Land Use and Community Design This chapter of the Vision Plan illustrates the vision for future land uses and development character in Terra Bella to create a complete neighborhood with a balanced mix of housing, office, services, and open space. It includes direction on use, intensity, physical character, building placement, and transition strategies that will be used to evaluate new development proposals in the area. Land Use Vision The land use vision articulates the vision forfuture development in Terra Bella - including physical use, intensity, public spaces, and circulation, as illustrated in Figure 3-1 and further described below. TOPICS FOR FURTHER STUDY Areas of concern that require further study included: • Building heights and intensity particularly along Middlefield Road and adjacent to Crittenden Middle School • Potential expansion of Crittenden Middle School • Building height and intensity of light industrial uses on the east side of Terra Bella • Land use compatibility and interface between light industrial properties and residential uses on the east side of Terra Bella • Shade and view impacts of new development on adjacent single- family homes • Specific locations of new parks and open spaces • Specific locations of new streets and pathways Figure 3-1. Land Use Vision Plan G OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY > mo YJ v I J W v : O LA AVENiDA 31 R4yr, 2 ST r z 4rtqROCKSi w ww � �'sr ■ i .+r i ■ { w,, � ■ r ■ P Residential 4 1wwM.� ++ wwlw 10,. �■w ww! ��i • rFq _� dentia) w 1�9 • A RR aw , �Fr'\ ♦iw 1 o,5 AGF 0 ,4r n10 `• Mixed use'ww+ ) w,! / �,0 ! with effice Residential www w #*♦` Retail ✓' Light industriaV •ww M� 41, Office ww 4CF *40 8 TERRA 6fLLA AVE ww 'rl�c{wwR Ofitce p Maxed use Light Light �✓'Ivgv,r Rb w4� RF . m with �� J Industrials ' Industrial! ~ ` + xyH www ry� W Retail Office Office ti 9y Q •w � �����.>f Imo- -wr���rr��r r'�r�rr r+�r��■ � �FNFav kct� �� wwwww Mize 'II Residen[ial Residential ' Residential ! ww R Residential ' ■ yep ww x w MARCos COR 3 ww,.i SAN ARDOWAY a SAN PARLO DR S9N E✓JI$ q 4 ti O q ¢ SAN CARRIZOwAY p s C N A0 25D 500 1,000 Feet Terra Bella Vision Plan CAY01MOUN'I'AIY VIJAV Residential (up to 3 stories) Residential {up to 5 stories} Residential (up to 7 stories) Mixed Use with Retail Office (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) Ped/bike tunnel I �r Plan Bou ndary ■■•^~ Neighborhood Transitions mmmi New Street ■ — — - New Pedestrian/Bike Path 21 21 Light Industrial / Office (up to 2 stories) Light Industrial I Office (up to 4 stories) Potential School \\ Dedication Ped/bike tunnel I �r Plan Bou ndary ■■•^~ Neighborhood Transitions mmmi New Street ■ — — - New Pedestrian/Bike Path 21 21 w Z Z D O X LL O F_ U 22 Terra Bella East of Shoreline Key elements of the land use vision for Terra Bella to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard include the following: • Light industrial preservation area maintains lower-cost spaces for start- ups, light industrial and flex spaces, and local businesses • New publicly -accessible neighborhood parks and open spaces totally approximately 4 acres • New residential uses • A transition area along the southern edge emphasizing deeper setbacks, landscape buffers, and lower -scaled buildings facing the adjacentsingle- family neighborhoods • The addition of new mixed-use and neighborhood -serving retail uses along North Shoreline Boulevard • New connections, including a pedestrian and bike pathway along the southern boundary connecting North Shoreline Blvd to San Leandro Avenue and Stevens Creek Trail via a potential pedestrian and bike tunnel under 1-85 Terra Bella West of Shoreline Key elements of the land use vision for Terra Bella to the west of North Shoreline Boulevard include the following: • A concentration of moderate to high-intensity office uses along Highway 101. New residential uses closerto West Middlefield Road. • A new publicly -accessible neighborhood park or open space approximately 4 acres in size • A potential school dedication site adjacent to Crittenden Middle School approximately 1.2 acres in size • Heights and intensities that transition from greatest near Highway 101 and North Shoreline Boulevard, and are reduced towards single-family neighborhoods • A transition area along the north-western edge emphasizing deeper setbacks, landscape buffers and lower -scaled buildings facing the adjacent single-family neighborhoods • The addition of new mixed-use and neighborhood -serving retail uses along North Shoreline Boulevard • A new street connecting West Middlefield Road to Terra Bella Avenue at San Pierre Way and breaking up this large block structure. • New internal pedestrian pathways providing more direct and convenient access to and between residential and office developments Master Planning A master planning process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly -accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing projects flexibility and with a review process focused on key development objectives. This requirement is outlined in the Master Planning Process section in Chapter 4. Development Types Table 3-1 describes each of the development types shown on Figure 3-1, including the preferred mix of land uses, height, and Maximum FAR. Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Requirements for Floor Area Ratio, Maximum FAR, and the Master Planning Process are outlined in Chapter 4. Table 3-1. Development Types DeveLopment Height Maximum scription DeType FAR* Up to 3 stories 1.0 Lower -Intensity Residential supports a mix of townhomes, EV ! Residential rowhouses, and walk-up apartment building types �.r with massing located away from existing single-family homes. Buildings have generous private open space, with 3 r opportunities for public open spaces. j' ill Moderate -Intensity Upto5stories 2.25 Moderate -Intensity Residential supports mid -rise multi - Residential story residential buildings. Buildings have smaller setbacks, greater massing that is generally located towards the front of the site with activeround floor uses. g Higher -Intensity Up to7stories 3.25 Higher -Intensity Residential supports multi -story residential Residential buildings. Projects have generous private open space, with opportunities for public open spaces. New buildings would have minimal setbacks and human -scale, pedestrian - oriented frontages. l r - p � Mixed -Use with Up to7stories 2.35 Mixed -Use with Retail is intended to encourage a Retail (up to 0.75 combination of ground floor services or retail with office ! FAR can be or residential uses above the ground floor. New buildings office or have minimal setbacks and active, pedestrian -oriented ., �� •� commercial) frontages. Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Maximum FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a projector master plan area. Seethe FloorArea Ratio section in Chapter for more information. �3 Development Height Maximum Description Image Type FAR* Lower-Intensity Up to3stories 0.75 Lower-Intensity Office supports office, R&D, and light Office industrial uses up to 3 4 stories in height. Parking would generally be accommodated in structures. Higher-Intensity Up to5stories 1.0 Higher-Intensity Office supports office, R&D, and light Office industrial uses up to 5 G stories in height. Buildings have active ground floors and human-scale, pedestrian-oriented lid. frontages. Parking would generally be accommodated in structures. Lower-Intensity Up to2stories 0.55 Lower-Intensity Light Industrial / Office supports light Light Industrial / industrial, small office, and start-up spaces up to 2 stories Office in height. Parking would generally be accommodated in surface lots. Higher-Intensity Up to4stories 2.0 Higher-Intensity Light industrial / Office supports lightyj Light Industrial / industrial and office spaces up to 4 stories in height. Office tT *Bose FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Maximum FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a projector master plan area. Seethe F►oorArea Ratio section in Chapter4 24 for more information. Frontage Types and Character Well-designed pedestrian oriented frontages will help create engaging streets and sidewalks, a cohesive look and feel to the area, and a comfortable and attractive environment for residents, employees, and visitors. This Plan envisions new street -facing buildings with pedestrian -oriented frontages throughout the area, with a focus on better pedestrian scale and orientation. Frontages consist of the street fagade of the building, any projecting elements, and the hardscape, landscape, walls and fences in the frontyard. Frontages define the relationship of the building to public areas with appropriate transitions from the public street to the semi -private and private areas of front yards and street -facing ground floor spaces. To implement this urban design vision for Terra Bella, this section introduces the following guidelines that apply to all new projects in the area: 1. Building setbacks. Commercial, mixed-use, and residential development should occur near the front edge of the property line unless outdoor dining or a recessed entry is proposed. Buildings should have shallow setbacks, generally 10 feet from the sidewalk. For corner buildings, the public street side setback should be the same as the front setback. 2. Massing. Building massing breaks should be used to reduce the visual appearance of large-scale buildings and articulate the building as a series of smaller "building blocks" with a range of depth, width, and height. Facades longer than 100 feet should be subdivided with at least one major massing break. Building facades should contain minor massing breaks approximately every 50 feet. DESIRED FRONTAGE TYPES 3. Articulation. Facades should use the following horizontal and vertical Frontages types should be selected based on building use and articulation strategies: location. Appropriate office and R&D frontage types include lobby • Horizontal articulation. Massing breaks, projections, architectural entry, forecourt, and landscaped setback and office yard. Appropriate details, and variations in materials and color should be incorporated to residential frontage types include stoop, patio and porch, lobby entry, Z break up the horizontal length of facades. and forecourt. Appropriate retail and mixed-use frontage types include a • Vertical articulation. Building stepbacks, projections, articulation shopfront, arcade or gallery, and dooryard and porch. p N in wall planes, architectural details, and variations in materials and > color should be used to break up the vertical height of buildings and 5 distinguish between upper and ground floors. Variations in height, m massing, roofline, and vertical articulation overall are encouraged. UJ UJ H 25 4. Transition from public to private space. Street setback areas should clearly delineate the transition between the ground -floor of a building and the street. This may be accomplished through the use of well -landscaped areas, outdoor seating and dining areas, pedestrian access to front entries (e.g. stoops, porches, terraces), art, and gathering spaces allowing for social interaction. These areas should be designed with amenities or improvements to engage or otherwise create a comfortable environment for people. 5. Building entries. Building entries reinforce building character, increase visual interest, break up massing, and provide inviting entrances into buildings and residential units. Primary building entrances should face the primary street frontage or be oriented toward public open space, such as a landscaped square, plaza, or similar space. The primary entrance to each street or ground -level tenant space along a public street should be provided from that street. 6. Active frontages. Active, pedestrian -oriented street frontages are encouraged on the ground floor of buildings that face public spaces such as streets, greenways, and public parks. Engaging ground -floor uses include but are not limited to neighborhood commercial businesses, residential, and office amenity spaces, such as exercise, food service, and lobbies, and direct unit/secondary entrances to streets. 7. Ground -floor treatments. The ground floor of facades facing a street or public space should include distinctly different design elements than upper floors, using architectural and landscape features of utility and interest, particularly at pedestrian eye -height, and distinguished by elements such as a greater floor -to -ceiling height, greater articulation, different materials, finer design details and ornamentation, unique colors, enhanced w entrances, and/or architectural variation. Blank walls, including facades Zwithout doors, windows, landscaping treatments, or other pedestrian interest, should be minimized. Z D 0 1 LL 0 U 26 Example of neighborhood commercial shopfront frontage Residential ground floor that activates the pedestrian realm with porches and other architectural interest Example of neighborhood commercial shopfront frontage 8. High-quality materials. New developments should utilize high-quality, durable material and finishes to provide texture and enhance the visual interest. 9. Transparency and privacy. Buildings should maintain a high degree of transparency to maximize the visual connection to the street by using clear and unobstructed windows, doors, and other openings. Street -level glazing should be clear. Design techniques may be used to create an appropriate degree of privacy for ground floor residences and office spaces. 10. Parking. Parking should be located behind or under buildings, rather than along the street frontage. Parking should not create a "gap -tooth" street frontage where parking lots disturb the continuity of the active street frontage. 27 Transition Areas New development provides appropriate transitions in height and scale to existing neighborhoods. To achieve this, the Vision Plan includes a transition zone along the northwestern and southeastern boundaries of the Plan area. This transition zone includes a step down in height to provide compatibility with existing single-family neighborhoods. In addition, new development in these zones incorporates additional transition strategies. Examples of transition strategies described and illustrated below include: • Increased building setbacks • Upper -story step -backs • 45 -Degree Daylight Plane for buildingvolumes • Orienting primary windows away from existing homes • Providing landscape buffers • Limiting balconies overlooking existing homes • Conducting additional studies, such as shade analyses to reduce impact to neighboring homes. Example of transition in height and scale z 28 Transition Standards 1. Office neighborhood transitions. New office development in the Rock Street Neighborhood Transition Area shall meet the building height and setback standards described below and shown in Figure 3-4. • New buildings shall be located within the 45 -Degree Daylight Plane from the property line adjacent to single-family homes (see Figure 3-4). • All buildings greater than 15 ft in height shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • No building greater than 35 feet in height shall be located within 90 feet of the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • Building setbacks from property lines adjacent to single-family homes shall include a pedestrian path or driveway and a planting strip for medium to large size trees. 2. Residential neighborhood transition area. New residential development in the Rock Street and Stierlin Estates Neighborhood Transition Areas shall meet the building height and setback standards described below and shown in Figure 3-5. • Any part of a new building shall be located within the 45 -degree Daylight Plane from the property line adjacent to single-family homes (see Figure 3-5). • All buildings frontages facing single-family home parcels shall step back a minimum 10 feet above the second floor. • All buildings greater than 15 ft in height shall setback a minimum of 40 feet from the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • No building greater than 35 ft in height shall be located within 90 feet of the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • Building setbacks from property lines adjacent to single-family homes shall include a pedestrian path or driveway and a planting strip for medium to large size trees. 3. Balconies. Balconies in new developments shall use architectural design, screening, and building orientation to reduce privacy impacts on existing residential parcels. To the extent possible, balconies should be limited opposite existing single-family homes. 4. Landscaping and screening. New development shall use physical buffers and design treatments to the maximum extent feasible to reduce impacts on adjacent residential properties. Buffers may include larger setbacks, fencing, and landscaping and tree screening. Trees should be at least 6 feet in height at time of planting and should be spaced approximately 15-20 feet on center (depending on the species selected) to create a continuous and effective foliage barrier at maturity, along with medium-sized shrubs and live ground cover. Plant palettes shall enhance local identity, encourage biodiversity, and minimize environmental impacts by emphasizing the use of locally native and drought -resistant plant species and avoiding invasive plants as listed in the Cal -IPC inventory. (General Plan Policies INC 5.5, 16,19). 5. View studies. New development shall conduct shade and view analysis to study impacts on neighboring homes. 29 Figure 3-4. Office Neighborhood Transition Diagram M kul Figure 3-5. Residential Neighborhood Transition Diagram A: 2-3 Story Townhouse B: 2-3 Story Townhouse C: Stepping Corridor Bldg 41 30-45 ft avg min* 40' R 30-45 ft avg min. 40' min 90 ft 132' max height 35 ft min 90 ft 160' max heiaht 35 ft R min 90 ft 31 Parks and Open Space To serve the social and recreational needs of the Plan area, new publicly - accessible parks and open spaces on both the east and west side of Shoreline Drive will be provided. Conceptual open space locations are shown in Figure 3-6. Based on development potential, the minimum park dedication required should result in a combined total of 4 acres of parkland on the east side of Terra Bella and 4 acres on the west side of Terra Bella, with an additional 1.2 acre dedication for a school site (west of Shoreline). The exact location of parks will be reviewed as part of the master planing process and project review. New public open spaces should be designed for active and passive recreation, and may include neighborhood parks, plazas, linear greenways, and recreational facilities. As part of this Plan, a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is envisioned along Moonbeam Drive from North Shoreline, with a potential tunnel at San Leandro Street running under 1-85 that will provide access to Stevens Creek Trail. In addition, the proposed pedestrian bridge across Highway 101 could connect Terra Bella residents to the regional open space network, including Shoreline Regional Park, and planned open space amenities in North Bayshore. Achievingthis vision will require a coordinated effort between the City, property owners, and project developers, including land dedication by residential projects, City purchase using parkland dedication in -lieu funds, and creation of public plazas and open space by non-residential projects. New development in areas where a park is envisioned should dedicate public parkland. New non- residential development should provide on-site publicly -accessible open spaces under private ownership, such as plazas, landscaped areas, and public art installations. Specific locations and sizes should be determined during project approval. Locations near housing, commercial uses, and public paths should be prioritized. The City will continue to maintain cooperative arrangements with w the school district to use open space and facilities at Crittenden Middle School Zand nearby schools for public parks, playgrounds, and recreation programs. Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 32 Example of park design and amenities Examples of park and open space design Park and Open Space Standards 1. Terra Bella public parks. Non-residential and residential projects shall dedicate land for a public park. Modifications to park location within a project master plan area may be allowed based on project design review. 2. Privately -owned, publicly -accessible open spaces. New privately -owned, publicly -accessible open spaces shall be provided by non-residential projects. These open spaces are not identified on Figure 3-6. At the discretion of the City Council, this requirement may be waived in locations that are not on majorvisible corridors or accessible to residential areas. If waived, projects shall provide additional public benefits. Publicly -accessible open space areas should meet the following standards: a minimum 30' width in both dimensions and a minimum total of 3,000 square feet. The total amount of publicly -accessible open space should be scaled appropriately to the size of the project. This space should be accessible directly from public paths and sidewalks at the ground level, and not through gates and stairs. Publicly -accessible paths and greenways should not be used to comply with this requirement if they are provided pursuant to public mobility requirements, unless additional width and amenities are provided, subject to design review. Projects are encouraged to locate publicly -accessible open spaces adjacent to other sites to allow for expansion of public spaces over time. 3. Park and open space landscaping. Plant palettes for parks, open spaces, and newly developed properties shall enhance local identity, encourage biodiversity, and minimize environmental impacts by emphasizing the use of locally native and drought -resistant plant species and avoiding invasive plants as listed in the Cal -IPC inventory. 33 Figure 3-6. Conceptual Open Space Diagram ROCKS t DREWgvF % a m DnANE q�£ OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY LA AVENIDA x r 2 ■ 'KSr �! ■ of i ■ I to ■.M■��f e % `mss ■..a• a`•aaa r07 ■ TER9q. 4f %4C4 y h a* *4b ft sta 41, eiCe aay * C 4 TERRA BELLA AVE ! as co ' ' r , as O * W tLU ♦ate J !!!- •a4a I �ri l% M?a COg CIq � +yr■ • �gW ■ SAN ARp4 WqY v SAN PABLO DR 2 b w N A0 250 50D 1,000 Feet Terra Bella Vision Plan CITY OF MOUNTAIN Vii!1 O I r „5 SAN CARRIZO WAY ■■■■■� Plan Boundary Conceptual Public Open Space* New Streeto" Conceptual Joint -Use School Park Site* ■ ■ New Pedestrian/Bike Path Existing Parks/Open Space Trails Fxocr locafion will be determined as part of masW pionl development review proeess. 34 4 . deveLopment rinciples & implementation framew rk _r- fJ.���._ _ �-.- .-.- � .._V ��•,d�//F i. �./" .wF.��. n .... �F. f iCI �f.OY .w.. _-- ._, -�:!� .e. '� �,�'. .... 4. Development Principles and Implementation Framework Achieving the vision and other principles established by the Vision Plan will require important contributions from property owners and project developers to address key local and regional concerns, such as traffic congestion, park creation, and small business preservation. Future development in Terra Bella is expected to help address these concerns by implementing the following development principles and policies. Floor Area Ratio 1. Floor area ratio (FAR)." Base" FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district that meets minimum Vision Plan and Citywide requirements." Maximum" FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a project or master plan area including all FAR bonuses. "Maximum" FARs are established within each development type in the Vision Plan area (see Table 3-1). Floor Area Ratio is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided below. 2. Gross floor area exemptions. Building spaces for small businesses or educational, cultural, or other non-profit uses and neighborhood commercial uses may be excluded from gross floor area. The maximum floor area exemption shall not exceed 5% of the project's gross floor area, except when an existing structure is being preserved for use by a small business. An appropriate legal agreement shall be recorded on the property to identify the approved gross floor area exemption and use of the space for qualified businesses or organizations. 3. Dedications and easements. The area of new dedications and easements for publicly accessible streets, paths, or other transportation purposes shall be included in a site's lot area for the purposes of calculating FAR. 4. Parking -FAR calculations. Above -grade parking is not included in calculations of Maximum FAR for non-residential. Above -grade parking shall be included in calculations of Maximum FAR for residential or hotel uses. 5. Multiple areas. If a project site or master plan boundary includes more than one development type, the project's total gross floor area shall be the sum of allowed gross floor area in each constituent part. The floor area may be applied across the project as a whole if the project substantially complies with the purpose and intent of the Vision Plan. Z Z 0 1 LL 0 T 36 Maximum FAR The Vision Plan proposes maximum FAR guidelines for different land use categories (see Table 3-1) for development not consistent with the existing Zoning and the General Plan. The maximum FAR is suggested based on development studies in recent City Precise Plans and also the land use vision for the area. The maximum FAR program ensures that new development provides benefits and limits impacts to the community in exchange for additional project floor area. Individual projects may request additional FAR, above the Base FAR, for which they must provide community benefits to implement key Projects and policy goals established by the City Council. These projects must submit a master plan as defined later in this chapter. 1. School district strategy. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall submit a Local School District Strategy to the school districts and the City, intended to support new local schools serving the Vision Plan area. The School Districts and the developershall meet and confer in good faith to develop the School District Strategy to support new local schools. The School District Strategy shall be memorialized as a legally binding agreement. The strategy may include, but is not limited to, land dedication for new school development; additional funding for new school development; TDR strategies to benefit developer(s) that provide new school facilities; or other innovative strategies supporting schools. Community benefits contribution. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall contribute to community benefit projects. The maximum FAR amount for a given project shall depend on the contribution to the community benefit, and compliance with other Maximum FAR requirements. Community benefit value. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall propose community benefits contributions with minimum value proportional to the project's building square footage in excess of the Base FAR, as determined by the City Council. Community benefit projects. In lieu of monetary payment of community benefit contributions, projects may propose to provide a community benefit or district improvement project. These on- or off-site improvement projects may include additional affordable housing units, new dedicated public park space, shared parking facilities, district transportation or utility improvements, retention and/or expansion of existing small business, buildingarea for neighborhood commercial uses (such as a grocery store) or non -profits, a residential parking permit program, dedication of land for schools, or other projects proposed by applicants. Table 4-1 provides a list of example projects. Specific public benefit or district improvement projects shall be determined during review of the proposed project, and approved by the City Council. Community benefit may not apply towards the Local School District Strategy and Jobs Housing Linkage program. 3. Affordable housing. All residential projects shall provide at least 20% affordable units. All projects shall comply with the City-wide Below -Market -Rate (BMR) Housing Program(ArticleXIVofthe ZoningCodeand the BM RAdministrative Guidelines) forqualifying households, determination of rents and sale prices, alternative mitigations, timing, and administration. Development of affordable housing units on or off-site within Terra Bella, over and above the amount required under existing City and Precise Plan regulations is highly encouraged. 37 4. Green building. • Non-residential projects: Achieve LEED Platinum or equivalent. • Residential projects: Achieve 120 points on the Green Point Rated system or equivalent and submeter, or use other appropriate technology that can track individual energy use, for each residential unit. Table 4-1. Community Benefits/District Improvement Projects List Affordable Housing Development of affordable housing units on or off-site within Terra Bella, over and above the amount required under existing City regulations. District Transportation Improvements Off-site pedestrian, bicycle, or other roadway improvements. District Utility Improvements Off-site infrastructure and utility improvements above and beyond those required to serve the development (including water, sewer, and recycled water systems). Support for small local businesses Supporting or subsidizing small, local businesses including (but not limited to): • Providing new dedicated flexible space for small businesses located within new buildings; • Dedicating an existing building for small business use in perpetuity at below market rates through an appropriate instrument; • Providing relocation assistance to help small businesses in Terra Bella displaced by new development to locate elsewhere in Terra Bella or the City. Shared public parking facilities Constructing or otherwise providing publicly accessible parking facilities to serve district -wide parking needs. Floor area for neighborhood Providing dedicated building area for qualifying neighborhood commercial uses or community facilities. commercial uses or non -profits Dedication of land for schools Dedicating land to one of the local school districts (Mountain View Whisman School District, MVWSD, or Mountain View -Los Altos Union High School District, MV-LAUSD) Residential permit parking program Establishing and funding a residential permit parking. program Other Other benefits or district improvement projects proposed by applicants and approved by City Council W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 38 Jobs -Housing Linkage The City's recent planning efforts in East Whisman have strongly emphasized the need for a betterjobs-housing balance in the City by requiring commercia I development to support and facilitate residential development. The Plan requires a "jobs -housing linkage" program to ensure residential development is balanced with office and R&D growth in Terra Bella. The expectation is that all new office and R&D development will help facilitate residential development through jobs -housing linkage strategies which could include: direct construction of housing, dedication of land suitable for housing, contribution of fees to offset costs for residential development, residential development partnerships, purchase of existing office square footage from residential developers who demolish office buildings, and other creative strategies or partnerships that support or facilitate housing development. 1. Plan requirement. Office, R&D, and industrial development applicants shall submit a Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan. The proposed strategies to facilitate residential development shall be roughly proportional to the net new floor area proposed. This may be less if affordable units are provided in excess of the City's inclusionary requirements, or if other housing -related goals are met. 2. Timing.A phasing or housing delivery plan shall be included in the Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan. Proposed strategies, includingthe construction of units, should be implemented before non-residential building occupancy, unless otherwise determined by the City Council. Strict timing requirements may be waived if additional certainty is provided (such as a deed restriction or land dedication to an affordable housing developer). Projects may not use the Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan to satisfy the requirements of the Community Benefits contribution. 3. Partnerships. Subject to requirements established by the Jobs -Housing Linkage Program Administrative Guidelines, office projects may partner with residential projects to satisfy the Jobs -Housing Linkage Program requirement. SmaLL Business Preservation Helping existing businesses survive and grow is a vital strategy to preserve the unique, small business character of Terra Bella and create an economically diverse area. The vision for Terra Bella is to expand and intensity office uses, particularly to the west of North Shoreline Boulevard, while maintaining smaller, more affordable spaces for start-ups, small businesses, and non -profits to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard. New development projects should provide support for small businesses, such as small, flexible work spaces located within new buildings, rent subsidies for small or local businesses, and relocation assistance. 39 Parking and TDM Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the practice of influencing travel behaviorwith the goal of reducingdemand forsingle occupantvehicle use. In the context of Terra Bella, TDM can help reduce peak demand trips that contribute the most to existing vehicle congestion, reduce parking demand, and reduce vehicle miles traveled to help meet environmental goals such as greenhouse gas reduction. Parking and TDM are strongly interrelated since parking cost and availability are key factors that influence travel decisions. Given the relationship between parking availability and driving, making Terra Bella's parking policies efficient will help reduce impacts from new development on congestion. Parking While the Terra Bella Vision Plan builds on the strengths of the area's planned BRT transit access, network of complete streets, and mixed land uses, there will be parking demand from new development. The following principles will help the ensure that parking is efficiently used and supports community values such as safe walking and biking. Off -Street Parking The off-street parking requirements for Terra Bella are shown in Table 4-2. Parking maximums are an effective way to limit additional trips. Peak drive - alone trips cannot exceed parking availability. Developments in Terra Bella should be required to share parking resources with wadjacent developments where suitable. The Mountain View ordinance includes K a provision for adjacent land uses to pool their parking resources through "shared parking". Shared parking is beneficial in many ways - it reduces the Z total amount of parking needed, which reduces the amount of land needed for iparking, allows more flexibility in project design, and often saves developers U. money while making housing more affordable. U 40 Table 4-2. Off -Street Parking Standards Land Use • . Standards Office/Research and Maximum 2.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross Development building floor area Retail, restaurants, other Minimum 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross uses permitted by zoning building floor area designation Multi -Family Residential - Maximum 1 space per unit Studios and 1 -bedroom Multi -Family Residential - Maximum 2 spaces per unit 2 -bedroom and up Warehouse/Data Center Maximum 0.8 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building floor area Other Uses Minimum as defined in the Zoning Ordinance or through the Provisional Use Permit process The two predominant land uses proposed for Terra Bella are office and residential development. These uses pair very well for shared parking as offices have peak parking demand during the day but minimal demand at night, while residential developments have the exact opposite. The parking supply for shared parking can often be 30% lower than for individually provided parking, though the exact reduction depends on the composition of the adjacent land uses. While minimum parking requirements are still recommended for retail and restaurant uses, developers providing strong parking management, parking sharing, and TDM programs may request exemptions from the minimum requirement. Unbundled porhing Parking may be offered as unbundled: the cost of parking is sold or rented separately from housing or commercial units. With unbundled parking, occupants only pay for the parking spaces they actually need. Details of the unbundled parking program will be reviewed as part of the development review process. io_ _,PY ,' :' �✓ � } r ,✓.p . � cr. The intent of shared parking and unbundled parking is not to provide too little parking for the planned land uses, but rather to avoid providing too much. However, if residents in adjacent neighborhoods experience excessive demand foron-streetparking, the City of Mountain View has a residential parking permit program that can be employed to ensure that people visiting or living at Terra Bella do not park in adjacent neighborhoods. Designated Porhing for Carpools and Vonpools In office, R&D, and industrial developments, designated parking for carpool/ vanpool vehicles should be located near building entrances. These spaces should be included in the maximum allowable parking. Residentiol permit parking (photo credit: Brodie Thomas/Livewire z a z O N J W m UJ W H 41 New multi -family residential and office and R&D developments should provide parking for carsharing services as shown in Table 4-3. Carshare spaces should be in a highly -visible location and accessible to both building users and the general public. Carshare spaces do not count towards the parking maximum. Table 4-3. Required Spaces for Carshare Services L..--. Land Use Carshare Vehicle Requirements --_,--A Office/Research and Development For buildings greater than 40,000 square feet, minimum of three parkingspaces per buildingsite for carshare. Multi -family Residential 0-49 dwelling units - 0 car -sharing spaces 1 per 2,000 sf or a minimum of 4 spaces, 50-250 dwelling units -1 car -sharing space 251 or more dwelling units - 2 car sharing spaces, plus 1 for every additional 200 dwelling units Bicycle and Mobility Device Porhing New development should provide bicycle facilities in accordance with Table 4-4 below. Short-term bike racks should be conveniently located in highly -visible, well -lit locations near building entrances. Long-term secure bicycle parking should be provided in convenient, covered locations such as near placard parking spaces within the garage on the level closest to the ground floor. Designated space for shared mobility devices should be provided with appropriate marking in a convenient, well -lit, publicly -accessible, and highly -visible location near building entrances. Table 4-4. Required Bicycle Parking Facilities Land Us (a Short -Term BicycLe Parkin A' I 01.�! howers Office/Research and Development 1 per 20,000 sf or a minimum of 4 1 per 2,000 sf or a minimum of 4 spaces, 1 unisex for the first 80,000 sq. ft and 1 spaces, whichever is greater whichever is greater additional unisex for each additional 40,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Commercial Uses 4 per5,000sf ora minimum of2spaces, 1 per 5,000 sf or a minimum of 2 spaces, None required whichever is greater whichever is greater Multi -Family Residential 1 per 10 units 1 per unit None required 42 Transportation Demand Management The Vision Plan establishes an ambitious target for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Terra Bella. To meet this target, the Vision Plan prioritizes walking, biking, and transit use. Large blocks will be subdivided into a finer -grained network of pedestrian -oriented streets. Streets within the Plan Area will be "Complete Streets," safely accommodating bicycles through lanes or buffered cycle tracks, pedestrians through wide sidewalks and enhanced crossings, and buses and shuttles through improved shelters. All new development projects will meet the City's requirements for TDM, develop and maintain a TDM Plan, and join the Transportation Management Association (TMA). In addition, any new non-residential employment generating (Office and R&D uses) development in Terra Bella will remain net neutral (not increase) with no net new trips as compared to today's baseline. Each project should implement a robust monitoring program (including site-specific trips) to provide information on how the Plan is performing and help inform on-going City decisions on capital improvements, TDM requirements, developments, and more. The TDM measures shown below represent strategies that are positioned to work with the transit and multi -modal investments planned forthe area. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list. There are a variety of subsidies that can be provided to incentivize other modes besides driving, especially drive alone trips. The simplest is a parking cash -out, typically used in employee TDM programs, where employees are given money each time they commute to theirjob site and do not use parking. Employers often give transit passes for Caltrain (Go Pass) or VTA (Eco Pass) or a set amount of money per month to pay for transit. With both types of passes the price is negotiated annually with an institution such as an employer or property developer/manager at a steeply discounted rate compared to an individual transit pass. For residential sites, a non -driving subsidy can be in the form of a VTA Eco Pass or a monthly non -driving stipend per unit. The stipend can be used on any combination of transit (e.g. Clipper Card, VTA Eco Pass), car share (e.g. Zipcar, Getaround), or ride -sharing platforms (e.g. Uber/Lyft). Free or subsidized transit passes can increase residents' awareness of nearby transit options, and can reduce the financial barrier by making it a more cost -comparable option between the cost of public transportation and the cost of parking. Especially for residents of affordable units, this strategy can reduce household transportation costs, improve transit use, equity, mobility options, and further reduce the need for owning a car. Providing a flexible stipend rather than a specific transit pass maximizes residents' transportation options by providing residents' access to multiple services ratherthan just one. Commute trips are typicallythe longest dailytravel distance, the most consistenttrip throughoutthe week, and offer unique opportunities to reduce drive alone trips. Work sites often have multiple employees starting at similar times and converging on the same area, both of these trends increase with the size of the employment site. Employmentsites of more than 50 employees should develop a TDM Program. ATDM program can consist of multiple elements such as: TDM coordinator, parking cash out, subsidized transit pass, employee shuttle, carpool matching, vanpool subsidy, active transportation benefit, etc. The most effective programs reveal to motorists the actual cost of providing parking, either through parking fees, or by giving non -motorists the cash value of the free parking provided to motorists. For example, commercial property owners and theirtenants can be required to charge for parking at $1 an hour, up to $10 a day, or parking could be free, but employees who do not drive are given $10 a day in tax-free commuter benefits or taxable cash. A more detailed study will need to be developed to establish a goal and monitoring program such as developing a trip cap and/or transportation mode -split goal. 43 z 44 Master Planning Process A master planning process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly -accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing projects flexibility and with a review process focused on key development objectives. This section outlines the conditions and requirements forthe master planning process. 1. Required master plans. A master plan is required prior to Major Development Review permit or General Plan or zoning modification applications in Terra Bella, including new buildings and major additions, in accordance with the following: b. Terra Bella East of Shoreline. Projects east of Shoreline Boulevard shall submit a master plan for the east side of Terra Bella. The master plan shall include the following: • New public parks and open spaces, totally approximately 4 acres shall be provided across the area with at least 1 acre provided as a continuous space. The plan should include location, size, and design for each park and/or open space in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. • New publicly -accessible private open spaces, including location, size, and design. • Surrounding development, both proposed and existing, including location, mix, intensity, and square footage of new development. • The amount and type of affordable housing provided, the unit size mix, and the income targets. • Neighborhood transition strategies for the transition area along the southern boundary adjacent to single-family homes. c. Terra Bella West of Shoreline. Projects west of Shoreline Boulevard requiring a Major Development Review permit or general Plan or zoning modification permit shall submit a master plan for the entire west side of Terra Bella. The master plan shall include the following: • New public parks and open spaces, providing a combined total of 4 acres over the Terra Bella West area with at least 1 acre provided as a continuous space. The plan should include location, size, and design for each park and/or open space in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. • New publicly -accessible private open spaces, including location, size, and design. • Surrounding development, both proposed and existing, including location, mix, intensity, and square footage of new development. • The amount and type of affordable housing provided, the unit size mix, and the income targets. • Neighborhood transition strategies for the transition area along the northwestern boundary adjacent to single-family homes. • Potential school site dedication of 1.2 acres adjacent to Crittenden Middle School. 2. Project master plan preparation. in addition to the above, master plans shall include the following minimum components: • Signed development applications from all property owners within the proposed master plan. • Materials such as maps, surrounding and proposed uses, proposed building locations, circulation plan, total square footage, open space, and other materials that demonstrate compliance with the purpose and intent of the Vision Plan. • Parking strategy, including but not limited to, shared parking or district parking faciIities. • Urban design strategy, including a conceptual architecture plan, including how the location, intensity, and uses of planned and future buildings function and relate to each other, the project site, and surrounding area. • A block circulation plan shall be submitted. The block circulation plan should be consistent with the Future Transportation Network map (Figure 5-1) and Vision Plan land use map (Figure 3-1). The block circulation plan shall include the following: street design recommendations and cross-sections; each connection specified as public or private (e.g. dedication vs. easement); future connections to vacant sites and planned/proposed parks; and an implementation and phasing strategy for the connections. • Phasing and implementation strategy, including the timing and plans for any public improvements. The master plan shall identify an initial and final phase, with optional intermediate phases. The initial and intermediate phases need not include all open spaces, school dedication, district parking or other amenities and public benefittargets, butshall show howthe phase complieswith incremental increases in these targets and minimum development standards. The final phase shall show actions and fundingsources to achieve the desired amount and mix of land uses, and othercomplete neighborhood concepts identified in the Vision Plan. • Other components deemed necessary by the City. 3. District parking. If the project applicant proposes to accommodate required parking off site, the master plan shall include the parking structure (or below grade parking) location, number of parking stalls, number of parking stalls required for the new development, and the non -automobile connections between the project site and district structure. 4. Review process. Once the master plan application is deemed complete by the City, the Master Plan shall be reviewed by the Environmental Planning Commission, who will provide a recommendation to the City Council. 5. Planned Community (PC) permit process. The City Council shall determine, at the time of Master Plan approval, the City's subsequent development review process for PC Permit applicants associated with an approved Master Plan. Planned Community (PC) Permit applications associated with an approved Master Plan may be eligible for an expedited review process. 45 This page is intentionally left blank. 46 5 m mobility il O MW 5. Mobility The transportation vision for Terra Bella is to provide access to and within the Terra Bella neighborhood for residents and employees with a multimodal transportation network that prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Transportation Network The future multimodal transportation network for Terra Bella is shown in Figure 5-1 and contains new internal streets, reversible bus lanes on Shoreline Boulevard, and proposed active transportation improvements, including full-time bike lanes, protected bikeways, and across -barrier connections. Reversible Bus Lane A reversible bus lane (RBL) is planned for Shoreline Boulevard with stops on Terra Bella Avenue. The lane will be situated in the center of North Shoreline Boulevard, protected by physical barriers, and will accommodate northbound buses on weekday mornings and southbound buses on weekday evenings. Transit service along the corridor will also have reduced stop frequency, and high frequency of bus service. The full design and implementation of this transit priority lane will determine how these elements are applied to North Shoreline Boulevard. Having a stop within the center of the neighborhood will provide a direct connection to employment centers in North Bayshore as well as to downtown Mountain View, VTA light rail, and Caltrain. New Internal Access Roads The block bounded by West Middlefield Road, Terra Bella Avenue, and North Shoreline Boulevard is significantly longer than would typically be recommended for walkable development. Adding a new street connecting Terra Bella Avenue to West Middlefield Road would improve access for all modes, but especially for people walking and bicycling. The new street would primarily provide access, and should be designed for low speeds, safe accommodation for all modes, and sufficient on -street loading for the proposed land uses. w Z H Z O i LL O } H U 48 Figure 5-1 Future Transportation Network OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAy D ,° • �. OR£W Aqt �Q 14 4 � SAN "ARCas Cfp i SAry tins 46Z v L .. N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet -!— Terra Bella Vision Plan C1IYOFMUL% � VlF!'. 0.0.00■ Building Footprints : Plan Boundary ■0000■■ Existing/Proposed Transit Existing/Proposed Bike Facilities °°G- VTA routes stops Class I Path MVgo — Protected Bikeway (Class IV) �^ Future RBL route/stops ••••• Class 11 Bike Lane — Class III RnOte Street Network mm1l1 New Street P Protected intersections P New signalized intersection :k, Walking and Bicycling Connections Planned bicycle lanes and shared bicycle and pedestrian paths will improve access for people walking and biking within the neighborhood as well as traveling to nearby destinations. In addition, emerging technologies such as electric skateboards and scooters are rapidly gaining popularity and are likely to play a larger role in future transportation. Mobility devices such as electric skateboards and scooters typically operate in the same space as people use to ride bikes and walk. Under California state law, however, motorized scooters are not permitted to be operated along sidewalks. Providing better connections and more space for people to walk and ride bicycles can also provide space to accommodate emerging mobility options in ways that reduce potential conflicts, encourage compliance with state and local laws, and enhance personal mobility. Connection to Stevens Creek Trail There are three options to add a connection between the Terra Bella neighborhood and the Stevens Creek Trail. These options include: • At grade under 101/85 interchange • Atunnel under 85 at San Leandro Street (the most direct, and likely most expensive option) • At grade under 85 on-ramp at Moffett Boulevard. Connectivity across North Shoreline Boulevard North Shoreline Boulevard is a barrier for people walking and biking in the Terra Bella neighborhood. It is characterized by large distances between crossings, long crossing distances, and relatively high vehicle speeds. The street's design is conducive to vehicles traveling faster than the 35 -mph speed limit, and is unwelcoming to vulnerable road users. To reconnect the two halves of the neighborhood, pedestrian crossing improvements are necessary. The intersections at North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and at North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, are optimized forvehicle throughput. The crossings are characterized by long crossing distances and wlarge turn radii that enable high cornering speeds. Z The Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study (2014) recommended that the North a Z Shoreline/West Middlefield and North Shoreline/Terra Bella intersections be D redesigned as protected intersections. Planned protected intersections will U. provide the following benefits: O Y H U 50 i Closs IV cycle track • Shorter crossing distances for pedestrians • Lower vehicle cornering speeds • Protected waiting space for cyclists making left turns Connection to Permanente creek Trail Permanente Creek Trail is located just outside of the project boundary, but nonetheless is an important pedestrian and bicycle connection to the North Bayshore. A connection between pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within the Terra Bella Plan area and the Permanente Creek Trail would help create a more complete active transportation network. The connection could be achieved via two strategies, both of which are envisioned for the area: 1.) the proposed Class IV protected bikeway on West Middlefield Road, which would provide a direct connection to the beginning of the trail, and 2.) the proposed paseo between Rock Street and Terra Bella Avenue. This would require improved bicycle infrastructure on Rock Street leading into the Permanent Creek Trail. 51 Street Design Concepts General Street Design Recommendations This section provides general street design recommendations for Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. It is followed by specific design concepts for each street. 1. Travel lane widths. With the exception of Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road, travel lanes shall be 10 feet where possible. 2. Traffic calming measures. A range of traffic calming measures could be implemented to slow traffic and improve safety on Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. Several options include speed cushions and curb extensions. Speed cushions are small raised humps that require vehicles to slow down. Curb extensions ("bulbouts") reduce the radius of the curb at street corners, which reduces vehicle turningspeeds and the pedestrian crossing distance. 3. Loading space. While most parking for future development would be provided off-street, on -street space for short term parking and loading will continue to become more important as increasing numbers of people use ride -hailing apps such as Uber and Lyft. Where possible, space should be preserved for on -street loading, as shown in the street design alternatives that follow. At the same time, proposed protected bicycle facilities will protect people biking from loading or parking activity that today might occur in bike lanes. 4. Green infrastructure. Integration of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) design into streets and public spaces should be considered to provide w an attractive landscape feature while also capturing and treating runoff z to meet water quality requirement. GSI measures shall be placed into zretrofitted streets when required by the Municipal Regional Permit, and, if feasible, in alignment with the City's GSI Plan and the Countywide GSI X Handbook. LL O } H U 52 Figure 5-2. Protected Intersection Curb extension Rapid street improvements North Shoreline Boulevard The Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study (2014) envisions the street as a multimodal corridor with dedicated transit lanes as well as protected bikeways, protected intersections, and a pedestrian/bike bridge across US -101 between Shoreline/Terra Bella and Shoreline/La Avenida. These recommendations remain appropriate, and the improvements to transit, walking, and bicycling, will be crucial to accommodate anticipated trip growth without increasing vehicle trips. As mentioned previously, North Shoreline Boulevard is a barrier to pedestrians and cyclists. Figure5-2 illustrates a protected intersection that includes bulbouts to slow turning vehicles, and to provide safe spaces for pedestrians and cyclists to wait. This design reduces the potential for conflict between bicycles going straight and vehicles to rning right by slowing and to rningvehicles so that drivers are in a position with good visibility of oncoming cyclists in the bike lane. The design, while intended to better protect people walking and bicycling, should take into account all vehicles using the intersection, particularly emergency service vehicles and where necessary buses and trucks. Speed cushion az J IL z O a g J W m LU W H 53 w Z H Z O X LL O } H U 54 Terra Bella Avenue As the main road providing access to the Terra Bella neighborhood from West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue should accommodate access for all transportation modes, as well as support commercial loading and deliveries. Since most properties will likely continue to provide parking onsite, there will be limited need for on -street parking. Flexible curbside areas could accommodate both loading and pick-up/drop-off of passengers. Terra Bella Avenue between West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard has a curb -to -curb distance varying between 48 - 50 feet. East of North Shoreline Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue is slightly narrower at 46 - 48 feet. This is enough space to accommodate a two-way protected bikeway on the north side of Terra Bella Avenue. This option would extend a high-quality network from the protected bikeways on North Shoreline Boulevard into the Terra Bella neighborhood. A two-way protected cycletrackwould requirespecial design consideration at intersections and driveways, including measuresto slow turningvehicles, ensure adequate visibility, and potentially add dedicated bicycle signal phasing at signalized crossings. More conventional buffered bike lanes are also possible, though there is insufficient width fora parking -protected design and buffered bike lanes do not eliminate the potential forconflict between active modes of transportation and curbsidevehicle activity. Examples of cycle tracks Figure 5-3 Terra BeLLa Avenue Two -Way Protected CycLe Track Alternative Ow- sp R. "i F.., Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Figure 5-4 Terra Bella Avenue Buffered Bike Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ar w Z H Z D O X LL O } H U 56 Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue provide access from Terra Bella Avenue within the Terra Bella neighborhood, and would support a mix of dense office and residential developments. As such they should provide a balance of access, safety, and placemaking. The cross-sections vary from 38 - 40 feet curb -to -curb. There are two possible alternative: 1. A parking -protected bike on one side of the street and another conventional bike lane on the other side, with parking or loading on one side of the street. 2. Shared lanes with traffic calming measures if loading is required on both sides of the street. Example of shared lanes with traffic calming Example of protected bike lanes. Photo credit: Joe Linton/Streetsblog LA Figure 5-5 Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue, Bike Lane Alternative MAN Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Figure 5-6 Linda Vista Avenue and San RafaeL Avenue, Shared Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord 57 San Leandro Street San Leandro Street provides internal connectivity and access, and varies from 32 - 34 feet. Given the limited width, a low -speed street with shared lanes and on -street parking or loading is recommended. Figure 5-7 San Leandro Street, Shared Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 58 App ��existing conditions !y Existing Conditions This section presents a summary of the existing land use, urban form, and mobility conditions in the Terra Bella area. Existing Land Use and Zoning Existing land use in the Plan area includes a mix of low -intensity office buildings, industrial uses, retail services, single-family homes, and institutional facilities. Figure A-1 shows the existing land use by parcel in the Plan area and the vicinity and Table A-1 below provides a breakdown of acreage and percentages for each existing land use. Predominant land uses are office/research and development (66%), followed by services (10%), which includes a Credit Union, a storage facility, and other services. There are two church facilities (7%) on the site and the Summit Denali charter school (1%). Among the industrial land uses (6%) is a Recology City of Mountain View facility site. Larger office complexes are found west of North Shoreline Boulevard, while the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard is home to light industrial, small businesses, and several non -profits. There is a small percentage of single-family residential (3%) in the Plan area, all to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard. The Plan area is, however, surrounded by single and multi -family housing to the northwest and southeast. In many cases, office or industrial properties directly abut single-family homes with little to no transition. w Z H Z O X LL O } H U Table A -i. Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percentage Office/R&D 62 66% Services 10 10% Church 6 7% Industrial 6 6% Institution/Recreation 3 4% Single -Family 3 3% Vacant 2 2% Retail 1 1% Grade School Grand TotaL 0.6 93.6 1% 100% Figure A -s. Existing Land Use OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY��y�i1A#H411��I�11R � C 1! Mal W V to AVENIDA AOO(ST i •+ ♦ i �1 # •16r*r , J1 4CF ♦ • ti TERRA BEL AVE ••a It *41 44,1*_Jm ORs Ac 2 SAN APDOwm SAH PABt OhA n.SAf4u,54 �r o 0 got: to N ift✓•illf N 0 250 500 1,0100 Feet Terra Bella Vision Plan Legend Office/ R&D - School - Church - Industrial - Medical - InstitutionfRecreational - Retail - Services - Hotel/Motel ® Multi -Family Single -Family Vacant Project Boundary o x SAN CMA12")1%.aY Existing Land Use .p W Z Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 62 The General Plan designation for the entire Terra Bella area is General Industrial. General Industrial is intended for the production, storage, and wholesale of goods and services to create abroad industrial base. The allowed land uses are industrial uses, including manufacturing and storage, research and development, administrative offices and ancillary commercial uses. Zoning designations for the Plan area are Limited Industrial (ML) east of North Shoreline Boulevard and General Industrial (MM) west of North Shoreline Boulevard, consistent with the General Plan General Industrial designation (see Table A-2). Approximately a third of all industrial zoned land in the City is located in Terra Bella. Despite its industrial designation, only a small percentage (6%) of existing uses in the area are industrial. Figure A-2 shows the zoning designations forthe area. Table A-2. Zoning Figure A-2. Zoning 0 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY m 0 W J W D � z ` as i Laa / i z • a a♦ �ws�*�"aa a♦!r'FrF aaa rel as fa fa fa fa waaw wa ►a - TERRA BELLA AVE as o Q �Q aaa J - {{ • m { LA ♦ W - { z - � w` as m aE a' a p Y aair- a = Y as Vl:i�tlfft#.■f#■#R##f#�!i##fes##!##��#f#####�## � a�■ 's+W ARAO WAY -y o SAN P,ABLO DR - i � q SAN CA1RRUZO WAY N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Legend Single -Family R1 WE General Industrial MM Multiple Family R3 F_ Agriculture A AW Terra Bella Vision Plan Mobile Home RMH F_ Planned Community/Precise Plan P Limited Industrial ML Public Facility PF r## Project Boundary Cl]'Y OF MOUNTAIN �i71l4+' �# � � ■ CCD] J Zoning 63 w Z H Z O X LL O } H U 64 Urban Design and Character The existing urban character and development pattern in Terra Bella can be characterized into two distinct subareas -the area east of North Shoreline Boulevard and the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard. West of Shoreline The site west of North Shoreline Boulevard consists of larger parcels (greater than 2 acres) with large suburban office development (see Figure A-3). The area includes two blocks and all parcels are accessed from Terra Bella Avenue, North Shoreline Boulevard, and West Middlefield Road. The west side of North Shoreline Boulevard is one long, continuous block (see Figure A-4). This presents an opportunityto break up this super -block and create more walkable, pedestrian -friendly block sizes in this area. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard, is characterized by large building footprints that reflect the commercial and industrial nature of the uses. In many cases, buildings have large front and side setbacks without a clear relation to either street or other buildings. In several cases the buildings have blank or inactive facades. Compared to the area east of North Shoreline Boulevard, the area has wider sidewalks with higher quality landscaping. The existing land uses, frontage character, and long block lengths arejust a few of the factors that make this area less conducive to walking. Examples of development west of North Shoreline Boulevard 14 A - 4:4- ll qFFvwmm - mak Existing Condtions �M klmv:?� 9 jpF Ito Existing Condtions �M klmv:?� 9 jpF W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O z 66 East of Shoreline East of North Shoreline Boulevard, the urban form follows a grid with perpendicular cross -streets creating distinct blocks. The parcel size is smaller, typically less than two acres, resulting in smaller -scale development and buildings in the area (see Figure A-3). Small parcels, less than an acre is size, are often more difficult to redevelop and require aggregation. The east side of North Shoreline Boulevard also has smaller blocks (about 600 feet) that allow for increased opportunities for crossings and provide more direct routes for pedestrians (see Figure A-4). A large percentage of land is devoted to surface parking, landscaping, outdoor storage, or other uses both on the east and west side of North Shoreline Boulevard. The area has narrow sidewalks with irregular landscaping. The area includes a diverse mix of uses, with vacant or underutilized parcels that provide an opportunity for infill redevelopment. Examples of development east of North Shoreline Boulevard Existing Condtions 11 Mg°,!fir � +II 1I VIII pI .. - - - •. II l�I��I I.il�li: iJ �• fe_•A. ,i,P °^���1Nl�t��ld���l� .. -tai Figure A-3. Parcel Size OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY Q � a n � ? c ■ r R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ p IL.. D*EWAVF i 2 SA" "'R(OS" SAklUOSA4 N 0 250 500 Terra Bella Vision Plan 0001111111111, — CITY pT Nk)V-MCA] N V I E«' 1,000 Fee 0 J }' m 2 - J � W LA AVENIDA O 3 2 !M Siam 4% oaf #4 TERRA SELLA AVE +# # N ,LL x' R� -'f'����---- Riefflf tlfflslf!!f s!lfalifflf�1 f.. w1 yg„ Saly ARi10 War a 5,11, PABL 0I)iR r � a ra SAH CARRI$O WAV t Legend 0-0.5acres 2.0-3.5 acres 0.5-1.Oacres 3.5-5.0 acres 1.0-2.0 acres 5.0-10.0 acres Project Boundary Parcel Size Figure A-4. Block Lengths OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY i G RUCK ST Sp °'sFwal,p I7 s Rp � �^ G '04"64VIt ap' ass• �d LA AVEMIDA Q a�Q LD m NCD o C x 675' 700' 700 SAN z w i G15 RVE � �, rn L 'f n o Opp s 630' 680' N N 310' a TERRA BE L LA AVE O 670' 685' 470' J m J a � � b Q a�Q LD m NCD o C x 675' 700' 700 SAN z w i G15 RVE � N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Legend c 400 feet 400-800 feet Terra Bella Vision Plan 800-1500 feet > 1500 feet i� SANARDO WAY CT SAN RMLO DR S A SAN i4RRIZ0 WAY Block Lengths .S J w 'f n N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Legend c 400 feet 400-800 feet Terra Bella Vision Plan 800-1500 feet > 1500 feet i� SANARDO WAY CT SAN RMLO DR S A SAN i4RRIZ0 WAY Block Lengths .S J Building Height and Intensity Most of the buildings in Terra Bella are single story with a few 2 -story structures, less than the General Plan height guideline of 3 stories. The only 4 -story building in the Plan area is the recent recently constructed office building on the northeast corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. Figure A-5 shows a 3-dimensional view of existing uses and building heights. Building intensity is measured in floor area ratio (FAR), the ratio of a building or project's floor area to its land area. FAR is typically used to measure the intensity of commercial, office, and industrial uses. The maximum permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for parcels in the Plan area is 0.35. The majority of the parcels are developed between 0.20 and 0.30 FAR, belowthe maximum permissible limit. The parcels on the eastside of North Shoreline Boulevard have a lower FAR, and are thus underdeveloped as compared to the parcels west of North Shoreline Boulevard which are closer to the FAR limit with large building footprints. Figure A-5. Existing Building Heights and Land Use Existing Use Legend W > Office/ R&❑ Retail QSchool H Services D Church Hotel/Motel XIndustrial Multi -Family LL O Medical Single -Family Y ~ Institution/Recreational U Vacant 70 Existing Condtions Parks and Open Space There are currently no parks or open space within the Terra Bella Plan area. Figure A-6 maps the parks and open spaces in and around Terra Bella. The open spaces around Terra Bella are limited to the Stevens Creek Trail that runs east of the Terra Bella Plan area, Permanente Creek trail, the proposed open space in North Bayshore, and a few smaller -scale parks within a half -mile from Terra Bella. Stevens Creek and Permanent Creek trails both function not only as open space but also as corridors for active transportation and wildlife habitat. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is part of the larger Stierlin Planning area which is in need of an additional 7.73 acres of open space to meet the City's goal of 3.0 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. The Crittenden Middle School and the Whisman Sport Center are located just west of the Plan area and provide nearby sports facilities. There is currently a joint use agreement between the City of Mountain View and the Mountain View Whisman Schools District that allows joint use of all the City's school park spaces for recreation outside of school hours. Crittendon Middle School (photo credit: dovidtroyer.com) 72 Figure A-6. Parks and Open Space rrr � u�'wRLEsrenlRo � r LEGNDRlV 57 r r r o r OLD MIDDLE hEip WRY i l r L4 AVEArIDA I ! r 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 't°4,y M1M1L �T�� - - - - ,r LL 4gL,e 47 1 L 1 t i� E`ilt�sT i ~,----------------------- A __- _ A0 900 1,800 3,600 Fee[ �I I ITI E I� Legend one Mlle Buffer Terra Bella Vision Plan L__, Half Mile Buffer Parks/ Open Space Trails CM1rYOr NI uralu'1EW 4 North Bayshore Proposed Open Space IL,- i project Boundary Parks and Open Space 73 Retail Centers The Terra Bella Plan area currently has a limited amount of retail properties - the Taco Bell located at Terra Bella Avenue and North Shoreline Boulevard and two gas stations at the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road. However, the area is served by the Bailey Park retail center approximately a third of a mile south of Terra Bella and will be served by the potential North Bayshore retail center to the north of Highway 101. Bailey Park Plaza currently includes a Safeway grocery store, some restaurants, and basic neighborhood commercial services. Nearby retail centers are shown in Figure A-7. 74 Figure A-7. Retail Centers One Mite Buffer Terra Bella Vision Plan i___,I F1alfMileBuffer 0 Retail Center CrlY OF MOUNTNN VPI Downtown C) North Bayshore Proposed Retail Center 4--. Project Boundary Retail Centers 75 ` OHARLFSTON RI) ? rr •LEGHORN ■ r m r r N f OL9 M Proposedi1Recail WLOWAY t 1 r .. LA AVEFWIDA S � t t I 1•! 11 1 Mvnta Loma r♦ ti_rr 1 Plaza tF 11 1 1 1 e 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 -----------1 1 11 1 JrRcHfL 1 OaR � � 1 1 1 r a . t � 1 Pa I r r ^ f � Park r r r r r rr e'1hilrn i S]. Ji3tay�.✓ V i eMPr ii4YY[1tr.1�R' ------------------------ N 0 900 11800 3.600 Feet iI I kI I iI Legend One Mite Buffer Terra Bella Vision Plan i___,I F1alfMileBuffer 0 Retail Center CrlY OF MOUNTNN VPI Downtown C) North Bayshore Proposed Retail Center 4--. Project Boundary Retail Centers 75 Environmental Cleanup The Plan area includes the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund, as shown in Figure A-8. The super fund site includes the former Teledyne Semiconductor (Teledyne) property located at 1300 Terra Bella Avenue and the former Spectra -Physics Lasers (Spectra -Physics) property located at 1250 West Middlefield Road. Investigations beginning in the 1980's documented the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (mainly trichloroethene (TCE) and its associated degradation products such as cis1,2-dichloroethene) into soil and groundwater at the properties within the Spectra -Physics site. Furthermore, contaminated groundwater that migrated north from another contaminated site, Teledyne Semiconductor (just north of Highway 101), merged with the contaminated plume of the Spectra -Physics site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) oversees cleanup activities in the superfund site. Various cleanup efforts have been ongoingsince the 1980's. New development within the Spectra -Physics site may need to invest in remediation, vapor barriers, or other clean-up strategies. While the past/ongoing groundwater remedy has substantially reduced contaminant concentrations, cleanup will likely continue for many years to come W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 76 Figure A-8. Sites with Listed Contaminants RPCKSU m �HFAVF N A, OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY Spp vC- � *7 + r* i ►* i i ■ ■f* r ■ R ■ �� r + ..MOM* *#, r /D44. 44p� %-:1 K TER k ?D +►� m J f �+ W i RW 7 !'� Z kA F ti +� J . ■i �' k@4 �� BC ■C ,1,4N s ++i v�+■■■rr■■wr■■■■wwwwrwrrrrr■■■�■�rr■■■■rw■s■■■■■ ak SAN�USpVF 250 500 Terra Bella Vision Plan Cr°r OF MOUKTAN VIF%ti 1,000 Feet ON SAH ARDD WAY � SAN PABIC' DR Ww r L g � r� N U S,M1 CARRIZA %VA, Legend Contaminated Sites Project Boundary Sites with Listed Contaminants Source: €nvironmental Protection Age ncy[https.IJwww.epogovlsuperfundj 77 Mobility Roadways Terra Bella is located along North Shoreline Boulevard adjacent to the intersection of Highways 101 and 85, which provides regional motor vehicle access to the area, as well as connectivity to both City and regional destinations. In addition, West Middlefield Road runs along the southern boundary of much of the area, and Terra Bella Avenue provides an important east/west spine within the neighborhood. Of these roadways, North Shoreline Boulevard connects Terra Bella to both Downtown Mountain View and the North Bayshore employment area. It is the only north -south roadway through the Plan area, is served by several transit stops, provides north -south bike connections suitable for confident bicyclists, and connects directly to and crosses the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101). Although the area has close freeway access, traffic congestion during the commute hours can make it very difficult to access. The most recent data on traffic volumes and congestion suggest that intersections in the Plan area do not experience significant congestion despite high volumes on North Shoreline Boulevard (though the intersections just outside the Plan area at North Shoreline Boulevard and La Avenida Street and North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road do). Table A-3 provides data on traffic volumes in the area. w Z H Z O X LL O } H U 78 Table A-3. Traffic VoLumes in Study Area Source: 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard Office Building Project Final Transportation Impact Assessment, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015 Note: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was estimated based on the PM peak traffic volume Traffic VoLumes Time Street Cross -street Period North Middlefield PM Peak Shoreline Rdst 1,110 756 758 1,588 Blvd North Middlefield Est. ADT Shoreline Rdst 11,100 7,560 7,580 15,880 Blvd North PM Peak Shoreline Terra Bella Ave 102 95 1,056 1,453 Blvd North Est. ADT Shoreline Terra Bella Ave 1,020 950 10,560 14,530 Blvd Source: 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard Office Building Project Final Transportation Impact Assessment, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015 Note: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was estimated based on the PM peak traffic volume Active Transportation Network The Plan area is served by a complete sidewalk network within and extending far outside of the area in all directions. All of the streets within the Plan area have sidewalks on both sides of the street, as do nearly all of the streets in the surrounding area. Sidewalks appear to be well maintained and in good condition. All major intersections have crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Bicycle access and bicycle level of traffic stress in the Terra Bella area is mixed. Both North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road are wide, heavily - trafficked roadways, with four lanes of traffic and turn lanes. The current Class II bike lanes on North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road are narrow with minimal separation from auto traffic, and are thus deemed moderate -stress facilities. However, North Shoreline Boulevard is slated for conversion to a Class IV protected bikeway. This upgrade will significantly reducethe intersection stress of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, and will improve connectivity to Terra Bella Avenue. U.S. Route 101 presents a major challenge for multimodal travel from Terra Bella to the North Bayshore employment area. The existing overpass provides minimal accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians, and the high vehicle speeds and challenging crossings largely deter travel on bike or by foot. A dedicated pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Highway 101 on the west side of North Shoreline Boulevard is currently in design. When it is constructed, it will significantly improve safety, attract bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and improve bike/ped connectivity between Terra Bella and North Bayshore. See Figure A-9 for existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure locations. 79 Figure A -g. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Infrastructure OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY 7 w � � +u 0 0 7 saR�cyr h 2 'Sr !o LAAMYIpq • R t� R,r*mss+fir •S ■ ri �1 IRI �lr 9� �r�aa � ` a %* TURASELLAAVE u �R b6FWAVE *R' L ♦ m Z % V: W. ■ 4 sF 4 a � • ■ v SApp'k4RCq.T CrR k' 40 + IL ■ii��Aifiif■��1f ■1r���.a�if ����ii�l��ii �rt� 8 F S<iN ()'SA 5AN ARRJ WAY L44 AAB La C k 4 B F— v q SAN CAFbW0 oAv C tr 7 N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet �ITITI ! h �'""•"': Building Footprints i i i i i iC flan Boundary Existing/Proposed Bike Facilities Terra Bella Vision Pian ••••• Class I Path Cirrni Lien�.�� t��•.•.-•• Protected Bikeway [Class IV] •••-• Class II Bike Lane i '••••• Class III Route • Transit Connections The Terra Bella neighborhood is served by three transit providers operating routes within the Plan area - Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MVgo), and Mountain View Community Shuttle. Combined, these operators run seven fixed -route services that travel near or through the Plan area. Of these services, five are within a half mile of the Plan area: • VTA Route 40 - Foothill to Mountain View • VTA Route 185 - Gilroy Transit Center - Mountain View • MVgo East Bayshore (Orange) Shuttle • MVgo West Bayshore (Green) Shuttle • Mountain View Community Shuttle The West and the East Bayshore Mountain View Go (MVgo) shuttle connects the Plan area to the Caltrain and the VTA Light Rail station in Downtown Mountain View. MVgo provides free shuttle service to reduce trafficvolumes forthe benefit of the community. While targeted for commuters accessing employment areas in North Bayshore and East Whisman, it is available for use by all members of the public. Transit route locations are illustrated in Figure A-10. Planned transit improvements along North Shoreline Boulevard (such as the planned dedicated reversible transit lane) and West Middlefield Road will improve transit access to both Caltrain and VTA by making bus service faster and more reliable especially during peak hours. This will enhance the development opportunities in Terra Bella. In addition, the City is studying automated guideway transportation (AGT) options for North Shoreline Boulevard to address anticipated commuter traffic between Downtown and North Bayshore. z a z O a g J W m LU W H 81 Figure A -so. Bus Routes Operating Within or Near the Study Area LA AVENIDA © a 4oRi� ROCK ST Rcq� S,9 � a � o� SRN 114ARCDS CCR h � SAN ZU1S,gt G A L1 t] N 0 240 480 950 Feet Legend Building Footprints ` ProjectBoundary Terra Bella Vision Plan •d- VTAroutes/stops Mountain View Go -4� Future 8RT lineistops CITY (,I Nkxa uT,%[x Yi w `Note: this mop shows transit routes and stops os ofApri12018. SAN PABLO DR Ln SAN CARRIZD WAY Transit J C7 S, A L1 t] N 0 240 480 950 Feet Legend Building Footprints ` ProjectBoundary Terra Bella Vision Plan •d- VTAroutes/stops Mountain View Go -4� Future 8RT lineistops CITY (,I Nkxa uT,%[x Yi w `Note: this mop shows transit routes and stops os ofApri12018. SAN PABLO DR Ln SAN CARRIZD WAY Transit Key Considerations The following is a brief summary of the key considerations in the Terra Bella area. 1. Parks and open spaces. Though there are public parks located outside of the Terra Bella area, there are no public parks or community space within the neighborhood. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is in need of additional open space to meet the City's goal. 2. Traffic and parking. Traffic congestion is a key issue in the area, particularly along North Shoreline Boulevard funneling in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore. While many community members expressed interest in seeing more housing and non-residential development in Terra Bella, there was concern that new development could lead to more traffic congestion and parking spillover in adjacent residential neighborhoods. I Walking and bicycling conditions. Major auto -oriented roadways including US -101, SR -85, Shoreline Boulevard, and Middlefield Road create high stress conditions and substantial barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access in, out and through the area. Additionally, long block lengths in Terra Bella, particularly west of North Shoreline Boulevard, has resulted in poor pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by reducing opportunities for crossings and direct routes. Building pedestrian/bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), protected bikeways and full-time bike lanes, and breaking up large blocks with streets or greenways can improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 4. Mix of uses. Terra Bella consists of predominately office and light industrial uses, with limited residential and retail uses. The result is a commuter -oriented environment with limited neighborhood amenities and little to no evening or nighttime activity. The community expressed interest in encouraging a diverse mix of uses and activities in Terra Bella while maintaining the unique and quiet character of the area. rj. Development and building character. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard, is characterized by large suburban office parks. In many cases, buildings do not face directly onto the street and have deep front and side setbacks, with little interaction between private properties and the public realm. Active and well-designed building frontages are crucial for creating a more inviting, pedestrian -oriented environment that will attract people to walk, gather, shop, and spend time. 6. Residential adjacency. The Terra Bella area is bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast, including Rock Street and Stierlin Estates. Future development should be designed to respect and benefit the adjacent single-family neighborhoods by providing additional amenities for residents, improving multimodal access, and creating appropriate transitions to existing homes. 7. Small business preservation. Terra Bella, particularly the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard, is home to an eclectic mix of small businesses, light industrial uses, and non -profits. Redevelopment of the area could continue to put upward pressure on property values and rents, leading to displacement. S. Environmental conditions. Contaminated sites in Terra Bella, particularly the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund site west of North Shoreline Boulevard, pose a concern for new development. While cleanup activities are still ongoing, further studies and remediation will likely be required, especially if new housing and non-residential development is considered in this area. 83 FA 0 LiFA 0 s� Ah A 4W T:f: Ah 0 Ah FA 0 Lipi Attachment 2 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small -group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects / terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses— especially mixed-use, residential, and retail —to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists. 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1of8 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well as additional mixed- use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 2of8 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use Alternatives and, specifically, neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around Reduced -Intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to include reduced development intensity and additional transition strategies in the area bordering the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood, and the area is identified in the blue dashed box in Figure 3 below. At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower - intensity land use alternative was being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to increase the residential density along West Middlefield Road, currently identified as medium -intensity Residential Land Use (up to five stories), to higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven 3of8 stories). The area for the suggested modification is shown in the green thick dashed box in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Community Outreach Meeting, January 28, 2019—Input on Land Use Alternative 0 OLD MIDDLEFFfLD WAY m Z f LA AVENrQA yc 2 S . 2 ROEr ST '' 1000 y _ _' ■ Residential ■ ■ de L S4N RgyRcas 4R Ah W�q� 3d 3 � � e F ............. Toy a fiesidentlalY e. Mixe6 use �>f/e'Of ':' ��• Office to 4stories) p With Retail Llghtlndustrl If Residential (up to 5 stories) N otese Ls O TERAA BELLA AVE ===I New Street � 9t'rEt — Light lndustriaV LightlntlustrlaV 4WL - I i Residennas omce - DW - / ✓�f�i�, Light Industrial / Offi[e IEesidential MJK W I^ '( � Residential ``B O - Residential Residential E4N PR90 wax g SArc Paato➢R _____� o f vvy�` ,� SAN GRflIZ9 W4Y N 0 250 SOfl 1,000 Feet Residential to 3stories) p Office to 4stories) p `:::■:' Plan Boundary suu.i Y Residential (up to 5 stories) office (up to 6 stories) %. ^Avv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories} Ught Industrial!Office ===I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to 2 stories) �. New Pedestrian/Bike Path Unne M111411111tu. : Mixed use with Retail / ✓�f�i�, Light Industrial / Offi[e (up to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space* Actual location will he determined as projects come forward Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is provided as Attachment 4 to this report —Stakeholder Meetings Summary. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles, and Other Policies The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning Plan area in October and November 2018. 4of8 In summary, the Councilmembers were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding principles for the Plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use Alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the Analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern Plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as jobs -housing balance and school strategies. Environmental Planning Commission Meeting —February 20, 2019 On February 20, 2019, the EPC held a Study Session to provide policy direction on the preferred land use alternative (see Attachment 2 — EPC Study Session Report). The meeting was focused on land use alternative selection for the Plan area. Seven members of the public spoke at the EPC meeting, including residents, property owners, and business representatives. Comments included: • Maintain the General Plan 2030 vision. • Strong need for sensitive neighborhood transition strategies to preserve the existing neighborhood character. 5of8 • Support lower building heights adjacent to current single-family zoned properties. • Concern with the amount of change proposed in the area. • Concerns with additional traffic issues from the proposed land uses adding to the current traffic issues along Shoreline Boulevard. • Concerns with additional office land uses contributing to greater jobs -housing imbalance. The EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: 1. Mixed -Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the Plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 2—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single - story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern Plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two- story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher - intensity residential (up to seven stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to three stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6of8 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to six stories to up to three stories (3 to 3 vote). 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to two stories immediately adjacent to existing R1 -zoned property along the southeastern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (up to five stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to three stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to seven stories to up to five stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 7of8 �FW4yF �kfgyF 7 Figure 2: Areas of EPC Discussion Based on Alternative 5 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY a m z rr 0 iuRfry�sr � 2 Z W SJ ♦ • f ■ 4 3 Residential 3 "kp `.�§....: •' •.. ■ TFgg4 Residemial B 4 of 1 ■•1••• *i,' Mlwlth Office ; Residential RQ •,. Muoed use Residential F�Aq ••. Z with a� "�o � •. Mired use- Retail 10 .• Z �MNtCaSgR =t4". ,Z •': ■ �N�N�S AVF 0 3 a JA AViNIDA nor Lghtindustrial/ Office '.• �. FE RRA RFLLA AVE Lightlndustrial! Eight Industria, Office Office residential N ReWgtial sr,ry ARX WA+ SAN PABLO nn � � F 1. GRa¢0 W, N�.....� 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to3stor'les} Office (up to4stories) ---'-� Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) 4� Office (up to 6 stories) vwvv Neighborhood Transitions Light Industrial/Office ���I New Street Residential (upto7stories) �%IN/1 (up to2stories) Terra Bella Vision Plan ---- New Pedestrian/Bike Path C11 I ')I Nh<�,1rNV1 J��/� Mixed Use with Retail / Light Industrial /Office (up to a stories) 4"h, Conceptual Public Open Space ' Actual location will be determined as projects come forward EPC expressed concerns about how the land use alternatives impact the jobs -housing balance, schools, and traffic in the area EPC also emphasized on providing context - sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. DP/5/CDD 807-10-23-19GP 8of8 DATE: April 2, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner Martin Alkire, Principal Planner Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director VIA: Daniel H. Rich, City Manager TITLE: Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives PURPOSE Attachment 3 The purpose of this Study Session is to present revised land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan and summarize input from the February 20 Environmental Planning Commission meeting. Staff is seeking City Council input and policy direction on a preferred land use and next steps for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan. BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan process started in April 2018 and has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Attachment 1 (Summary of Prior Meetings). This work was authorized by the City Council as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and develop strategies to guide future development in the area. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. Therefore, no specific vision was identified for the area during the 2030 General Plan update process. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 19 Figure 1: Vision Plan Area EPC and Council Meetings "s AM PA9LC OP 0 The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on potential land use alternatives and other policy direction on October 17, 2018 and November 13, 2018, respectively. In summary, the City Council was supportive of the addition of residential land uses in the Plan area, and envisions a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Several members of the public spoke at both the EPC and City Council meetings, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, the need for policies that create sensitive transitions adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in the area, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The City Council responses to all the questions from the November 2018 Study Session are summarized in the table below, including EPC comments where noted. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 19 P Vision and Guiding Council supported the proposed vision and Principles guiding principles for the plan area. 2 Land Use Alternatives Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative with certain changes discussed in the Analysis section of this report. 3 Neighborhood Transition Council supported proposed transition Strategies strategies and suggested additional transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Council supported the community benefit Strategy strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. 6 Other Strategies Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring other strategies such as jobs -housing balance and school strategies. The City Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative 4 (refer to Figure 2—EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative) and further directed staff to study several changes to Alternative 4. The Council also directed staff to study an additional alternative with reduced residential densities at key locations. These changes are discussed in the Analysis section of the report. Council further directed staff to hold an additional focused outreach meeting to gather input from residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Northwestern Plan boundary; a summary of this meeting is discussed below. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 19 Figure 2: EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative o - OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY ? �3 m $ iLAAWNIDA i 11 It Z • •y �f • 1: ■ Residential '1"0 6 �• ■ ■ O�cA `�•.....: •••� •••. 707 ■ ♦ •. • Church •• ■ 4* *4'yq Re5ldential •*4' .• �, LY••.• 1N1 NP , �' 7FCokn••.1 3 M Y o•4� aN M4 4R $qN fU15A"/E O N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet AdIML Terra Bella Vision Plan Curr ur 1+tO0NIAl.v V" SAN AFOO WAY s O .' snre aaata oA � ('Lvt�, Residential(upto3stories) Office(upto4stories) Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (upto 6 stories) 1 • �•.� ryptel M. 1 1 RCsidemiad light induseria� Othce ••• Hotel (upto 7 stories) e TERRA BELLS AVE Office MMeduw 1 _ Lght Industrial/ m ssAth 1 Residential Qtfice Wall 1 i Z Mf ed llse� 1 `+ Residential Re9dential RcWG O Office — — —s— Residential SAN AFOO WAY s O .' snre aaata oA � ('Lvt�, Residential(upto3stories) Office(upto4stories) Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (upto 6 stories) Residential (upto 7 stories) Church Mixed Use with Retail Light lndustdal / Office (up to 2 stories) Hotel (upto 7 stories) Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) SAN rAARDO WAY Plan Boundary ■■■wwv Neighborhood Transitions mmm1 New Street • — — • New PedestrianBike Path Conceptual Public Open Space As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use Alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around Reduced -Intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to include reduced development intensity and additional transition strategies in the area bordering the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood, and the area is identified in the blue dashed box in Figure 3 below. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 5 of 19 At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity land use alternative was being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower - Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to increase the residential density along West Middlefield Road, currently identified as medium -intensity Residential Land Use (up to five stories), to higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories). The area for the suggested modification is shown in the green thick dashed box in Figure 3 below. r ASM Figure 3: Community Outreach Meeting, January 28, 2019 — Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY • _.111P - I � flesitlential ® ,41 ''•• O �► `F<oRo � COs rtq �iNtL�A� m o z - J � O LAAVENIDA N z aesidentlaf! •� Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui S C i Office {up to 6 stories) Llgh lndusttiaV ••!•! snonRoo war ' Mixed use DFfiee ' flesidelrcfal saa R,& QR ••!! Aetai! i Lgl tl dustrlal,' !!! !1! 411 Office TERRA SELiA AVE !� office ® - Light Indust -1/ Llghrindus,_V � m �Rlixed use flesldential ` OtSee - UFFre With M,Istff{� flesldenCyl R.esitlential !!� Residential Residential N 0 250 500 1,006 Feet •� Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui S C i Office {up to 6 stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions snonRoo war ff------__- saa R,& QR ��r�tl New Street � 6 F Cur or Mauivraln vi... Mixed Use with Retail� 6 � SAN [ARRIZO WAY Conceptual Public Open Space N 0 250 500 1,006 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui A Residential (up to 5 stories) i Office {up to 6 stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions Residential {upto7stories) i��� Light industrial (up to2sturies) ��r�tl New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan New Pedestrian/l Path Cur or Mauivraln vi... Mixed Use with Retail� Light Industrial / Office (up to 4 storles) Conceptual Public Open Space 'Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 6 of 19 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting—February 20, 2019 On February 20, 2019, the EPC held a Study Session to provide policy direction on the preferred land use alternative (see Attachment 2—EPC Study Session Report). The meeting was focused on land use alternative selection for the plan area. Seven members of the public spoke at the EPC meeting, including residents, property owners, and business representatives. In addition, staff also received e-mails, letters, and other correspondence since November 2018 (these are included in Attachment 3 —Additional Public Comment). In summary, comments included: • Maintain the General Plan 2030 vision. • Strong concerns related to a proposed six- to seven -story building height and areas of greater intensity adjacent to existing one- to two-story residential neighborhoods. • Strong need for sensitive neighborhood transition strategies to preserve the existing neighborhood character. • Support lower building heights adjacent to current single-family zoned properties and landscaping as a buffer. • Concern with the amount of change proposed in the area. • Concerns with additional traffic issues from the proposed land uses adding to the current traffic issues along Shoreline Boulevard. • Concerns with additional office land uses contributing to greater job -housing imbalance. EPC input is summarized in the Analysis section. ATVAT YET% Since the November 13, 2018 City Council Study Session, the project team has refined the land use alternatives based on Council direction, the February 2019 EPC Study Session, and public input. The major refinements include the following: 1. Created additional mixed-use areas along Shoreline Boulevard to create an area that allows a mix of retail, services, and active land uses. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 7 of 19 2. Incorporated neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary west of Shoreline Boulevard to reduce potential impacts of new development on existing single-family home areas. 3. Extended the Industrial/ Office Land Use along San Rafael Avenue up to Terra Bella Avenue to create a more continuous industrial zone. 4. Increased the intensity of Industrial/ Office Land Use between Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and south of U.S. 101 to accommodate higher -intensity office use close to U.S. 101, which acts as a natural barrier. 5. Shifted the bike/ pedestrian path closer to the Southern Plan Area boundary east of Shoreline Boulevard to create a better access along the single-family homes. These topics are enumerated 1 through 5 on Figure 4 below to more easily reference the geographic location to which the Council directed changes (refer to Figure 4 —Revised Land Uses — Alternative 5). The City Council asked staff to update the alternative based on the above input (Alternative 5 below) and a second with lower overall residential densities (Alternative 6 below). Revised Land Uses —Alternative 5 Land Use Alternative 5, shown in Figure 4 below, incorporates all the City Council direction from the November 2018 Study Session meeting discussed above. These changes result in additional potential housing units and nonresidential square footage (due to the current church site being suitable for housing in the future). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 8 of 19 Figure 4: Revised Land Uses—Alternative 5 OLD MIDQLEFIELD WAY } m dF LAAVENeDA _ 1 Z r L' aocssr Ns. ♦ ♦♦L ♦ P• a aResidenoal p e ♦;i* ...w♦'.. •♦.'♦, Ior 4 ■ ■ r rFg � Retiderrtiai �. ■ , 9� F♦. ti♦•♦♦' `,` %-Ith— Qrfice Residential ,✓/�.f ♦♦♦♦♦' (y a♦ q \ Retail Lightindustrial/ / ♦♦ /oD�f!.♦♦ �`�'aar �,�, i - otRc TERRAR€!!nave ♦♦ /f7 .♦• Office ♦ j, J Li9h[Industrial! Light lnd.m.1/ �♦ oRrwAVE F RQ ♦'♦♦ as Mued use Residential office p� $sA' ♦♦ Z oath Residential • ti 3 •♦♦ enixedus,Z Retail n Residential °oAVEA � ,� aye c� .♦ w�tlt w ■� yr ♦♦♦♦RMall = Residential Residential �M^Rcas 3` ♦♦♦ ■ hlll� K7 GR �„ �■ - .. to . _ ■ SnH .1HL r�;3ay SAM PABLO RR "� �ry r�lS AVE 1 SAN � H.0 WAP 5 N �uuu 1 0 250 500 1.000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to6stories) vwvv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) ��'-, Light Industrial/Office -- l New Street (up to 2 stories) New Pedestrian/Bike Path C. uH Cv os MorniR view Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retail Light Industrial /Office (up to 4 stories) Oil Conceptual Public Open Space Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Revised Land Use —Alternative 6 (Lower Density) At the November 18 Study Session, Council also asked for a lower -density alternative. Alternative 6, as shown in Figure 5 below, was developed based on City Council input by further refining the revised land use alternative discussed above and studying an alternative with lower residential densities. The highest residential density areas allowing up to seven stories are reduced to up to five stories throughout the plan area, and the medium -density residential land uses areas allowing up to five stories are reduced to up to three stories west of Shoreline Boulevard. A portion of the higher - intensity office use (up to five stories) north of Terra Bella Avenue and south of U.S. 101 was changed to lower -intensity office (up to three stories). Alternative 6 reduces the projected housing units significantly from 2,500 to 1,700, whereas the nonresidential Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 9 of 19 square footage has increased from 1.6 million square feet to 1.7 million square feet (due to some residential being changed to light industrial). Comparison of Alternatives 5 and 6 Charts 1 and 2 below compare several key factors between existing conditions, the original EPC -recommended option, and the two land use alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use and Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Figure 5: Revised Land Uses —Alternative 6 (Lower -Residential Density) 0 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY 1 z I� d LAAV■afoA z RXR st a � • ■'. • a It y■ ■ ♦ ♦ A. ■ ■ �rP ■ � A ■ RPSidentlai `N�1...■T�•`+ ?E,gagB� Residential fi rFt�q ----r---- '.. •.moi +� �+ � OrRrn ' ResMentral fj // �,��� H � , �TjQO.�` � e� ��,I ' Light lnduudaV �• Office %f •�� b TERRA SELLA AVE ��• ogEH,A R F 1� F�QRO•••,, light lndustrlaV •• - tight lndushiaU • Residential • �yRq '- Ofike b _ •.• 2 with MlxeduRetail Residential 6 Residential Npa ® 5 i with ••� Rett D Residential Residential•` �414111eCIe y �� SAN AR6p WAy m tAk[Ill54VE d g SAN PAnl00R Uz ff $ r 54N CARRI$P WAY N 0 250 500 1,01M, Fr or Residential (up to 3 stories) �s.•ru� Office (up to 3 stories) Plan Boundary iuu•i N i { Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) w+.wP Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) - Light Industrial/Office m== i New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to 2 stories) . New Pedestrian/Bike Path Mixed Use with Retail X111.1 Light Industrial /Office (up to 4 stories) Ak Conceptual Public Open Space . Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Comparison of Alternatives 5 and 6 Charts 1 and 2 below compare several key factors between existing conditions, the original EPC -recommended option, and the two land use alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use and Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 10 of 19 Chart 1: Land Use Options and Mix of Land Uses Residential Housing 3(3%) 35(38%) 35(38%) 35(38%) Area 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF Office Area 62(66%) 28(29%) 25(27%) 25(27%) Light Industrial/ Office 19(20%) 15(16%) 18(19%) 18(19%) Area Mixed Use / Retail Area 1 (1%) 5(5%) 11(12%) 11(12%) Hotel Area 0% 3(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Park/ Open Space Area 0(0%) 5.1(5%) 4.6(5%) 4.6(5%) Institutional/ Church 7(8%) 2.5(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) *Figures in Chart 1 represent number of acres and composition of land use based on acreage. Chart 2: Land Use Options Comparison —20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 3,200 to 3,600 9 Residents* 2,000 to 2,600 1,500 to 1,700 1.4 msf Housing Units 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF (-73 ksf retail) Employees** Jobs — Housing Mix —20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 3,200 to 3,600 9 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 1,500 to 1,700 1.4 msf 1.6 msf 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) (-56 ksf retail) (-73 ksf retail) (-73 ksf retail) -4,200 *Assumes 2.1 residents per unit **Assumes 3 employees per 1,000 square feet 4,700 -5,400 -5,200 0 e 0 Better to worse Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 11 of 19 EPC Input At its February 2019 Study Session, the EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: 1. Mixed Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 6—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single - story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two- story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3-3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher - intensity residential (up to 7 stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to 3 stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to 6 stories to up to 3 stories (3 to 3 vote). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 12 of 19 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to 2 stories immediately adjacent to existing R1 -zoned property along the southeastern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote) . 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (up to 5 stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to 3 stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to 7 stories to up to 5 stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 13 of 19 Figure 6: Areas of EPC Discussion Based on Alternative 5 Transition Strategies At the EPC Study Session on February 20, 2019, there was considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. In November 2018, staff presented a series of potential strategies to provide appropriate transition buffers for future development in the Plan area, including: increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs, 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes, orientating primary windows away from existing homes, providing landscape buffers, and limiting balconies. Below are some illustrative examples of what these transition strategies could look like along the edges of the Terra Bella Plan Area near single-family homes. The following illustrations show a OLD MIDDLEFI EL6 WAY 0 � �3 0 0 LA AVENIVq 2 ROCK ST . ♦ •• z r•• • • is ■ ♦ K■ ■ • J 4 i f . , , 3 w Residential Q 6 :. ...... .•.. .`...■.'`••.••'•♦ X07 ,7 � � a TtRq „� Resldemial %/� Jh ti••••• ��"a �`I Mduw •••••• Office Res. i wlth .�A i Retail LightlndustdaV •• iv • Ps 49,0••'.erl� i 40'e ,/ office ••. o�PR••• ru, ,' / T"", - FER"RELUAVE ••• onF wgvF �4� . `. •!. J Lightheugtrial! - Lightlndustrial/ G. � ., 2 + • m Residenihal Off*.ce CHfice Mired uxe �:' Np _. i ••• '�1�k .t 1• ` Z with �esidenRal (] Miae'h Reran RRRIghtial eve^✓� m 2 �' 4 e - ••. �� •• heta'el 10 O 8 f$Idenhai Resijintial •. x lJJ �'M WC sc �• �`...�..tiill��Lt! titV* F SnN Aa��S•rAP 5AN P68L0 DR �NtU,s4t'a o 5 � 2 b) S1N CARi,.a WAY g 4 250 500 1,111111 11111t Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to4stories} Plan Boundary A iiesidential(upto5stories) Office (Up to6stories} wvw Neighborhood Transitions Residential (upto7stories) Light Industrial /Office ���I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan to 2stories) ■��■ New Pedestrian/Bike Path cnvoa n7ouufn,N Vii •:. /(up Mined Use with Retail J//1/� Light Industrial /Office (up to4stories) dft Conceptual Public Open Space" " Actual location will be determined as projects tome farward Transition Strategies At the EPC Study Session on February 20, 2019, there was considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. In November 2018, staff presented a series of potential strategies to provide appropriate transition buffers for future development in the Plan area, including: increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs, 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes, orientating primary windows away from existing homes, providing landscape buffers, and limiting balconies. Below are some illustrative examples of what these transition strategies could look like along the edges of the Terra Bella Plan Area near single-family homes. The following illustrations show a Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 14 of 19 combination of several transition strategies that could be considered in a variety of circumstances and are not necessarily specific to just Terra Bella. Example No. 1: Landscaping along the edges creates a buffer and screens views into neighboring homes. An alley or street is accommodated in the minimum setback area between new development and existing single-family homes. Townhomes are two stories at street/ alley level, stepping up to three stories. Maximum height is established (as shown on the Vision Plan diagram), and follows a 45 -degree daylight plane. Figure 7: Landscape Buffer Strategy 1 Single-family home Alley -loaded townhomes Example No. 2: Landscaping along the edges creates a buffer and screens views into neighboring homes. A new street, and an expanded setback area, provides a setback between new development and existing single-family homes. Three (3) story townhomes are turned sideways so that primary windows are not facing the backyard of single-family homes. Maximum height is established (as shown on the Vision Plan diagram), and follows a 45 -degree daylight plane. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 15 of 19 Figure 8: Landscape Buffer Strategy 2 Single-family home Townhomes rotated for privacy In addition, the Vision Plan could stipulate that any new development proposals include additional analyses to reduce the impacts on neighboring single-family homes, which could include view and shadow studies. Other Impacts EPC was concerned about how the land use alternatives impact the jobs -housing balance, schools, and traffic in the area. The Vision Plan intends to gather community input on key topics such as land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement big -picture General Plan direction and Council goals. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. Such detailed development standards and regulatory framework would require additional studies through a Precise Plan process. In reviewing this information, the Council should consider which alternative best represents its vision for Terra Bella Avenue and any particular policy areas that should be addressed. Staff also notes that elements within each alternative can be mixed and matched. Council Question No. 1: Which Land Use Vision Alternative does the Council prefer for Terra Bella Avenue? Council Question No. 2: Are there particular policy areas or direction that Council would like the Plan to emphasize or address? Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 16 of 19 Future Precise Plan During the last round of public meetings, some Environmental Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers as well as community members discussed interest in developing a Terra Bella Precise Plan once the Visioning Plan was adopted. The following is a comparison of the pros and cons of the City embarking on a new Terra Bella Precise Plan or just using an adopted Terra Bella Visioning Plan. Option 1: Terra Bella Precise Plan Pros: • A comprehensive and detailed standards and guidelines, such as floor area ratio, building setbacks, and TDM requirements, etc., would provide greater clarity and expectations for developers, the community, and decision makers. • More detailed analysis, including environmental review and technical studies on topics such as development feasibility; transportation, utility, and air quality impacts; and school and public infrastructure needs would provide more information to help evaluate new development proposals. • More efficient and consistent environmental review of development projects based on one Precise Plan EIR. Cons: • Would require significant additional staff time and funding. • The Precise Plan could take approximately 18 to 24 months, which could result in delays of pending projects or missed opportunities if market conditions change. Although preparation of a Precise Plan can take up to 24 months, the City Council could consider allowing Gatekeeper projects once the Public draft of the precise plan is available (time frame -12 months) to reduce the delay in project review time, as shown in the following graphic. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 17 of 19 Summer '19 Summer '21 I I I I I I I I Visioning I I 18 Months (Programmatic EIR) Precise Plan I 1 I I I I I I Draft PP - 12months I I I I 1 Gatekeeper 1 1 I � � 18 months with a Neg. Dec 1 1 I I I I I 1 I Total 2.5 years > Option 2: Terra Bella Vision Plan Pros: Winter/' Spring'2e • Review Time: Allows Gatekeeper project to move forward sooner instead of waiting for a Precise Plan process, which could result in some desired land uses, such as new housing, to be built. Cons: • Each project would be reviewed ou a case-by-case basis without detailed and established development standards or guidelines. This would involve negotiations on a project -by -project basis over key topics, such as building setbacks, which could result in an inefficient process and inconsistent City requirements. • Project CEQA Review: Each Gatekeeper project would need individual CEQA review which would create greater inefficiencies and require more staff review. • Resources: Individual Gatekeeper projects would require more staffing resources. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 18 of 19 Council Question No. 3: Does the City Council wish to add creating a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a possible priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as the next step following the Vision Plan Adoption? When staff brings back the final Vision Plan for adoption, after Council has determined its priority projects, the question of when or whether to accept Gatekeepers can be addressed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback on the preferred land use alternative for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Area and direction on the following questions posed in the Study Session memo: 1. Which land use vision alternative does the City Council prefer for Terra Bella? 2. Are there particular policy areas or direction that Council would like the Plan to emphasize or address? 3. Does the City Council wish to add creating a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a possible priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as the next step following the Vision Plan Adoption? NEXT STEPS Following this Council Study Session, the project team will continue preparing the Draft Vision Plan. The public draft of the Vision Plan is anticipated in spring 2019. Final adoption of the Plan is anticipated before the summer 2019 Council break. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 19 of 19 PUBLIC NOTICING The City Council agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations: Rex Manor Neighborhood Association and North Whisman Neighborhood Association. Social media was used to notify the public and the school districts were notified. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SE. DP-MA-AS/5/CAM 807-04-02-19SS 190191 Attachments: 1. Summary of Prior Meetings 2. EPC Study Session Report —February 20, 2019 3. Additional Public Comment Attachment 1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses —especially mixed-use, residential, and retail — to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. asR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. PJ 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is provided as Attachment 4 to this report —Stakeholder Meetings Summary. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles and Other Policies The EPC and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning plan area in October and November 2018. In summary, the Council members were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke 3 at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding rind les for the plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e. near Mor an Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Council members supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as Job -housing balance and school strategies. al Attachment 2 6.1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 20, 2019 6. STUDY SESSION 6.1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives RECOMMENDATION That the Environmental Planning Commission to review and provide input to the City Council on land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning Plan Area. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations— Rex Manor Neighborhood and North Whisman Neighborhood Associations. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: https: / /www.mountainview. gov / depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terra_ bella.asp BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan process started in April 2018 and has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and EPC and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Exhibit 1 (Summary of Prior Meetings). This work was authorized by the City Council as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and develop strategies to guide future development in the area. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. Therefore, no specific vision was identified for the area during the last General Plan update process. Visioning Process Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 9 Figure 1: Vision Plan Area Visioning processes provide an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key topics like land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement big picture General Plan direction and Council goals. The resulting Vision Plan is a guiding document that can inform future creation of a Precise Plan to accomplish the identified vision for the area. While some specific objectives may be articulated for preferred land uses, intensity of development and general circulation conditions, a Vision Plan does not establish specific regulations, or regulate land use, zoning or properties. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. This can be achieved through a Precise Plan development. Prior Public Meetings The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on the land uses and other policy direction on October 17 and November 13, 2018, respectively. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 9 In summary, the City Council was supportive of the addition of residential land uses in the Plan area, and envisions a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Several members of the public spoke at both the EPC and City Council meetings, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, the need for policies that create sensitive transitions adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in the area; the need for additional housing in the area; and preserving existing small businesses. The City Council responses to all the questions at the meeting are summarized in the table below, including EPC comments, where noted. 1 Vision and Guiding Council supported the proposed vision and Principles guiding principles for the plan area. 2 Land Use Alternatives Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. 3 Neighborhood Transition Council supported proposed transition Strategies strategies and suggested additional transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Council supported the community benefit Strategy strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. 6 Other Strategies Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring other strategies such as jobs - housing balance and school strategies. The City Council further directed staff to study a few changes to the EPC Preferred Land Use alternatives and study an additional alternative with reduced residential densities at key locations. These changes are discussed in the Analysis section of Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 4 of 9 this report. Council also directed staff to do an additional focused outreach meeting to gather input from residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Northwestern Plan Area boundary; a summary of this meeting is discussed below. Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around reduced - intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to implement similar development intensity and buffers in the plan area at this location that is proposed at the northwestern border adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood. The suggested changes are shown below in Figure 2: Figure 2: Community Outreach 3 —Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MI DDLEF I ELD WAY y m Ll aVF4lap S 4 erx,s, • 4 / is fy4q '? ' f4siaera4l • ' • IMrce I4ssdem4l 7 WMA•• om' ,� :` � lgnunaussaaV / •••• 'r DN tIQ ' • rru orrwc exCwxvE G ' iF7ORd �.; ' aesbernlnl1. Lglrc IMruP ruV �: u9Ft Inau56iaV •% ar Cm irpad� J �'� Reslderrt4l MIc Broil Pesden[NI � i s4swexs4i `4 T) ' ••••, �r ",,■}■, rp LK! �"P sw axoow.r g �xne�oo � 3 8 � S soh rswsrm w.v N Residential (up to 3storiesl Office fop [o4storiesl :.....0 Plan Boundary ~I Peddentlal(upto5stodes) Office (up to 6 stories.) vww Neighborhood Transitions P-1dendal(up to 7 stories) Light Industrial/Office New Street Cup to 2 stories) ol, rrr:Mrwrslx rlers Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retail �� light Industrial/Office New Pedestrian1ilte Path (ops to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space. • Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 5 of 9 At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity development alternative as suggested through public input was already being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to move the higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories) from medium -intensity Residential Land Use along the Middlefield Road frontage. Additional Public Comment E-mails, letters, and other correspondence received since the last Study Session are included in Exhibit 2 —Public Comment. The comments include strong concerns related to a proposed six- to seven -story building height and areas of greater intensity adjacent to existing one- to two-story residential neighborhoods. Traffic issues in the area were again raised as another major concern. Increased lower -density development buffer and landscaping were noted as a few suggestions. ANALYSIS Since the last public meeting, the project team has refined the Land Use alternatives based on Council direction and public input. The major refinements include the following: 1. Creating additional mixed-use areas along Shoreline Boulevard to create an area that allows a more diverse mix of retail, services, and active land uses. 2. Incorporated neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary west of Shoreline Boulevard to reduce potential impacts of new development on existing single-family home areas. 3. Extended the Industrial/ Office Land Use along San Rafael Avenue up to Terra Bella Avenue to create a more continuous industrial zone. 4. Increased the intensity of Industrial/ Office Land Use between Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and south of U.S. 101 to accommodate higher -intensity office use close to U.S. 101, which acts as a natural barrier. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 6 of 9 5. Shifted the bike/pedestrian path closer to the Southern Plan Area boundary east of Shoreline Boulevard to create a better access along the single-family homes. Revised Land Use Alternative 5 Land Use Alternative 5, shown below, incorporates all the City Council direction from the last Study Session meeting listed above. These changes result in additional potential housing units and nonresidential square footage. Figure 3: Revised Land Use Alternative 5 OLD MIDDLEFIEED WAY � m e P W a ,00 OW tAAVENfDA umRryG f h p� z aacK sr • ♦'1' el . a Residenpai � quP e'�♦`....+�• '♦♦+♦+•♦ SOF . + �g4BA //f �♦♦ tip♦ 4� ��'r'e LF M7d usr,/%//�".• • ♦,, tle office Residendal / ♦♦• je,♦♦' ♦ Retail Light Indus HA/ "/ ♦♦ �. •• "`��, �� I � Office �♦♦ Ob�E^A,♦1♦ fid ,� TERRA RELLAAVE ♦♦ /fir 1♦ Office �4R .♦ J Lightlndustrial! - Ligh[lndustriaV >• -��W4VE o=M1 O i, m Mrn.eduse Reslde'nTal D(hCe Office z �♦ 'gay ♦♦ Z with Residential RP"�oy e 4 ♦.♦ Mz..d.1, Retail Residential .W '�� ♦♦ with "4eE 2 .♦♦♦Iteyll = Resid_tial Residential IQ d 5"'t'Mnsco � ♦♦. ■ iFirl�Piiti orlr9Pi'�R1la}S �7 RrLr �� S'tR■ SAH APoa :vnr F A-PM1BLu o.� k/ Ury tU154VE � o. UA rAU.0 WA, s 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) A Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (Up to6stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) Light Industrial/Office r. ri ra New Street I (up to 2 stories) �. New Pedestrian/Bike Path L:n of Mo Nrnmnu V..Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retailrj.��`ri Light Industrial/Office (up to4stories) �•„ Conceptual Public Open Space J�+ ' Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative 6 This alternative was developed by further refining the Revised Land Use Alternative discussed above. The highest residential density (up to seven -story Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 7 of 9 densities are reduced to medium -residential intensities (up to five stories) throughout the plan area, and the Medium -Density Residential Land Uses are reduced to lower -density residential (up to three stories) to the west of Shoreline Boulevard. A portion of the higher intensity office use (up to five stories) north of Terra Bella Avenue and South of 101 was changed to lower intensity office (up to three stories). With this lower intensity option the projected housing units are reduced to half, whereas the non-residential square footage has only slightly reduced. Figure 4: Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative 6 a OLD MIODLEFI ELD WAY � �Z m 3 a / a LA AVENIOA Z gOQIT �OgGAry t . ♦♦� • oft ■ � w ■ P r �. ReAdennal \� ,`♦♦r aaar�"rr"■r1♦♦111 ■ TfRd e Residential S Oyu. 6f ' ��''r�////%♦♦ ♦♦1 ♦` � � Mfice � Resadential ��� 1111♦ {y♦11 a ,� tight Indus 0,1; / ♦O .t/, ♦1 est �1 � � Office - ♦♦ (F'ei♦1♦ Orrice _ TEgRA SELLA AVE ♦. FSA ♦♦♦,� L-ghtlndusrw/ 4gEkiavE Light lntlustrial/ Rp 1 1 m Smidentlai z Orrice � as S°�ay ♦♦♦♦♦ j �Residential � +� MoH ems: 1♦1 MiY .ry,^-+.. Residential • 4� NE4VE ® § f i ♦♦♦ R O Residential ■¢ �2 ♦1 T _.._ gesidential Na sAN N°Agcasoe � ♦♦♦,�■ islR"fiffYlA rr�.G r.r ♦• n gWz vN Al. -14 sAN vnato oq � °p '�N1itISAVE j R yp s� g 2 SAN GPEI20 WAY O N �u■u� ` 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 3 stories) Plan Boundary /■' iu■ui Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) wvw Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to7stories)%/,/LightI dustrial/office ���I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan �% (up t.-2 stories) New Pedestrian/Bike Path t:rtt or Moorttnm vrEw Mixed Use with Retail / Light Industrial /Office (up to4stories) Alilkj, Conceptual Public Open Space* "Actuallocation will bedetermined as projects come forward Alternatives Comparison A comparison chart has been prepared with estimates of several key factors to provide a comparison between existing conditions, the EPC recommended option, Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 8 of 9 and the two Land Use Alternatives discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use; Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Chart 1: Vision Option Land Use Mix Residential Housing Area 3(3%) 35(38%) 35(38%) 35(38%) Office Area 62(66%) 28(29%) 25(27%) 25 (27%) Light Industrial / Office Area 19(20%) 15(16%) 18(19%) 18(19%) Mixed Use/ Retail Area 1 (1%) 5(5%) 11(12%) 11(12%) Hotel Area 0 3(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Park / Open Space Area 0(0%) 5.1(5%) 4.6(5%) 4.6(5%) Institutional / Church 7(8%) 2.5(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Chart 2: Land Use Vision Options Comparison WResidents* 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 Housing Units 1.6 msf 1.8 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF (^73 ksf retail) Employees" -4,700 Jobs - Housing Mix *Assumes 2.1 residents per unit **Assumes 3 employees per 1,000 square feet "20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 9 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 1.4 msf 1.6 msf 1.8 msf (-3 ksf retail) (-56 ksf retail) (^73 ksf retail) 4,200 -4,700 "5,400 O 0 0 2,700 to 3,200 1,300 to 1,500 1.7 msf ("73 ksf retail) -5,200 e oeo Better to worse Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 9 of 9 In reviewing this information, the EPC should consider which alternative best represents their vision for Terra Bella Avenue. Elements within each alternative discussed can be mixed and matched. EPC Question No. 1: Which Land Use Vision Alternative does the EPC prefer for Terra Bella? CONCLUSION Staff recommends the EPC provide input to the City Council on Preferred Land Use Vision Alternatives. NEXT STEPS The City Council will review the EPC input and comments at their March 05, 2019 Study Session. After that, the project team will continue preparing the Draft Vision Plan. Staff will return to the Council in May 2019 with the public draft of the Vision Plan and discussion on next steps and gatekeeper project review process. Final adoption of the Plan is anticipated by summer 2019. Prepared by: Approved by: Diana Pancholi Martin Alkire Senior Planner Principal Planner DP/ 3/ CDD/ 807-02-20-19SR Exhibits: 1. Summary of Prior Meetings 2. Public Comment Exhibit 1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses —especially mixed-use, residential, and retail — to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. asR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. PJ 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is available on the project web page. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles and Other Policies The EPC and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning plan area in October and November 2018. In summary, the Council members were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with 3 greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding rind les for the plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e. near Mor an Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and re uirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Council members supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as Job -housing balance and school strategies. al Exhibit 2 Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Diana, We live on Morgan Street, near the Terra Bella visioning plan area, and like many of our neighbors we are a dual -income working family with kids and have not had the free time to attend the workshop sessions that have been held. I wanted to send commentary ahead of the next round of reviews, after reviewing the latest proposals. We've notice that plans are calling for immediate transition from single -family -home zoning to 7 -story residential immediately adjacent to our neighborhood, which we've learned is not something that's been done in any other project like this. While we are not opposed to the conversion of light commercial zoning over to multi -story residential, this abrupt transition seems rather extreme and will significantly impact the character of our neighborhood. Three-story residential seems like a more reasonable limit that will still add a considerable amount of housing in a needed area. We recently remodeled our home to add a second story, and had a few learnings from that process which I wanted to make sure we shared with you. First, we were a borderline case with the EPA with regards to subfloor ventilation requirements due to our proximity to the groundwater plumes; the Terra Bella area is right on top of these and so there may be restrictions on residential building. Second, we learned through soil studies that the water table is already very high in our area, and the ground is at risk of liquefaction in an earthquake. For a two-story home, this required significant additions to our foundations in order to mitigate the risks, and limited our ability to dig. For dense multi -story construction, I can only imagine how much more would need to be done, and wonder if it is even possible to build dense residential of —7 stories (including what I'd expect to be underground parking for buildings of that size) with the local geology being what it is. It would be good to get these questions answered with a detailed study before too many conclusions are drawn regarding the size and height of buildings in the Terra Bella area. As frequent users of the Shoreline athletic facilities, we've also noticed the extreme traffic during the evening commute. As part of the development plans, I'd love to see both widening of the Shoreline Boulevard highway crossing, as well as addition of public transit from Terra Bella to the Shoreline office parks, in order to help ensure easy movement of traffic in and out of that area. The Terra Bella area will be highly desirable for tech workers to live there, and the current set of overpasses over 101 are really undersized for the amount of people that need to get in and out of that area every work day. Thanks for considering this input and we look forward to hearing more about the development plans. If the City has an e-mail interest list forming for the visioning plan, I'd be happy to be added. Thanks, Patrick Neschleba Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:46 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning - Input from Impacted Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We have recently been made aware of the plan for the redevelopment of the Terra Bella, Middlefield, Shoreline area. We have also become aware that only those areas whose residents speak up the loudest are being accommodated. Those of us who trusted the City to plan according to what is fair and right for the entire neighborhood are being ignored. Clearly our trust in the City has been misplaced. So here are our voices: WE VEHEMENTLY PROTEST THIS PLAN! 6 TO 7 STORY BUILDINGS TOWERING OVER OUR 1 STORY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! Linda and Michael Thomas Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:16 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Debbi Beauchesne; Chris Beauchesne; Sue Stabell; Sue Stabell-Work.Desk Subject: Terra Bella Vision - Morgan/Spring St. Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Diana, Thank you for taking the time to speak to us last night about the Terra Bella Vision Plan. It was good to hear about the plan first-hand from you. My Morgan Court neighbors and I felt we missed a good opportunity to add our input at last year's Vision Plan workshops, but we plan to be more vocal in the future. Anyway, in reviewing some of the information about the plan, I wanted to share some of my own thoughts with you. Hopefully better late than never... I counted about twenty Stierlin Estates 1 -story single-family residences, along San Pablo Drive area, bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. It sounded like that neighborhood was well represented at the previous Vision Plan Workshops. Unfortunately, my Morgan/Spring St neighborhood, was virtually unrepresented, partly because we have nothing resembling a homeowners association. We too have about twenty 1 -story single-family residences directly bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. I would hope that we would get equal consideration, just as the more organized Stierlin Estates homeowners did, when it comes to being mindful of the transition zones between our older 1 -story residences and the new construction. I personally feel that with the Terra Bella zone adjacent to so much residential, that 5-7 story buildings seem excessively high for most of the area. As I'm sure you've already been hearing from the Stierlin Estates residents, we in the Morgan/Spring St area also would like to see a thoughtful transition from our 1 -story homes to taller buildings. I'm thinking nothing more than 2-3 stories high adjacent to our residential properties would be acceptable, combined with a generous buffer space and perhaps a landscape screen or other consideration. Noise from our new neighbors should seriously be taken into consideration also. With that said, when I look at the proposal options, my thought would be to consider having the tallest buildings right along noisy/high traffic Shoreline Blvd, and perhaps along the freeways (they would make great sound walls!), all the while keeping them fairly far away from the existing single-family residences in the neighborhood. Taller buildings on Shoreline might make for a nice gateway into central Google, which could complement (or even copy) the beautiful new4-story Google building at the corner of Terra Bella &Shoreline. (Did I mention it's only 4 -stories?). I really think it would be best for us neighborhood residents to have the tallest buildings a minimum 1-2 blocks away from all the existing 1 -story residential. Thanks for listening and we look forward to hearing about future meetings on the topic. Please keep us posted with any developments and City Council dates on the matter. Sincerely, Eric Stabell Sent from my iPhone Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:06 PM To: City.Council Cc: , City Manager, Pancholi, Diana; Tim Schrotenboer Subject: Terra Bella Visioning To Mayor Siegel, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Councilmembers, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Terra Bella area yesterday evening at the council meeting. It was clear that the council and staff have spent many hours working toward a plan for this area that considers the needs of the larger community as it grows and changes, as well as taking the time to consider the existing residents in the area, for which I personally am very grateful. I wanted to take a minute of your time to request again that this plan be moved forward through the Precise Plan process. As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the Precise Plan process was what we were told would be used when we attended the first vision planning meeting this past June, and I believe it is the only responsible way to allow development in this area that is outside of the current zoning and general plan allowances. I understand that this area is not one of those identified as a change area within the General Plan; however, it has become clear that this is an area of interest for developers. I credit the council for recognizing that when multiple projects started coming in for this area, a broader, more holistic approach was needed, and starting the visioning process. As the developer interest in this area has continued, and even increased, I ask that council continue to build on the work that staff has already started, and incorporate the environmental studies that accompany a Precise Plan, including traffic impact reports, to help inform the density thresholds that make sense for this area as a whole. While all of the vision is good, and I have been encouraged by the plan as it has morphed and changed over the past months, we don't yet have a clear picture of what the impacts of the type and scale of the envisioned development would have on the area. Beyond not having that clear picture, an additional concern with moving forward without a Precise Plan is that we end up with infrastructure that is not unified. As projects come through the gatekeeper process, the frontage improvements, building setbacks, utility sizes, etc. are all considered for that project individually. A precise plan allows for not only the vision of the what the area could be, but the studies to show that the vision will function well once constructed, and the requirements to actually construct it that way. This is helpful to both neighboring residents and to developers, as they know exactly what will be required when a project is constructed. Another major concern is the community benefits item, and how that is incorporated into the area. As a number of council members mentioned, having a "floating' park may mean that the park gets pushed onto a piece of land that doesn't make sense for the area, or worse yet, not included at all. I am concerned about how the community benefit approach will be put into practice without the "teeth" of the requirements that generally come from a Precise Plan. A Precise Plan can also include phasing, which would ensure that the community benefits are constructed in tandem with the developments, and not pushed to the end. As a public sector employee myself, I am acutely aware that staff resources must be considered here. My request is to recognize that this area is a priority for development, and to direct the resources to develop it properly through the creation of a Precise Plan. Alternatively (and this is not my personal preferred alternative), only allow projects to move forward that meet with the current General Plan and zoning for the area. Each project that comes in under the gatekeeper process requires a certain amount of staff resources. If the amount of staff time and resources spent on each gatekeeper project could be combined and focused up -front on a Precise Plan, we would end up with an area more likely to benefit all community members. Thank you again for your time, your service to our community, and your attention to this area. Sincerely, Attachment 3 Pancholi, Diana From: Eric Stabell Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 7:00 AM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Matichak, Lisa; Abe-Koga, Margaret; Hicks, Alison; Kamei, Ellen; Clark, Chris; Ramirez, Lucas; McAlister, John Subject: Terra Bella Vision EPC Meeting Feedback Attachments: EPC 2019-02-20 Item 6.1 Staff Report Addendum.pdf, EPC Study Session Memo 2019-03-05.pdf, Terra Bella Addendum Figure 6 -Alt 5.png To: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner From: Eric Stabell, Mountain View Homeowner Re: EPC Meeting - Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Hello Diana, I'd like to give you some feedback from us homeowners in the neighborhoods surrounding Terra Bella regarding the recent Environmental Planning Commission meeting on Terra Bella Visioning. This includes many folks from both Stierlin Estates and the Morgan Street area. I was just reviewing your March 5 Study Session Memo "Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan - Land Use Alternatives", after you released the Addendum "Item 9.1 with Revised pages 11-13". It looks like corrections were made to the paragraph numbers, so they now match the numbers shown in Figure 6 /Alternative 5 Vision Map. For anyone else reading this, I want to first quote your PURPOSE statement that the Study Session Memo starts out with... "The purpose of this Study Session is to present revised land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan and summarize input from the February 20 Environmental Planning Commission meeting. Staff is seeking City Council input and policy direction on a preferred land use and next steps for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan." We want to state that, as a homeowners directly adjacent to the Terra Bella area, we felt that the EPC suggested many excellent visioning improvements for transitions to existing residential, but unfortunately many of the straw votes were deadlocked in a 3 to 3 tie. If they had all passed the EPC vote, I believe all the homeowners surrounding Terra Bella would have been very relieved and pleased to see the vision turn into something much more reasonable for the neighborhood. Myself and my neighbors would greatly appreciate if Planning Staff and the City Council could together consider implementing every one of the EPC suggestions into a new improved Vision Plan. Below is the list of the EPC's great suggestions, as copied directly from the Addendum of the March 5 Study Session Memo. I have underlined all the EPC suggestions that my neighbors and I are most in favor of. The accompanying Addendum Vision Figure 6/Alternative 5 map is included at the end. EPC Input At its February 2019 Study Session, the EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: Mixed Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 6—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3-3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher intensity residential (up to 7 stories) to lower -intensity residential (Lip to 3 stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to 6 stories to up to 3 stories (3 to 3 vote). 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to 2 stories immediately adjacent to existing RI -zoned property along the southeastern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (uug to 5 stories) to lower -intensity residential (0 to 3 stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to 7 stories to Lip to 5 stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). Figure : Ares of EPC Discussion P OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY � ao ,0 w 00 00 W a ADCK sr �4S, ■ � i■ 1 �° '1** # Residential /+'' ' +4► 0 4 P Vjr 46 Mix -ad me with flffira R@s&ratial go ■atv n. *44 Rel i LightInclu! D C]€fice •t1•}� �Ffice F r 4P Q < Lige Ir #40A4oced Resi*nual *#4*# W with r#c co h1ix�puc "R�ek('i�l *■ Sara ARoc Wa,•r £qy r��A4F N Cl ? Soo 1,00c) reet Residential (up to 3 stories) Of Residential iupto 5 stories) Of Residential (up to 7 stories) 0' Lid Terra Bella Vision Plan cul r-'trr m Min rm LAIN VIFW Mixed Use with Retail I' "' , Li( (U II Thank You, Eric Stabell Homeowner - Morgan Court 0 PROMETHEUS March 27, 2019 Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan - City Council Study Session on April 2, 2019 Dear Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers: We are excited about the City's Vision for Terra Bella and see this area as a terrific opportunity to achieve the City's goals for a more intensive mix of commercial and residential land uses. Prometheus Real Estate Group owns 918-940 San Rafael Avenue, totaling approximately two acres (formerly El Camino Paving site) highlighted on the attached map. Our hope is to be able to add housing units to this area and offset the amount of jobs that already exist or that will be added nearby. We support the City's vision to create safer paths of travel and promote connectivity in this area for all modes of transportation. However, we do not think that the current plan alternatives offer the best way to accomplish this due to the following reasons: 1. Alterative Path Locations - During the Community Workshops for the plan, the public supported shared travel lanes or buffered bike lanes along Terra Bella, San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues (two slides from the Workshops are attached) - adding any additional paths would be duplicative for Terra Bella. 2. Compromised Site Plans - Vision alternatives provide for a bike and pedestrian path within private property, which compromises the site plan opportunities for narrow parcels. 3. Bike Path Safety - Bike paths through city blocks rather than around blocks create additional safety hazards for bikers and pedestrians because of reduced public visibility and added street crossings. 4. Increased Public Access - Public access across private property, as currently planned, brings public access adjacent to the backyards of the existing single family homes of Sterling Estates. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the plan discussion, and we look forward to the results. Sincerely, vl"�-J Jon Moss Executive Vice President, Partner Prometheus Real Estate Group CC: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner, City of Mountain View Adam McMichael, Development Manager, Prometheus Real Estate Group 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 150 - San Mateo, CA 94403 1650.931.3400 0 PROMETHEUS Prometheus Project Map 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 150 — San Mateo, CA 94403 1650.931.3400 , .n vi,n."..r, %,, Alm vm .............p,.... r...... SAN PAI 3 O= O O = O q7 O�� J�� z SAI` C, h `¢ 960 Feet Future Tra Legend Building Footprints r i Project Boundary I n Existing/Proposed Transit Existing/Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Facilities -0-VTA routes/stops Class I Path Mountain View Go Class II Bike Lane Future BRT line/stops •••••• Class III Route •••"° Class IV Protected Bike Lane Terra Bella Avenue - Proposed • Buffered bike lanes (Class II bikeway) • On -street parking �II and/or flexible curbside zone for �II� loading and pick- up/drop-off of7.1 9 , _ passengers .ei ra Bella Vision Plan I Mountain View San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues — Proposed • Shared travel lane (Class III bikeway) • On -street parking and/or flexible curbside area on BOTH sides of the street for loading Ir and pick-up/drop-off of "09mm passengers Terra Bella Vision Plan I Mountain View EMBARCADERO REAL T Y S E R V I C E S March 27, 2019 Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan — Addition of Bike/ Pedestrian Path Dear Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers: ECI Four San Rafael LLC owns the office building located at 909 San Rafael Ave. We are concerned because the location of the future bicycle/pedestrian path as depicted on the Draft Vision Plans looks like it encroaches on our private property resulting in the reduction of our lot size and property value. Also, due to public accessibility, it would create both security and maintenance issues for us. While we support the City's Vision to create safer paths of travel and promote connectivity in the Terra Bella Area, we think the City should provide bike paths within the existing public right of ways such as Middlefield Road, Terra Bella Ave and Linda Vista Ave, rather than through private property. We will not support any such public pathways which would encroach on our property. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our feedback to the Vision Plan and we look forward to more discussions. Sincerely, OWNER: ECI Four San Rafael LLC By: EMBARCADERO REALTY SERVICES LP, Its Managing Agent By. �QtV1 1L� M wr47tqh-'1 Name: Shanna Murtagh Title: Regional Operations Manager 2479 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 135, Palo Alto, CA 94303 • (650) 494-6113 embarcaderocapita Ipartners.com Pancholi, Diana From: Albert Jeans Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:07 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella housing capacity Attachments: Residential Analysis.doc Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Diana, With the extra time caused by the delay in the City Council Study Session, I've been working on trying to understand how much building is possible in the Terra Bella area. With the help of a CAD program, I'm able to show that using typical apartment buildings, even 5 story buildings covering the residential zones designated in the options would have a hard time housing even the scaled back population in Option 6. There simply isn't enough room with the open space requirements and existing long term owners. These buildings include I level of podium parking since underground parking is not feasible in the area. I believe the number of residents needs to be significantly scaled back if the Vision Plan is to come anywhere close to reality. I'm attaching a report of my findings. Sincerely, Albert Jeans Estimating the Residential Capacity of the Terra Bella Area by Albert Jeans March 20, 2019 Up until now, we've been dealing with the Terra Bella area in a somewhat abstract sense: a colored map with projected numbers of residents. S.5°NiyCrr , N MogC T '• I ■ ♦ o ■ • i 363 W Residentialar O ♦��... �#• ♦�1� 707 • 1sce 4b 41110 .� Mixeduse ' J •� �♦ �, with Office Residential 04b 4Y��♦ qP # Retail Light Industrial/ .46 2110 60 41* Office ♦♦♦ O��C 4.Office ,, - TERRA BELLA AVE •• F/F Office - �� ♦�� > _ Light Industrial/ ' Light Industrial/ ♦♦ 2� R� ♦� m Residential r Office Office ��' Mth W Mixeduse • o �gR9"t'O,p 3P♦*� Mix Z Retell 21 7 Residential Residential ■ R. 270 ksf 9 QPPW ♦♦.. 6 $2 �'• = Residential esi enha � MARCOS QR 3P •�.�■ � fY*� J 2 SAN AftpO WAY o SAN PA8L0 DR � � /[ O O ¢O SAN CARRIZO WAV The areas (in thousands of square feet, ksf) were calculated by entering the map into a CAD program. But in fact, how much building does the area permit, and how many people could live there? The floating green dots representing open space also need to be dealt with. The de facto standard seems to be 3 acres per 1000 people. If 3000 people are housed in the area, that comes out to 9 acres or 392 ksf, a significant portion of the area available. Besides land that needs to be reserved for open space, some areas have long- term occupants (the Korean Baptist Church (153 ksf) and the Church of Scientology) which are unlikely to move, and the block at 1001 N. Shoreline Blvd. is already committed to an existing project, Shoreline Gateway (341 ksf including the Church of Scientology). What's left comes out to 1466 ksf as shown below in yellow. 1 We can get a rough idea of the residential capacity by simply taking known apartment buildings and trying to arrange them on the map. I did this by entering the plans for the apartment complex under construction at 500 Ferguson Dr. into the same CAD program. One possible arrangement is shown below. Note that these buildings are 5 stories tall: 1 story of podium parking and 4 floors of apartments or condos. The actual buildings use underground parking, but this is not feasible in Terra Bella due to a high water table and soil contamination. Here I've placed 31/22 -building complexes in the larger residential areas and also put in 305 ksf of open space (bright green) which is still short of the 374 ksf needed by the 2867 residents (including 498 in Shoreline Gateway) in this configuration, but some of the "leftover" yellow areas could also serve as open space. In estimating the number of occupants, I assumed one person per bedroom except in the case of 1 bedroom 2 apartments where I used an average of 1.5 persons. Of course these buildings were not designed to fit these lots; nevertheless they do a reasonably good job of filling the area. Despite this density of 5 -story buildings, this configuration only slight exceeds the minimum number of people in Option 6 of 2700. Implementing acceptable transitions to the single -story homes in the neighboring communities would certainly significantly reduce the number of people that could be housed. A more detailed analysis taking into account the interdependency of open space, residents, and building area is given in Appendix 1. The result is slightly fewer people, 2737, 3.3 apartment complexes, and 358 ksf (82 acres) of open space. A portion of the land adjacent to Shoreline Blvd. has been designated as "mixed use" and there have been recommendations to include residential there. Perhaps the equivalent of one more building (half a complex) could be put there, increasing the resident count to around 3050, but again, without transitions. Transitioning, especially around Morgan St., would make meeting the 2800 person goal of Option 6 challenging at best, if not impossible. The question we have to ask ourselves is, do we even want a dense mass of 5 -story buildings in the Terra Bella area? Will the infrastructure even support it? If not, then the projected populations for the area need to be drastically scaled back. I hope this report will give the reader a better feeling for what kind of development is realistically possible in the Terra Bella area. Appendix 1 Symbols A = area of all apartment complexes A, = area of one apartment complex (2 buildings) AT = total available area =1466 ksf (Churches & 1001 N. Shoreline subtracted) AO =open space area P = number of people housed in apartment complexes P, = number of people in one apartment complex = 679 PT = total number of people PS = number of people in 1001 N. Shoreline = 498 n = number of apartment complexes a = open space ratio = 3 acres = 0.1307—ksf 1000 people person To calculate the number of apartment complexes that can be built, one need only divide the available area by the area of one apartment complex. However, the available area is reduced by the open space requirement, which in turn depends on the number of people to be housed plus those in 1001 N. Shoreline. Since the number of people to be housed depends on the number of apartment complexes, we have a system of simultaneous equations. Then, AT= A + AO PT=P+PS AO = aPT P=nP, A n=— A, We can combine the first and third equations to eliminate AO and the last two equations to eliminate n: AT = A + aPT P AP PT =P+PS Combine to eliminate A and PT and solve for P: M AT = PA, +a(P+P,) AT- aPS = P Pl +a) P -- `� -aPS = 2239 people A, + a P, Then PT= P + PS = 2737 people Aa = aPT = 358 ksf n =— = 3.3 complexes These calculations are easily implemented in a spreadsheet. November 7, 2018 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 SUBJECT: Terra Bella Visioning Study Session on November 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers: SummerHill Housing Group appreciates the City's effort to establish a vision and land uses for the Terra Bella area. To help alleviate the housing crisis, SummerHill advocates for a housing -focused approach that delivers a variety of housing types, densities and price points, along with neighborhood serving retail, parks and recreational amenity space. SummerHill controls approximately four acres of land in the Terra Bella area (highlighted in green on the map on next page) and we have participated in the City's two workshops. To effectively inform the gatekeeper process, the Guiding Principles should be clear. Given its proximity to jobs, transportation and open space, the Terra Bella area offers the potential for significant housing. Allowing higher density will help the City address its challenging housing goals - including more affordable housing - and meet the need for additional housing to balance the City's recent and continuing employment growth. As such, we suggest the Council consider combining the ideas from the east half of Option 3 and the west half of Option 1 in order to envision a clear residential focus that helps the City meet its housing goals. Encouraging a greater residential focus in the Terra Bella area will help the City achieve its housing goals by taking the pressure off other planned residential areas, since the City must make up for any shortfall in residential production on sites already designated for housing in the Housing Element. Striving for a greater residential density also helps the City generate more affordable housing opportunities. In addition, permitting more flexibility in height, such as allowing seven (7) stories in select areas, while providing two - to three-story maximum heights in buffer zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods, helps projects produce more open space areas, better address contextual issues, and accommodate desired circulation improvements such as bikeways and other urban design features such as wider sidewalks and parks. Finally, establishing a focused vision for a higher density neighborhood in the Terra Bella area is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element and Land Use policies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Terra Bella Vision Plan and we look forward to your discussion and guidance. Sincerely, �aiia l�q�as�csru/ Katia Kamangar Executive Vice President, Managing Director 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com SUMMERHILL COMMUNITIES OF HOUSING DISTINCTION GROUP November 7, 2018 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 SUBJECT: Terra Bella Visioning Study Session on November 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers: SummerHill Housing Group appreciates the City's effort to establish a vision and land uses for the Terra Bella area. To help alleviate the housing crisis, SummerHill advocates for a housing -focused approach that delivers a variety of housing types, densities and price points, along with neighborhood serving retail, parks and recreational amenity space. SummerHill controls approximately four acres of land in the Terra Bella area (highlighted in green on the map on next page) and we have participated in the City's two workshops. To effectively inform the gatekeeper process, the Guiding Principles should be clear. Given its proximity to jobs, transportation and open space, the Terra Bella area offers the potential for significant housing. Allowing higher density will help the City address its challenging housing goals - including more affordable housing - and meet the need for additional housing to balance the City's recent and continuing employment growth. As such, we suggest the Council consider combining the ideas from the east half of Option 3 and the west half of Option 1 in order to envision a clear residential focus that helps the City meet its housing goals. Encouraging a greater residential focus in the Terra Bella area will help the City achieve its housing goals by taking the pressure off other planned residential areas, since the City must make up for any shortfall in residential production on sites already designated for housing in the Housing Element. Striving for a greater residential density also helps the City generate more affordable housing opportunities. In addition, permitting more flexibility in height, such as allowing seven (7) stories in select areas, while providing two - to three-story maximum heights in buffer zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods, helps projects produce more open space areas, better address contextual issues, and accommodate desired circulation improvements such as bikeways and other urban design features such as wider sidewalks and parks. Finally, establishing a focused vision for a higher density neighborhood in the Terra Bella area is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element and Land Use policies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Terra Bella Vision Plan and we look forward to your discussion and guidance. Sincerely, �aiia l�q�as�csru/ Katia Kamangar Executive Vice President, Managing Director 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com Cc: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner / City Clerk 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com L IIIA PARKING REQUIRED PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES �i 'Ir/I IIID/III/ rIII,III�\` \\VIII/�/,IIII IIID\'llV/VIII 2.6 SPACES / UNIT X 9 = 23 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED PRIVATE GARAGES 18S ACES TERRA BELLA AVE 3 I I I U O OPEN GUEST PARKING 5 SPACES I I I I TOTAL PARKING 2J SPACES PROVIDED Architecture+Planning a ou uu u12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 DD DENSITY STUDY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN S P.1 LOSAngeleS, CA 90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #171077 DECEMBER 17, 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 310 394 2623 �iGgyCem c0MMUN1-11ES 0f DIS[ INCIION PROJECT SUMMARY \ SITE AREA168,206 SF (3.86 AC) TOTAL UNITS 274 DU �\ DENSITY 71.0 DU/AC OR OSS FLOOR AREA 39],406 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO 236 FAR YARDS(SETBACKS) PROPOSED FRONT (NORTH) 9' STREET SIDE (EAST) 15' \ STREET SIDE (WEST) 9' INTERIOR SIDE 5 T 20' REAR (SOUTH) 33' (nAPARTMENTS SUMMARY: y `\ SITE AREA 130, 863 SF(300 Acre) UNITS 265 DU DENSITY 883 DU/AC 9�0 PO OFFICE/ INCUBATOR SPACE 19,000 SF GROSS FLOOR AREA 375,000 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO 2.86 FAR BUILDING HEIGHT 5 STORIES (4 OVER 1 PODIUM) s� UNIT MIX'. Type Beds Baths Area Units Mi. Phn 1A 1 1 700 112 \ Plan 1B 1 1 710 56 Plan Li 1 1 700 7 7 One Bedroom Mots' 175 66% Plan 2A 22 1,020 86 \ Plan 2B 2 2 1,095 4 Two Bedmon SuStotd 90 34% Total 215,160 265 INDOOR AMENITIES/ COMMON AREAS PROVIDED FITNESS/CLUB ROOM 3,400 SF \ 2500 SF CODS TGYA/LOBBV COURTRDS (d!PODIUM 30.000 SF TOTAL PROVIDED 35900 SF@135 SF/UNIT PARKING RATIO SPECIFIED (SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER PRECISE PLAN) OFFICEPARKING@1/250SF 76 SPACES RES. PARKING (d!12DU 318 SPACES 1 TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED J94 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED GROUND LEVEL 36 REST DENT SPACES ( 35GUEST SPACES (10% OF RES. PKG.) 77 OFF E SPACES BASEMENT RESIDENT 269 REDT SPACES (22 TANDEM) TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 417 SPACES BIKE PARKING _ LONG-TERM 268 SPACES PROVIDED(2-TIERED RACKS) AT AA AA AA AA FEESIMPLE TOWNHOMES SUMMARY . SITE AREA 37343 SF (0 86 Acre) UNITS DU `+ 19 DENSITY 105 DU/AC GROSS FLOOR AREA 22,406 SF(EXCL. 200 SFIUNIT FOR GARAGE) FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.60 FAR (0.6D FAR MAY, PER TOWNHOUSE) r BUILDING HEIGHT 2 STORIES, 35MAX UNIT MIX'. Type Beda Baths s AUnits I 2Smry 3 2.5 1850 9 OPEN AREA PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES REQUIRED MINIMUM 16, 804 SF @45% PROVIDED 16,821 SF@45% I BUILDING COVERAGE PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES REQUIRED MAXIMUM 13,070 SF @35% PROVIDED 11,700 SF@31% PAVEMENT AREA PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES REQUIRED MAXIMUM 9336 SF @25% PROVIDED 8,822 SF@24% O OPEN GUEST PARKING 5 SPACES I I I I TOTAL PARKING 2J SPACES PROVIDED Architecture+Planning a ou uu u12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 DD DENSITY STUDY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN S P.1 LOSAngeleS, CA 90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #171077 DECEMBER 17, 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 310 394 2623 �iGgyCem c0MMUN1-11ES 0f DIS[ INCIION �mmm m ,1 21 MEM, 2A 2A sv I vz A BASEMENT LEVEL O I I I I Architecture +Plano in9 a ou uu inu 12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 S,Ie100 TERRA BELLA DENSITY STUDY PODIUM FLOOR PLANS SP.Z L31 0 os Angeles, CA90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #1]1"1 DECEMBER 1], 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 394 2623 �i ktg ° COMMUNI-1IES 01 DIS[INC]ION LEVELS 3 THROUGH 2A sv I vz A BASEMENT LEVEL O I I I I Architecture +Plano in9 a ou uu inu 12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 S,Ie100 TERRA BELLA DENSITY STUDY PODIUM FLOOR PLANS SP.Z L31 0 os Angeles, CA90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #1]1"1 DECEMBER 1], 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 394 2623 �i ktg ° COMMUNI-1IES 01 DIS[INC]ION Pancholi, Diana From: Patrick Neschleba Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Diana, We live on Morgan Street, near the Terra Bella visioning plan area, and like many of our neighbors we are a dual -income working family with kids and have not had the free time to attend the workshop sessions that have been held. I wanted to send commentary ahead of the next round of reviews, after reviewing the latest proposals. We've notice that plans are calling for immediate transition from single -family -home zoning to 7 -story residential immediately adjacent to our neighborhood, which we've learned is not something that's been done in any other project like this. While we are not opposed to the conversion of light commercial zoning over to multi -story residential, this abrupt transition seems rather extreme and will significantly impact the character of our neighborhood. Three-story residential seems like a more reasonable limit that will still add a considerable amount of housing in a needed area. We recently remodeled our home to add a second story, and had a few learnings from that process which I wanted to make sure we shared with you. First, we were a borderline case with the EPA with regards to subfloor ventilation requirements due to our proximity to the groundwater plumes; the Terra Bella area is right on top of these and so there may be restrictions on residential building. Second, we learned through soil studies that the water table is already very high in our area, and the ground is at risk of liquefaction in an earthquake. For a two-story home, this required significant additions to our foundations in order to mitigate the risks, and limited our ability to dig. For dense multi -story construction, I can only imagine how much more would need to be done, and wonder if it is even possible to build dense residential of —7 stories (including what I'd expect to be underground parking for buildings of that size) with the local geology being what it is. It would be good to get these questions answered with a detailed study before too many conclusions are drawn regarding the size and height of buildings in the Terra Bella area. As frequent users of the Shoreline athletic facilities, we've also noticed the extreme traffic during the evening commute. As part of the development plans, I'd love to see both widening of the Shoreline Boulevard highway crossing, as well as addition of public transit from Terra Bella to the Shoreline office parks, in order to help ensure easy movement of traffic in and out of that area. The Terra Bella area will be highly desirable for tech workers to live there, and the current set of overpasses over 101 are really undersized for the amount of people that need to get in and out of that area every work day. Thanks for considering this input and we look forward to hearing more about the development plans. If the City has an e-mail interest list forming for the visioning plan, I'd be happy to be added. Thanks, Patrick Neschleba Pancholi, Diana From: Linda Thoma Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:46 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning - Input from Impacted Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We have recently been made aware of the plan for the redevelopment of the Terra Bella, Middlefield, Shoreline area. We have also become aware that only those areas whose residents speak up the loudest are being accommodated. Those of us who trusted the City to plan according to what is fair and right for the entire neighborhood are being ignored. Clearly our trust in the City has been misplaced. So here are our voices: WE VEHEMENTLY PROTEST THIS PLAN! 6 TO 7 STORY BUILDINGS TOWERING OVER OUR 1 STORY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! Linda and Michael Thomas Pancholi, Diana From: Eric Stabell Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:16 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Debbi Beauchesne; Chris Beauchesne; Sue Stabell; Sue Stabell-Work.Desk Subject: Terra Bella Vision - Morgan/Spring St. Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Diana, Thank you for taking the time to speak to us last night about the Terra Bella Vision Plan. It was good to hear about the plan first-hand from you. My Morgan Court neighbors and I felt we missed a good opportunity to add our input at last year's Vision Plan workshops, but we plan to be more vocal in the future. Anyway, in reviewing some of the information about the plan, I wanted to share some of my own thoughts with you. Hopefully better late than never... I counted about twenty Stierlin Estates 1 -story single-family residences, along San Pablo Drive area, bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. It sounded like that neighborhood was well represented at the previous Vision Plan Workshops. Unfortunately, my Morgan/Spring St neighborhood, was virtually unrepresented, partly because we have nothing resembling a homeowners association. We too have about twenty 1 -story single-family residences directly bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. I would hope that we would get equal consideration, just as the more organized Stierlin Estates homeowners did, when it comes to being mindful of the transition zones between our older 1 -story residences and the new construction. I personally feel that with the Terra Bella zone adjacent to so much residential, that 5-7 story buildings seem excessively high for most of the area. As I'm sure you've already been hearing from the Stierlin Estates residents, we in the Morgan/Spring St area also would like to see a thoughtful transition from our 1 -story homes to taller buildings. I'm thinking nothing more than 2-3 stories high adjacent to our residential properties would be acceptable, combined with a generous buffer space and perhaps a landscape screen or other consideration. Noise from our new neighbors should seriously be taken into consideration also. With that said, when I look at the proposal options, my thought would be to consider having the tallest buildings right along noisy/high traffic Shoreline Blvd, and perhaps along the freeways (they would make great sound walls!), all the while keeping them fairly far away from the existing single-family residences in the neighborhood. Taller buildings on Shoreline might make for a nice gateway into central Google, which could complement (or even copy) the beautiful new4-story Google building at the corner of Terra Bella &Shoreline. (Did I mention it's only 4 -stories?). I really think it would be best for us neighborhood residents to have the tallest buildings a minimum 1-2 blocks away from all the existing 1 -story residential. Thanks for listening and we look forward to hearing about future meetings on the topic. Please keep us posted with any developments and City Council dates on the matter. Sincerely, Eric Stabell Sent from my iPhone March 11, 2019 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan Dear Mayor Siegel and City Councilmembers: This letter is a response to the latest Vision Plan which depicts the location of a future bicycle/pedestrian path through the edge of my property at 915 Linda Vista. While I am excited to support Mountain View's growth, safer travel paths, and community connectivity — I am worried that this proposed path will reduce my privacy, security, and property value. The reduction of my lot size in favor of this path could potentially increase noise, theft, and need for maintenance. Please reconsider main thoroughfares such as Terra Bella or Middlefield Road, which have the size to accommodate a new and efficient bike path. I encourage the city council to consider using existing public right of ways, rather than private property. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Harry Cheung Pancholi, Diana From: Patti Schrotenboer Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:06 PM To: City.Council Cc: , City Manager; Pancholi, Diana; Tim Schrotenboer Subject: Terra Bella Visioning To Mayor Siegel, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Councilmembers, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Terra Bella area yesterday evening at the council meeting. It was clear that the council and staff have spent many hours working toward a plan for this area that considers the needs of the larger community as it grows and changes, as well as taking the time to consider the existing residents in the area, for which I personally am very grateful. I wanted to take a minute of your time to request again that this plan be moved forward through the Precise Plan process. As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the Precise Plan process was what we were told would be used when we attended the first vision planning meeting this past June, and I believe it is the only responsible way to allow development in this area that is outside of the current zoning and general plan allowances. I understand that this area is not one of those identified as a change area within the General Plan; however, it has become clear that this is an area of interest for developers. I credit the council for recognizing that when multiple projects started coming in for this area, a broader, more holistic approach was needed, and starting the visioning process. As the developer interest in this area has continued, and even increased, I ask that council continue to build on the work that staff has already started, and incorporate the environmental studies that accompany a Precise Plan, including traffic impact reports, to help inform the density thresholds that make sense for this area as a whole. While all of the vision is good, and I have been encouraged by the plan as it has morphed and changed over the past months, we don't yet have a clear picture of what the impacts of the type and scale of the envisioned development would have on the area. Beyond not having that clear picture, an additional concern with moving forward without a Precise Plan is that we end up with infrastructure that is not unified. As projects come through the gatekeeper process, the frontage improvements, building setbacks, utility sizes, etc. are all considered for that project individually. A precise plan allows for not only the vision of the what the area could be, but the studies to show that the vision will function well once constructed, and the requirements to actually construct it that way. This is helpful to both neighboring residents and to developers, as they know exactly what will be required when a project is constructed. Another major concern is the community benefits item, and how that is incorporated into the area. As a number of council members mentioned, having a "floating" park may mean that the park gets pushed onto a piece of land that doesn't make sense for the area, or worse yet, not included at all. I am concerned about how the community benefit approach will be put into practice without the "teeth" of the requirements that generally come from a Precise Plan. A Precise Plan can also include phasing, which would ensure that the community benefits are constructed in tandem with the developments, and not pushed to the end. As a public sector employee myself, I am acutely aware that staff resources must be considered here. My request is to recognize that this area is a priority for development, and to direct the resources to develop it properly through the creation of a Precise Plan. Alternatively (and this is not my personal preferred alternative), only allow projects to move forward that meet with the current General Plan and zoning for the area. Each project that comes in under the gatekeeper process requires a certain amount of staff resources. If the amount of staff time and resources spent on each gatekeeper project could be combined and focused up -front on a Precise Plan, we would end up with an area more likely to benefit all community members. Thank you again for your time, your service to our community, and your attention to this area. Sincerely, Patti Schrotenboer Pancholi, Diana From: Edith Hugo Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:45 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning meeting April 2, 2019 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Diana Please include this email in the packette which will go to the City Council for the April 2, 2019 Study Session To the Mountain View City Council: From: Mountain View Industrial Associates LLC owner/manager Edith Hugo Property location: 922 San Leandro Avenue This correspondence is to comment on the proposed Bike Path through properties connecting San Leandro Avenue and San Pablo Avenue with possible extensions. It appears from the site drawings that this Bike Path will go along the property line of 922 San Leandro Avenue and perhaps impact the property negatively by going into the property, past the property line, and using the area which is now permitted parking spaces. As the owners of this property have no desire to change the useage or sell this property, changing the property line and removing parking areas will not only reduce the value of the property, but limit it's useage. The property now falls within the desired usage of the proposed Vision Plan by providing small office and R and D space for people wishing to live and work in the Terra Bella Vision Area. Many of the tenants of this building now bike to work from their residences within the area and use the provided roadways to do so. Thus falling within the Vision Plan. As we fall within the Vision Plan, we would like to keep our property lines in tack. I propose that the City incorporate into the Vision, Bike Lanes within the now existing streets, which are already being used as "bike paths" to and from residences and the building. The proposed Bike Path between San Leandro and San Pablo is extraneous. There is also an advantage to having a bike lane in the existing streets as that is a preventative to habitational vehicles parking along the curbs and lining the street, causing issues of vagrancy and vandalism in the area. Having owned said property since 1982 I can attest to the fact that vandalism, crime and vagrancies have become a major problem in the area in the recent two years. To the point that I am now installing a fence and electronic gate to prevent negative impact on the property. A bike path as proposed would increase unwanted access to the property and encourage the same problems we are now encountering. I am therefore requesting the reconsideration of the placement of the proposed bike path. I proposed the Bike Path be placed as a lane on the existing City streets. Should you have any questions I will be present at the April 2nd meeting. Thank you, Edith G Hu o VIA Electronic Mail March 5, 2019 The Honorable Lisa Matichak Mayor City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94043 RE: Agenda Item 9.1—Terra Bella Visioning Dear Mayor Matichak and Council Members: Zappettini Investment Company (ZIC) owned and managed by the Zappettini Family is a longtime member of the Mountain View business community, with particularly deep roots in the Terra Bella neighborhood. We have enjoyed working with the City on the Terra Bella Visioning and look forward to our ongoing partnership throughout the process. The following are a few points for your consideration tonight. As you know, the Zappettini family is the majority stakeholder of property in the Terra Bella area on the west side of Shoreline Boulevard and first developed the properties in the 1970's. Our longtime holdings in this area provide us with the unique opportunity to deliver the City's ultimate vision for the western Terra Bella areaa complete ecosystem of residential, office, mixed-use, commercial, bicycle and pedestrian - friendly streets, open space, public spaces, and infrastructure—all knit together in a comprehensive way with appropriate densities that are sensitive to the neighboring conditions. First, as we have pointed out, we are sensitive to the transitional concerns expressed by single-family homeowners; therefore, we strongly believe that it makes sense to allow for higher, densities along W. Middlefield Road. As shown in the aerial below, W. Middlefield Road is at least 125 feet wide with a significant street median with mature tall redwood trees which serve as a buffer and transition that separates the two sides of the road from multi -family uses across the street (i.e. not single-family). Consequently, density along W. Middlefield Road not only makes sense in the Terra Bella Visioning context, but we believe it is where the density belongs, especially in light of the transition sensitivities. 235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 415, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 415 495 9222 1 WWW.ZAPPETTINI.COM 125 feet wide median + mature tall redwood trees which are a buffer and a transition Second, we would like to express our support for Alternative 5 as presented to the Environmental Planning Commission, with the optionality for higher densities of residential along West Middlefield and the potential for a hotel in the Mixed -Use with Retail location at the corner of Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. As the City continues this visioning for the area, we believe it is critical to provide maximum flexibility for future uses while being sensitive to the edge conditions. These edge conditions can be treated through the various transition strategies emphasized in staff's Study Session Memo. Third, we understand that the City Council will consider whether to add a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as a next step to the Visioning Plan adoption. Regardless of the City Council's decision on this point, The Zappettini family is prepared to put forth a comprehensive proposal for a gatekeeper to be a catalyst to redevelop a major portion of the west side of Terra Bella with a fully integrated, mixed-use community of which the city of Mountain View and its residents can be proud. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We appreciate the City's thoughtful deliberation on the future of the Terra Bella area. Sincerely, cc: Martin Alkire Diana Pancholi Aarti Shrivastava Thomas S. deRegt tpl r SV1 Kate Jorgensen 235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 41S, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 415 495 9222 1 WWW.ZAPPETTINI.COM Attachment 4 5.1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 23, 2019 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Terra Bella Vision Plan PURPOSE The purpose of this meeting is for the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) to provide a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Terra Bella Vision Plan and related materials included in this Staff Report. RECOMMENDATION That the EPC recommends to the City Council approval of the Terra Bella Vision Plan. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The EPC agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area (including property owners in the City of Sunnyvale) were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations (Wagon Wheel, North Whisman, and Slater). Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/ activeproj ects / terrabella. asp PROJECT OVERVIEW The Terra Bella Visioning process provided an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key topics like land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement the City Council direction on this project. The resulting Vision Plan is a guiding document that can inform future creation of a Precise Plan to accomplish the identified vision for the area. While some specific objectives may be articulated for preferred land uses, intensity of development, and general circulation conditions, the Terra Bella Vision Plan does not establish specific Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 2 of 11 regulations or regulate land use, zoning, or properties. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. This can be achieved through a future Terra Bella Precise Plan or by evaluating Gatekeeper applications in the area. BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Vision Plan process started in April 2018 as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and to develop strategies to guide future development. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. The Terra Bella Visioning process has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and two EPC and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Exhibit 2. City Council Meeting—April 2, 2019 The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on the preferred land use alternative and key policy considerations in February and April 2019. City Council direction included the following: • Preferred Land Uses: Council supported a Lower -Intensity Land Use Alternative 6 (refer to Exhibit 3) with a focus on achieving better transition to single-family residential neighborhoods; preserving small business in the area; and an option for up to five -story residential building heights south of Terra Bella Avenue along Middlefield Road with the ability to expand the adjacent Crittenden Middle School site. Figure 1 shows the revised land use map based on this direction. EL7rg4VE G 44 Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 3 of 11 Figure 1: Proposed Land Use Vision OLD MIDDLEFIELD WRY 0 x z i� '1 1 r+r r • i' Reald•ntpl �,��rrr, ■ o ♦.r 0.\\\\1 • fFo_ k, Ret=ti.�nr�,l ♦fir• , ✓& Mi rn �+ �J L4JN 30 MA�'accsoR 5kl,6q,t Tarr 4fhce ReEMennal '/ r•- Light ftd.t la1l % �•! r - oMce •s� TERRA RELLAAYE �r Oft. TERRA # light � ' `ItedusvW!' Intluirnay+ �■ m Duca anlee � ''r•� M� z FReaMeMial` Reyidenttal � �`• r�ResltYnrW �i� an.[lil t5n� k i SAN CORi7o WAr �r ■■■■■� A 0 ?50 500 1,000 Feet Residential lupto3storlesl Office (up to3stories) . Plan Boundary Residential Cup to 5 storlesh Office (up to 5 stories) env Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 storlesh Light Industrial/Office New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to2stories) • New Pedestrianf0lke Path Ml)*d Use with Retall ff , j1/� Light Industrial / Office (up to 4 stories) Potent Dedicationlchoal • Development Strategies: Council supported inclusion of key development strategies for achieving the vision for the area. These key strategies address school; jobs -housing linkage; neighborhood transition, affordable housing, parking and traffic mitigation/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM); small business preservation; and parks and open space. These have been incorporated in the Vision Plan in Chapters 3 and 4, and are also discussed later in this report. • Precise Plan Need: At the Council meeting, staff presented a comparison of a Precise Plan against one off development through Gatekeeper projects. Council discussed the implementation of this Vision Plan and a majority of the City Councilmembers agreed upon a need for a Precise Plan in the future for achieving the goals of this Vision Plan. The City Council also supported Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 4 of 11 the idea of requiring a Master Plan for the west of Shoreline Boulevard Plan area. ANALYSIS The Vision Plan (Exhibit 1) is organized into five chapters. The following is a summary of each chapter. 1. Chapter 1 includes background information about the area, key considerations in the Plan area, and how the Plan relates to other City regulations and plans. 2. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the policy foundation of the Plan, including guiding principles and the community outreach effort. A summary of the community workshops and stakeholder interviews is included in Appendix B. 3. Chapter 3 includes the land use vision and development character for the area, design guidelines for buildings, frontages, open spaces, and transition strategies. 4. Chapter 4 includes development principles for future development and an implementation framework. The Plan's major strategies include: Jobs - Housing Linkage, Affordable Housing, Small Business Preservation, Public Open Space, Schools District Strategy, and TDM. 5. Chapter 5 includes the transportation network vision for the area and street design concepts. VISION PLAN KEY STRATEGIES In previous Study Sessions, the City Council and EPC have discussed and supported several key strategies for the Plan area. These strategies are a key component for implementing the vision for the Plan area and are summarized below. Master Plan At the April 2019 Study Session, the City Council recognized the need for a Precise Plan to achieve various goals of the Vision Plan. The City Council also supported a Master Plan for the west of Shoreline Boulevard areas. Though a Precise Plan for Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 5 of 11 this area is not a priority work item for the City at this time, need for more organized development process has been emphasized at various occasions by the City Council. In response to City Council direction and in the absence of a Precise Plan, staff proposes a Master Plan process. Any development not consistent with existing zoning and the General Plan will require a Gatekeeper authorization and a Master Plan application. A Master Plan process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella Avenue to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing project flexibility. The Vision Plan provides requirements for a Master Plan for the east and west sides of Shoreline Boulevard. The Plan also lists the minimum components and key development strategies (as discussed below) for the Master Plan application. These development strategies are potential measures to reach higher development intensities above current zoning. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Vision Plan for further details. Staff is proposing this master planning process based on City Council direction and a logical solution to achieve the Plan's vision without a Precise Plan. Staff notes that east and west of Shoreline Boulevard have a very different character and parcel configurations as shown in Figure 2 below. Therefore, individual Master Plans for the east and west sides are recommended. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 6 of 11 Figure 2: Plan Area Parcel Map 0 OLD MIDDLE F#ELD WAV � m 2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �rtOo�FFrF�►. .. Yea *9 d s'f,y�4RfDi CryI SAY IVIS ", N o 2so 500 A Terra Bella Vision Plan CITY OP MMVI THIN V117 rar ♦� iF■■A 8Fl1A AYF O J o a, +........................................... �■ ..:.t Afl flO WAY SAN PaAIOpR aa� ik 1,000 Feet Legend 0-0.5acres 2.0-3.5 acres 05-1.0acres 3.5-5.Oacres I� 1,0-2.Oacres 5.0-10.oaue5 Project Boundary b, ti Parcel Size Throughout the visioning process, there has been considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. This has been incorporated in the Plan and includes increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs; 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes; orienting primary windows away from existing homes; providing landscape buffers; and limiting balconies. The Vision Plan includes transition standards with guidelines for transitions along Rock Street and the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood (refer to Chapter 3). Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 7 of 11 Parks and Open Space Strategy During the visioning process, creating new parks and open spaces was identified as a top priority. Community members expressed a strong desire that new open spaces be publicly accessible and include green spaces, not just hardscaped plazas. The Plan vision provides new publicly accessible parks and open spaces on both the east and west sides of Shoreline Boulevard to serve the needs of the Plan area. Per the current City park land dedication requirements, the preferred land use development for the Vision Plan area would require 16 acres of park land. Based on the development potential, the Vision Plan guidelines require a minimum of 4 - acre park land dedication on each side of Shoreline Boulevard (refer to Chapter 3). The park land requirement can be met through land dedication, privately owned, publicly accessible open space, sharing of school open space, and park in -lieu fees. The vision also includes additional sharing of open space on the west side of Shoreline Boulevard with a future school site extension. Conceptual open space locations are shown in Figure 3. Achieving this vision will require a coordinated effort between the City, property owners, and project developers, including land dedication by residential projects, City purchase using park land dedication in -lieu funds, and creation of public plazas and open space by nonresidential projects. The Vision Plan open space guidelines state that the new nonresidential development should provide on-site, publicly accessible open spaces under private ownership, such as plazas, landscaped areas, and public art installations. Specific locations and sizes would be determined during the project review process. The Plan prioritizes new park and open space locations near housing, commercial uses, and public paths. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 8 of 11 Figure 3: Vision Plan Conceptual Open Space OLD IstIDDLEFIELo wav Z S n LA A VENIDA yy O 9.. W 2 ♦A Pou Si t °'4EWAV[ F 4 Y ANF -04E SqN MAAS SAN [UV,5g4T y O3$yy d �$ g_...-..�...- �5 SAN (ARRJZO WAy N :lllll: /l 0 250 S00 1,000reet ;■■l■■: Plan Boundary ) Conceptual Public Open Space • New Street . Conceptual Joint -We School Park Site" New Pedestrian/Bike Path Terra Bella Vision Plan Existing Parks/Open Space Cur ra M111111— V11 Tral is Enact bcadon wtlt be determined os port of master proal developmenrmfewprocess. Small Business Preservation Terra Bella is home to many small businesses. Preserving these small businesses is a key to Terra Bella's vision. In previous discussions, the City Council has supported the land use vision along with preserving small businesses in the east of Shoreline area to maintain smaller, more affordable spaces for start-ups, small businesses, and nonprofits. The Plan requires new development projects to provide support for small businesses, such as including small, flexible work spaces within new buildings, rent subsidies for small or local businesses, and relocation assistance (refer to Chapter 4). Parking and TDM Guidelines Concerns about spillover parking into existing neighborhoods and parking demand from the new development were emphasized by the community Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 9 of 11 throughout the visioning process. The Vision Plan incorporates parking standards consistent with the East Whisman Precise Plan where the City is exploring aggressive parking standards along with higher trip reduction goals to limit traffic congestion in the area. All the new developments in the area will have to meet the City's TDM requirements. The Plan further includes a target for no net -new trips generation from employment generating uses, i.e., office and research and development uses (refer to Chapter 4). Affordable Housing The Plan envisions the Terra Bella area as including a variety of housing types at varying income levels. The City Council has stated that the Vision Plan should help to create as much affordable housing as possible. The Vision Plan guidelines require any new residential development projects in the area to provide 20 percent affordable units (refer to Chapter 4). This goal is higher than the City's current affordable housing requirements but is consistent with some of our recent Precise Plans, including the East Whisman Precise Plan. School District The City has multiple policy goals for increasing the number of housing units in the City in response to the Bay Area's housing crisis. The City has been creating Precise Plans, authorizing Gatekeepers, and approving housing projects in support of these goals. Over 6,500 net -new units have been approved or are under review. The majority of the City's housing growth is expected within the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) boundaries, including the North Bayshore, East Whisman, and Terra Bella areas. Local school districts have raised concerns about their ability to accommodate students from these new housing developments. To support the school districts, the City has included "Local School District Strategy" language in the recently adopted North Bayshore Precise Plan and draft East Whisman Precise Plan. A Citywide school strategy was also discussed at the last City Council Study Session on October 15, 2019. At this meeting, Council supported proposed School Land Strategy, including City and developer contributions in the form of shared open space, land dedication, and off-site Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Staff will return to Council in winter 2020 with further analysis and options for appropriate contribution from Office and Residential Developments. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 10 of 11 The Vision Plan area is adjacent to Crittenden Middle School to the west along Middlefield Road. During the visioning process, various stakeholders, including the school district and the community, expressed interest and the need for addition/ expansion of school facilities to accommodate demand from future growth. Similar to the North Bayshore and East Whisman Precise Plans, the Vision Plan also identifies a local school strategy as a key requirement and potential measure to reach higher development intensities (refer to Chapter 4). New development under any Master Plan shall propose a Local School District Strategy to the school districts and the City, intended to support new local schools serving the Vision Plan area. The strategy may include, but is not limited to, land dedication for new school development; additional funding for new school development; TDR strategies to benefit developer(s) that provide new school facilities; or other innovative strategies supporting schools. Jobs -Housing Linkage The City has been developing a jobs -housing linkage strategy with the draft East Whisman Precise Plan. The Precise Plan emphasized the need for a better jobs - housing balance in the City by requiring commercial development to support and facilitate residential development. Job -housing balance has also been identified as a key consideration in the Terra Bella area. The Vision Plan requires a "jobs - housing linkage" program to ensure residential development is balanced with office and R&D growth. The expectation is that all new office and R&D development will help facilitate residential development through jobs -housing linkage strategies, which could include: direct construction of housing, dedication of land suitable for housing, contribution of fees to offset costs for residential development, residential development partnerships, purchase of existing office square footage from residential developers who demolish office buildings, and other creative strategies or partnerships that support or facilitate housing development (refer to Chapter 4). CONCLUSION The Terra Bella Vision Plan Process gathered input on community preferences on key topics such as land use and development strategies. The Visioning Plan summarizes public input received during the visioning process and includes guidelines for future development in the area. The visioning process also defines guiding principles to support review of future projects in the area. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 11 of 11 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend modifications to the Final Terra Bella Vision Plan. 2. Do not accept the Final Terra Bella Vision Plan. Prepared by: Approved by: Diana Pancholi Senior Planner Martin Alkire Advanced Planning Manager DP-MA/5/CDD 807-10-23-19SR Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director Exhibits: 1. Draft Terra Bella Vision Plan 2. Previous Meeting Summary 3. City Council Study Session Staff Report, April 02, 2019 terra bella Exhibit 1 City of Mountain View November 2019 FA 0 Lipi table of contents Plan Context and Location Key Considerations in the Plan Area Relationship to Other Plans Vision Guiding Principles Community Conversations and Engagement Process Vision Plan Frontage Types and Character Transition Areas Parks and Open Space Floor Area Ratio Maximum FAR Jobs -Housing Linkage Small Business Preservation Parking and TDM Master Planning Process Transportation Network Reversible Bus Lane New Internal Access Roads Walking and Bicycling Connections Street design concepts Appendix A: Existing Conditions Appendix B: Community Workshop and Online Survey Results 6 8 9 12 13 15 20 25 28 32 36 37 39 39 40 44 48 48 48 50 52 acknowLedgments City Council • Lisa Matichak, Mayor • Margaret Abe-Koga,Vice Mayor • Christopher R. Clark • Alison Hicks • Ellen Kamei • John McAlister • Lucas Ramirez Former Councilmembers • Ken Rosenberg • Pat Showalter • Lenny Siegel Environmental Planning Commission • Pamela Baird (Chair) • Margaret Capriles • Robert Cox (Vice Chair) • William Cranston • Preeti Hehmeyer • Kammy Lo • Joyce Yin City Managment • Daniel H. Rich, City Manager • Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director • Michael Fuller, Public Works Director • Jesse Takahashi, Finance and Administrative Services Director • Krishan Chopra, City Attorney Former City Management • Randal Tsuda, Former Community Development Director • Jannie Quinn, Former City Attorney Former EPC members • John Scarboro Vision Plan Project Staff • Diana Pancholi, Project Manager, Community Development • Martin Alkire, Advance Planning Manager, Community Development • Stephanie Williams, Current Planning Manager, Community Development • Renee Gunn, Public Works Consultant Team • Raimi +Associates • Nelson\Nygaard • Seifel Consulting Additional Support Provided by: • Mountain View Chamber of Commerce Cho introduction I iO Introduction Located in the northern part of Mountain View along Shoreline Boulevard just south of Highway 101, the Terra Bella neighborhood consists mainly of low -intensity office and light industrial uses surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods. During the 2030 General Plan update process, the City, in collaboration with the community, identified a number of change areas in the city fortargeted growth and development. Terra Bella was not identified as a change area and therefore no specific vision was identified for the area during the 2030 General Plan update process. However, after several years of interest from developers and property owners to build housing and higher -intensity office in the area, the City Council directed staff to study existing conditions n the area and launch a process to understand the community's vision for the future for this area. This Vision Plan guides the transition of the Terra Bella area to a neighborhood with a greater mix of land uses, with new homes, spaces for small businesses and non -profits, open spaces, and multiple mobility options. The Vision Plan is based on community input gathered during the summer of 2018 through spring of 2019. It highlights common preferences, as well as topics with diverging input. This Plan includes preferred land uses, intensity, character, and development principles which will provide a foundation to review and evaluate future development projects in the area or recommend further study or analysis. It also identifies mobility, open space, and other key opportunities and strategies. Purpose and Authority The purpose of the Terra Bella Vision Plan is to: • Define a vision and guiding principles forfuture development • Provide direction on the preferred use, intensity, and character of future development • Identify mobility, open space, and other improvements in the area • Provide recommendations for future study and analysis The Vision Plan provides a foundation to review and evaluate future development projects in the area. The Vision Plan does not replace the existing zoning code or augment building safety codes or other non -planning related codes. All applications for new construction, substantial modifications to existing buildings, and changes in land use shall be reviewed for consistency with the Terra Bella Vision Plan. Additionally, any new development not consistent with the current General Plan orzoning designation forthe area will require City Council "gatekeeper authorization" to amend the General Plan orzoning designations. w z Plan Context and Location Z O The Terra Bella Vision Plan area covers approximately 110 acres south of Highway 101 and east of State Route 85. The area is bounded by West Middlefield Road to the LL south and Crittenden Middle School/ Whisman Sports Centerto the west, and is bisected by North Shoreline Boulevard. The area is characterized by a mix of industrial O uses, office buildings, single family homes, and public facilities. The Plan area abuts the North Bayshore Precise Plan area to the north beyond Highway 101. Figure ~ 1-1 shows the Plan area boundary. U 11 Figure i -i. Plan Area Boundary �{!'b# ■* ■SMA■` ■ �R -MailaYF Fir � m 44 qL s #�',5,# j■■ ate■*R rs........... fafrrorwr Fs�■iaris.+'� r N 11 250 500 1.OW Feet Terra Bella Vision Plan Pian Boundmy :*memo: 7 Key Considerations in the Plan Area The project team analyzed background information and existing conditions in Terra Bella to provide a general understanding of the Plan area's land use, urban form and character, open space, mobility, and environmental conditions. The detailed data and analysis can be found in Appendix A Existing Conditions. The issues and opportunities identified through this analysis were used to develop the Plan vision, guiding principles, and recommendations. The following is a summary of the key considerations in the Terra Bella area. 1. Parks and open spaces. Though there are public parks located outside of the Terra Bella area, there are no public parks or community gathering spaces within the neighborhood. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is in need of additional open space to meet the City's goal. 2. Traffic and parking. Traffic congestion is a key issue in the area, particularly along North Shoreline Boulevard which funnels vehicles in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore. Appropriate mobility policies and mitigation measures should be applied to new development to reduce the number of new vehicle trips and parking spillover to nearby neighborhoods from new development. 3. Walking and bicycling conditions. Major auto -oriented roadways including US -101, SR -85, Shoreline Boulevard, and Middlefield Road create high stress conditions and substantial barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access in, out and through the area. Additionally, long block lengths in Terra Bella, particularly west of North Shoreline Boulevard, has resulted in poor pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by reducing opportunities for crossings and direct routes. Building pedestrian/bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), protected bikeways and full-time bike lanes, and breaking up large blocks with streets or greenways can improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 4. Mix of uses. Terra Bella consists of predominately office and light industrial uses, with limited residential and retail uses. The result is a commuter -oriented environmentwith limited neighborhood amenities.A diverse mixof uses and activities should be encouraged in Terra Bella while maintainingthe unique character of the area. 5. Development and building character. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of Shoreline Boulevard, includes large suburban office parks. In many cases, buildings do not face directly onto the street and have deep front and side setbacks, with little interaction between private properties and public areas. Active and well-designed building frontages are crucial for creating a more inviting, pedestrian -oriented environment that will attract people to walk, gather, shop, and spend time. 6. Residential adjacency. The Terra Bella area is bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast, including Rock Street and the Stierlin Estates neighborhood. Future development should be designed to respect and benefit the adjacent single-family neighborhoods by providing additional amenities for residents, improving multimodal access, and creating appropriate transitions to existing homes. Z 7. Small business preservation. Terra Bella, particularly the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard, is home to an eclectic mix of small businesses, light industrial Z uses, and non profits. Redevelopment of the area could continue to put upward pressure on property values and rents, leading to displacement of small pbusinesses. The Vision Plan includes several strategies to preserve small businesses in the area. I O 8. Environmental conditions. Contaminated sites in Terra Bella, particularly the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund site west of North Shoreline Boulevard, pose a concern for new development. While cleanup activities are still ongoing, further studies and remediation will likely be required as new development is U considered in this area. 8 PLan Structure The Vision Plan is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 2: Vision and Guiding Principles describes the vision and guiding principles to direct future development and improvements in Terra Bella. Chapter 3: Land Use and Community Design describes the overall land use vision for Terra Bella and includes standards relating to land use, development intensity, height, transitions, frontage type and character, and parks and open space. Chapter 4: Development Principles Framework provides guidance on desired community benefits in the Plan area, including affordable housing, small business preservation, parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and other contributions from property owners and project applicants. Chapter 5: Mobility establishes the overall street network, street design, bicycle and pedestrian networks, and other transportation improvements in the area. Appendix A: Existing Conditions provides a description of the current conditions in the Terra Bella Vision Plan area related to land use, urban form and character, open space, mobility, and environment. Appendix B: Community engagement summaries describe the engagement activities and input provided by the community throughout the process. ReLationship to Other PLans 203o General Plan The General Plan includes policies for Citywide development and general land use. The Vision Plan is guided by the General Plan's goals, policies, and urban design direction. Zoning Ordinance The City of Mountain View's Zoning Ordinance establishes zoning districts, permitted uses, development standards, and procedures to align with the General Plan. These regulations apply to properties and projects in Terra Bella. The land use and development standards and guidelines in this document do not supersede the land use and development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Picvcle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan The Terra Bella Vision Plan builds on the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2013 Pedestrian Master Plan. These transportation plans provide strategies and improvements to encourage active transportation. Relevant projects and improvements are shown in the Mobility Chapter. 1.1 Shoreline Boulevard Transportation Study A 2014 study of the Shoreline Boulevard corridor recommended a package of comprehensive of new treatments for the street. Among these treatments, the study recommended a reversible transit lane extendingfrom Middlefield Road north to Plymouth/Space Park Way in North Bayshore. The lane would be used by northbound buses on weekday mornings and by southbound buses on weekday afternoons. It would feature median and curb -side stops at Terra Bella Avenue and Pear Avenue. In addition to North Bayshore transit service, regularVTA routes and othershuttle services would be eligible to use the lane. Key design features will include dedicated transit signals, physical barriers, pavement markings, and high visibility signage. Additional recommendations include protected intersections, protected bikeways along Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road, and a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over US -101. Mountain ViewAutomated Guideway Transportation Feasibility Study In 2018, the City of Mountain View completed a study that evaluated innovative ways to address the anticipated increase in commutertraffic between Mountain View's Downtown Transit Center and North Bayshore. The study assessed how the introduction of an automated guideway transportation (AGT) system might successfully integrate into other transportation improvement strategies and projects throughoutthe City overtime. Based on the evaluation, the study concluded that an Automated Transit Network (ATN - automated vehicles operating on a network of guideways, including both personal and group rapid transit) and autonomous transit vehicles were best suited for the study area which includes the North Shoreline Boulevard area. North Bayshore Transportation Access Study (2017) The North Bayshore Transportation Access Study recommends serving the North Bayshore area with a fleet of buses and autonomous vehicles (AVs) that travel along RT Jones Road and Charleston Road in the short term. In the long term, the study recommends conducting an analysis of AVs on the Highway 101 alignment and light rail on the RT Jones alignment. Recommended infrastructure improvements include a Charleston Road Bridge crossing at Stevens Creek, new transit centers at the Bayshore/NASA Light Rail station and Moffett Boulevard, and a series of dedicated AV stations throughout the area. w Z H Z O i LL O } H U 10 Chothe vision �o I" rin and cimaina Prinenn The Terra Bella area transitions into a complete neighborhood with a wider diversity of uses, open spaces, and amenities. Terra Bella continues to serve as an employment area in Mountain View, home to both large and small businesses, including light industrial and manufacturing, office, retail, and service uses. Existing local small businesses and organizations remain as a valuable part of the neighborhood fabric. Residential units accommodate a range of incomes, ownership types, and life stages. The intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue serves as a multimodal, mixed-use hub for the community. North Shoreline Boulevard is transformed into a complete street and an active and vibrant mixed-use corridor with shops, restaurants, services, and hotels that caterto both office workers and residents. Residents and workers have easy multimodal access to parks and open spaces. Neighborhoods east and west of North Shoreline Boulevard integrate different land uses and buildings to create a pedestrian- and bicycle - friendly, human -scaled, well-designed urban environment. Buildings are located close to the sidewalk to create a distinctive urban street. Buildings with doors and windows oriented to the street support lively and comfortable pedestrian activity. New buildings are designed to respect the scale and character of adjacent residential neighborhoods, such as Rock Street and Stierlin Estates. Terra Bella is a well-connected neighborhood, with multimodal access to major employment and commercial centers, Caltrain, light rail, and regional open space amenities, such as Shoreline Park and Stevens Creek. Transit investments along North Shoreline Boulevard improve service to key destinations, including Downtown and North Bayshore. Large blocks are broken up into human -scale blocks that make it safer, easier, and more comfortable to walk in and around the neighborhood. New pedestrian and bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), low - street facilities, and streetscape improvements promote active transportation throughout the area. Guiding Principles The Terra Bella vision is supported by the following guiding principles. The principles connect the overarching vision with the Plan's land use and mobility plan and development principles. These guiding principles establish a reference point for stakeholders and decision -makers as new development is reviewed. s. Maintain Terra BeLLa as an area for employment Terra Bella maintains a mix of employment generating uses including office, R&D, light industrial, retail, and service uses. Local small businesses and non -profits, alongside larger companies, contribute to an economically -diverse area. 2. Create neighborhoods With balanced and integrated Land uses Terra Bella transitions to a more complete neighborhood with a mix of uses, including office, R&D, light industrial, residential, retail, service, and open space. New retail, services, and parks support housing development and surrounding neighborhoods, and create a vibrant neighborhood with both day and nighttime activity. I Maximize Land use flexibility The Plan provides flexibility to allow individual property owners to develop residential, mixed-use, office, light industrial, or commercial uses, responding to market changes and other factors. 4. Promote housing at variety of income levels and ownership types The Terra Bella area provides a variety of housing types, both market rate and affordable housing, and creates more housing choices in the neighborhood to serve a diverse demographic of new and existing residents. New housing includes a mix of ownership and rental housing. 5. Create walkable blocks with buildings that support the public realm A fine-grained network of pedestrian -oriented streets provides safe, efficient, and attractive walking and biking routes throughout Terra Bella. Human -scaled building design and active frontages help shape and define the public spaces, creating an inviting pedestrian environment, and enhancing neighborhood character. 6. Respect the character of adjacent neighborhoods, such as Rex Manor, Rock Street, and Stierlin Estates New development in Terra Bella is designed to respect surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. New projects provide context -sensitive design transitions in bulk, height, and massing. Appropriate buffers, including setbacks and landscaping, are provided between new development and existing single- family homes. 13 7. Create new public parks and open spaces Terra Bella adds new neighborhood parks, plazas, community facilities, and other public open spaces to provide a place for the community to gather, socialize, and play. 8. Minimize vehicle trips and congestion The Plan prioritizes walking, biking, and transit throughout the area. New transit investments along North Shoreline Boulevard better connect residents and workers to jobs and services in Downtown and North Bayshore. Parking management solutions, such as sharing of spaces between uses, district parking supply, structured parking, and parking demand reduction measures, discourage single -occupancy trips and encourage more efficient use of parking resources. g. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity The Plan focuses on better pedestrian and bicycle connections to destinations throughout the neighborhood. An interconnected street grid, sidewalk enhancements, and new bicycle facilities provide safe, direct, and pleasant walking and biking routes for residents, employees, and visitors. 1o. Preserve space for a number of small, employment -generating uses Terra Bella supports an environment where diverse businesses can flourish and thrive. The area east of North Shoreline Boulevard features small and flexible work spaces to support retention of existing small businesses and light industrial uses. 11. Ensure new development provides community benefits New development in Terra Bella provides public benefits servingthe whole community, such as parks and public space, support for local schools, small business support, public art, community facilities, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and shared parking. 12. Promote environmental sustainability Terra Bella features sustainable and innovative development that includes green building, energy efficiency, water conservation, and stormwater management best practices. 14 Community Conversations and Engagement Process The Terra Bella visioning community engagement process took place from June 2018 to April 2019. Several community engagement tools were used to gather a wide range of community input, including three community workshops, one-on-one meetings, online surveys, stakeholder interviews, and Environmental Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Common community preferences that were emphasized repeatedly by participants at workshops, public meetings, and through online tools are highlighted throughout this plan. Community Workshop 1 - June 2, 2o18 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project, and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. Participants generally supported introducing a more balanced mix of land uses and higher -intensity development in Terra Bella but also voiced concerns in the following areas: 1. Transitions to existing residential neighborhoods. Existing residents expressed concern that new higher -intensity development would create shade and privacy impacts on adjacent single-family homes. 2. Traffic and parking. There was concern that new development would increase traffic and parking spillover in and around existing neighborhoods. 3. Current lack of parks and open space. Community members wanted to ensure the provision of parks and open space in the area to meet the needs of both current and future residents. 4. Potential displacement of existing small businesses. Community members and business owners expressed concern that new development in the area could lead to the displacement of existing small businesses. A summary of the workshop and online survey outcomes are included in Appendix B. Neighborhood Petition Following the first community workshop, the City received a petition signed by 100 residents of the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood expressing community support for future development with proper transitions along existing residential developments. The petition also expressed community interest in preserving existing large trees in the area, the need for parks and open spaces with the future developments, and support for low- to medium -intensity development (office and residential) in the future. Some of the community concerns included potential shade, view, and privacy impacts from higher -density development, as well as traffic congestion and parking spillover into existing neighborhoods. 15 Community Workshop 2 - August 25, 2019 The second workshop was held at the Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included a large group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use vision plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. Most participants supported a land use vision with new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well as additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Viewpoints diverged over preferred heights and densities for future development with some participants favoring higher -intensity development and others preferring a lower -intensity scenario. A summary of the workshop is included in Appendix B. Stakeholder Meetings In the fall of 2018, the Vision Plan team met with over20 stakeholders including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. The purpose of these interviews was to listen to stakeholders with a unique interest in the Plan area and identify issues, opportunities, and ideas on a range of topics. Overall, there was general agreement among stakeholders in the following areas: • Create a balanced mix of uses, including parks, residential development, retail, and light industrial/maker spaces Create shared business spaces, such as General Industrial and Office Z uses, within one building D • Create a more pedestrian and bicycle -friendly district, including safe O X routes to nearby schools LL O • Create a clear identity and gateway signage for the neighborhood U 16 • Allow denser development, particularly away from existing single-family neighborhoods • Provide an appropriate transition between existing single-family residential neighborhoods and future development. Stakeholders also expressed the following concerns regarding new development in the area: • Transitions between future development and existing single-family residential neighborhoods • Incompatibility between light industrial and residential uses • Upward pressure on rents for business and commercial spaces • Cut -through traffic and parking spillover in and around existing neighborhoods • Potential traffic impacts of closing the SR 85 on-ramp • Impacts of future development on neighborhood school capacity • Neighborhood safety issues. The stakeholder meetings included a roundtable with small businesses and non-profit organizations housed in the Terra Bella planning area. 17 Community Meeting #3 - January 28, 2019 A third community meeting was convened at Crittenden Middle School. The discussion focused on transitions to the single-family residential neighborhoods along the northwestern boundary of the Plan area, near Rock Street. Ten people attended the meeting, including five homeowners from the Rock Street neighborhood. Residents expressed concerns over potential five to seven -story residential development adjacent to their properties and instead suggested allowing taller residential development closer to West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard. A summary of the workshop is included in Appendix B. W_ Z H Z 7 O X LL O } H U 18 3 . land use ;DO w Z z 0 X LL 0 } H U 20 3. Land Use and Community Design This chapter of the Vision Plan illustrates the vision for future land uses and development character in Terra Bella to create a complete neighborhood with a balanced mix of housing, office, services, and open space. It includes direction on use, intensity, physical character, building placement, and transition strategies that will be used to evaluate new development proposals in the area. Land Use Vision The land use vision articulates the vision forfuture development in Terra Bella - including physical use, intensity, public spaces, and circulation, as illustrated in Figure 3-1 and further described below. TOPICS FOR FURTHER STUDY Areas of concern that require further study included: • Building heights and intensity particularly along Middlefield Road and adjacent to Crittenden Middle School • Potential expansion of Crittenden Middle School • Building height and intensity of light industrial uses on the east side of Terra Bella • Land use compatibility and interface between light industrial properties and residential uses on the east side of Terra Bella • Shade and view impacts of new development on adjacent single- family homes • Specific locations of new parks and open spaces • Specific locations of new streets and pathways Figure 3-1. Land Use Vision Plan WXk}I -tiv,vt r w OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAV 10 i■(Yii# 4 LA x roA 7p� r Cl{hce A!5(i1Pr1[iod *4% � a1P Sr313tindusway. , �41b /fps �4 e 1'E■SUA BELLA AvE s � _ ��� [p Ir%u'II�IFF � «$fit I LIgHC 1 * i4ia Lvs a ;g A N 0250 500 1.040 Feet I i I i i i I I Terra. Bella Vision Plan Wth Llght Industrial I Office (up 1o.2 stories) .->,7itSlhaU' '. IFldU€traWl� ** `�� �.[tl�ll� tr�f PotentW School Ofilication �# •** MrxedksrW wi■iei l.YiY�tirsV viii l.i�..� +# rr Rgird�xNal Poes nSlAl IteSideedn'1 1 i *#* maw rarrr�et SSN Akp{7 WA' a SPR PARD If 3 >' 49 Edi CAH4-k+:r Residential (tip to .3 stories) Resldenttal (up to 5 stories) Reslclential (up to ) storkhs) M Id Use with fetal I l t]irce (up to 3 stories) :Plan Baunfry ■powwow CJffi€e (up to 5 stories) %+v v Neighborhood Taansitions ===I NewStreet ■ — — ■ New pedestriakn ake Path 21 Llght Industrial I Office (up 1o.2 stories) o�lellll Light Industrial I Office ;up to 4 stories) PotentW School Ofilication ===I NewStreet ■ — — ■ New pedestriakn ake Path 21 w Z Z D O X LL O F_ U 22 Terra Bella East of Shoreline Key elements of the land use vision for Terra Bella to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard include the following: • Light industrial preservation area maintains lower-cost spaces for start- ups, light industrial and flex spaces, and local businesses • New publicly -accessible neighborhood parks and open spaces totally approximately 4 acres • New residential uses • Atransition area along the southern edge emphasizing deeper setbacks, landscape buffers, and lower -scaled buildings facingthe adjacent single- family neighborhoods • The addition of new mixed-use and neighborhood -serving retail uses along North Shoreline Boulevard • New connections, including a pedestrian and bike pathway along the southern boundary connecting North Shoreline Blvd to San Leandro Avenue and Stevens Creek Trail via a potential pedestrian and bike tunnel under 1-85 Terra Bella West of Shoreline Key elements of the land use vision for Terra Bella to the west of North Shoreline Boulevard include the following: • A concentration of moderate to high-intensity office uses along Highway 101. New residential uses closer to West Middlefield Road. • A new publicly -accessible neighborhood park or open space approximately 4 acres in size • A potential school dedication site adjacent to Crittenden Middle School approximately 1.2 acres in size • Heights and intensities that transition from greatest near Highway 101 and North Shoreline Boulevard, and are reduced towards single-family neighborhoods • A transition area along the north-western edge emphasizing deeper setbacks, landscape buffers and lower -scaled buildings facing the adjacent single-family neighborhoods • The addition of new mixed-use and neighborhood -serving retail uses along North Shoreline Boulevard • A new street connecting West Middlefield Road to Terra Bella Avenue at San Pierre Way and breaking up this large block structure. • New internal pedestrian pathways providing more direct and convenient access to and between residential and office developments Master Planning A master planning process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly -accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing projects flexibility and with a review process focused on key development objectives. This requirement is outlined in the Master Planning Process section in Chapter 4. Development Types Table 3-1 describes each of the development types shown on Figure 3-1, including the preferred mix of land uses, height, and Maximum FAR. Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Requirements for Floor Area Ratio, Maximum FAR, and the Master Planning Process are outlined in Chapter 4. Table 3-1. Development Types Development Height Maximum Description Image Type MI FAR* Lower -Intensity Up to 3 stories 1.0 Lower -Intensity Residential supports a mix of townhomes, Residential rowhouses, and walk-up apartment building types with massing located away from existing single-family homes. Buildings have generous private open space, with _ + opportunities for public open spaces. r Moderate -Intensity Upto5stories 2.25 Moderate -Intensity Residential supports mid -rise multi - Residential story residential buildings. Buildings have smaller setbacks, ti greater massing that is generally located towards the front ^~ of the site, with active ground floor uses. Higher -Intensity Up to7stories 3.25 Higher -Intensity Residential supports multi -story residential Residential buildings. Projects have generous private open space, with opportunities for public open spaces. New buildings would have minimal setbacks and human -scale, pedestrian - oriented frontages. r Mixed -Use with Up to7stories 2.35 Mixed -Use with Retail is intended to encourage a _ Retail (up to 0.75 combination of ground floor services or retail with office FAR can be or residential uses above the ground floor. New buildings; r «� office or have minimal setbacks and active, pedestrian -oriented M, = .� commercial) frontages. � Z 0 g W m D: W H Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Maximum FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a projector master plan area. Seethe F►oorArea Ratio section in Chapter for more information. �3 Development Type FAR* Lower -Intensity Up to4stories 0.75 Lower -Intensity Office supports office, R&D, and light Office industrial uses up to 4 stories in height. Parking would generally be accommodated in structures. ' '~ Higher -Intensity Up to 6 stories 1.0 Higher -Intensity Office supports office, R&D, and light Office industrial uses up to 6stories in height. Buildings have active ground floors and human -scale, pedestrian -oriented frontages. Parking would generally be accommodated in structures. Lower -Intensity Up to2stories 0.55 Lower -Intensity Light Industrial / Office supports light Light Industrial / industrial, small office, and start-up spaces up to 2 stories _ Office in height. Parking would generally be accommodated in — .low. surface lots.'' Higher -Intensity Up to4stories 2.0 Higher -Intensity Light industrial / Office supports light` .. Light Industrial / industrial and office spaces up to 4 stories in height. Office Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Maximum FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a projector master plan area. Seethe F►oorArea Ratio section in Chapter �4 for more information. Frontage Types and Character Well-designed pedestrian oriented frontages will help create engaging streets and sidewalks, a cohesive look and feel to the area, and a comfortable and attractive environment for residents, employees, and visitors. This Plan envisions new street -facing buildings with pedestrian -oriented frontages throughout the area, with a focus on better pedestrian scale and orientation. Frontages consist of the street fagade of the building, any projecting elements, and the hardscape, landscape, walls and fences in the frontyard. Frontages define the relationship of the building to public areas with appropriate transitions from the public street to the semi -private and private areas of front yards and street -facing ground floor spaces. To implement this urban design vision for Terra Bella, this section introduces the following guidelines that apply to all new projects in the area: 1. Building setbacks. Commercial, mixed-use, and residential development should occur near the front edge of the property line unless outdoor dining or a recessed entry is proposed. Buildings should have shallow setbacks, generally 10 feet from the sidewalk. For corner buildings, the public street side setback should be the same as the front setback. 2. Massing. Building massing breaks should be used to reduce the visual appearance of large-scale buildings and articulate the building as a series of smaller "building blocks" with a range of depth, width, and height. Facades longer than 100 feet should be subdivided with at least one major massing break. Building facades should contain minor massing breaks approximately every 50 feet. DESIRED FRONTAGE TYPES 3. Articulation. Facades should use the following horizontal and vertical Frontages types should be selected based on building use and articulation strategies: location. Appropriate office and R&D frontage types include lobby • Horizontal articulation. Massing breaks, projections, architectural entry, forecourt, and landscaped setback and office yard. Appropriate details, and variations in materials and color should be incorporated to residential frontage types include stoop, patio and porch, lobby entry, Z break up the horizontal length of facades. and forecourt. Appropriate retail and mixed-use frontage types include a • Vertical articulation. Building stepbacks, projections, articulation shopfront, arcade or gallery, and dooryard and porch. p N in wall planes, architectural details, and variations in materials and > color should be used to break up the vertical height of buildings and 5 distinguish between upper and ground floors. Variations in height, m massing, roofline, and vertical articulation overall are encouraged. UJ UJ H 25 4. Transition from public to private space. Street setback areas should clearly delineate the transition between the ground -floor of a building and the street. This may be accomplished through the use of well -landscaped areas, outdoor seating and dining areas, pedestrian access to front entries (e.g. stoops, porches, terraces), art, and gathering spaces allowing for social interaction. These areas should be designed with amenities or improvements to engage or otherwise create a comfortable environment for people. 5. Building entries. Building entries reinforce building character, increase visual interest, break up massing, and provide inviting entrances into buildings and residential units. Primary building entrances should face the primary street frontage or be oriented toward public open space, such as a landscaped square, plaza, or similar space. The primary entrance to each street or ground -level tenant space along a public street should be provided from that street. 6. Active frontages. Active, pedestrian -oriented street frontages are encouraged on the ground floor of buildings thatface public spaces such as streets, greenways, and public parks. Engaging ground -floor uses include but are not limited to neighborhood commercial businesses, residential, and office amenity spaces, such as exercise, food service, and lobbies, and direct unit/secondary entrances to streets. 7. Ground -floor treatments. The ground floor of facades facing a street or public space should include distinctly different design elements than upper floors, using architectural and landscape features of utility and interest, particularly at pedestrian eye -height, and distinguished by elements such as a greater floor -to -ceiling height, greater articulation, different materials, finer design details and ornamentation, unique colors, enhanced w entrances, and/or architectural variation. Blank walls, including facades Zwithout doors, windows, landscaping treatments, or other pedestrian interest, should be minimized. Z D 0 1 LL 0 U 26 Example of neighborhood commercial shopfront frontage Residential ground floor that activates the pedestrian realm with porches and other architectural interest Example of neighborhood commercial shopfront frontage 8. High-quality materials. New developments should utilize high-quality, durable material and finishes to provide texture and enhance the visual interest. 9. Transparency and privacy. Buildings should maintain a high degree of transparency to maximize the visual connection to the street by using clear and unobstructed windows, doors, and other openings. Street -level glazing should be clear. Design techniques may be used to create an appropriate degree of privacy for ground floor residences and office spaces. 10. Parking. Parking should be located behind or under buildings, rather than along the street frontage. Parking should not create a "gap -tooth" street frontage where parking lots disturb the continuity of the active street frontage. 27 Transition Areas New development provides appropriate transitions in height and scale to existing neighborhoods. To achieve this, the Vision Plan includes a transition zone along the northwestern and southeastern boundaries of the Plan area. This transition zone includes a step down in height to provide compatibility with existing single-family neighborhoods. In addition, new development in these zones incorporates additional transition strategies. Examples of transition strategies described and illustrated below include: • Increased building setbacks • Upper -story step -backs • 45 -Degree Daylight Plane for buildingvolumes • Orienting primary windows away from existing homes • Providing landscape buffers • Limiting balconies overlooking existing homes • Conducting additional studies, such as shade analyses to reduce impact to neighboring homes. Example of transition in height and scale z 28 Transition Standards 1. Office neighborhood transitions. New office development in the Rock Street Neighborhood Transition Area shall meet the building height and setback standards described below and shown in Figure 3-4. • New buildings shall be located within the 45 -Degree Daylight Plane from the property line adjacent to single-family homes (see Figure 3-4). • All buildings greater than 15 ft in height shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • No building greater than 35 feet in height shall be located within 90 feet of the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • Building setbacks from property lines adjacent to single-family homes shall include a pedestrian path or driveway and a planting strip for medium to large size trees. 2. Residential neighborhood transition area. New residential development in the Rock Street and Stierlin Estates Neighborhood Transition Areas shall meet the building height and setback standards described below and shown in Figure 3-5. • Any part of a new building shall be located within the 45 -degree Daylight Plane from the property line adjacent to single-family homes (see Figure 3-5). • All buildings frontages facing single-family home parcels shall step back a minimum 10 feet above the second floor. • All buildings greater than 15 ft in height shall setback a minimum of 40 feet from the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • No building greater than 35 ft in height shall be located within 90 feet of the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • Building setbacks from property lines adjacent to single-family homes shall include a pedestrian path or driveway and a planting strip for medium to large size trees. 3. Balconies. Balconies in new developments shall use architectural design, screening, and building orientation to reduce privacy impacts on existing residential parcels. To the extent possible, balconies should be limited opposite existing single-family homes. 4. Landscaping and screening. New development shall use physical buffers and design treatments to reduce impacts on adjacent residential properties. Buffers may include larger setbacks, fencing, and landscaping and tree screening. Plant palettes shall enhance local identity, encourage biodiversity, and minimize environmental impacts by emphasizing the use of locally native and drought -resistant plant species and avoiding invasive plants as listed in the Cal -IPC inventory. (General Plan Policies INC5.5, 16, 19). 5. View studies. New development shall conduct shade and view analysis to study impacts on neighboring homes. 29 Figure 3-4. Office Neighborhood Transition Diagram M kul Figure 3-5. Residential Neighborhood Transition Diagram A: 2-3 Story Townhouse B: 2-3 Story Townhouse C: Stepping Corridor Bldg R min 90 ft R min 90 ft 160' 30-45 ft avg max height 35 ft bh; •' min. 40' R min 90 ft z 11 a z O N a� J J W m Uj W H 31 Parks and Open Space To serve the social and recreational needs of the Plan area, new publicly - accessible parks and open spaces on both the east and west side of Shoreline Drive will be provided. Conceptual open space locations are shown in Figure 3-6. Based on development potential, the minimum park dedication required should result in a combined total of 4 acres of parkland on the east side of Terra Bella and 4 acres on the west side of Terra Bella, with an additional 1.2 acre dedication for a school site (west of Shoreline). The exact location of parks will be reviewed as part of the master planing process and project review. New public open spaces should be designed for active and passive recreation, and may include neighborhood parks, plazas, linear greenways, and recreational facilities. As part of this Plan, a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is envisioned along Moonbeam Drive from North Shoreline, with a potential tunnel at San Leandro Street running under 1-85 that will provide access to Stevens Creek Trail. In addition, the proposed pedestrian bridge across Highway 101 could connect Terra Bella residents to the regional open space network, including Shoreline Regional Park, and planned open space amenities in North Bayshore. Achievingthis vision will require a coordinated effort between the City, property owners, and project developers, including land dedication by residential projects, City purchase using parkland dedication in -lieu funds, and creation of public plazas and open space by non-residential projects. New development in areas where a park is envisioned should dedicate public parkland. New non- residential development should provide on-site publicly -accessible open spaces under private ownership, such as plazas, landscaped areas, and public art installations. Specific locations and sizes should be determined during project approval. Locations near housing, commercial uses, and public paths should be prioritized. The City will continue to maintain cooperative arrangements with w the school district to use open space and facilities at Crittenden Middle School Zand nearby schools for public parks, playgrounds, and recreation programs. Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 32 Example of park design and amenities Examples of park and open space design Park and Open Space Standards 1. Terra Bella public parks. Non-residential and residential projects shall dedicate land for a public park. Modifications to park location within a project master plan area may be allowed based on project design review. 2. Privately -owned, publicly -accessible open spaces. New privately -owned, publicly -accessible open spaces shall be provided by non-residential projects. These open spaces are not identified on Figure 3-6. At the discretion of the City Council, this requirement may be waived in locations that are not on majorvisible corridors or accessible to residential areas. If waived, projects shall provide additional public benefits. Publicly -accessible open space areas should meet the following standards: a minimum 30' width in both dimensions and a minimum total of 3,000 square feet. The total amount of publicly -accessible open space should be scaled appropriately to the size of the project. This space should be accessible directly from public paths and sidewalks at the ground level, and not through gates and stairs. Publicly -accessible paths and greenways should not be used to comply with this requirement if they are provided pursuant to public Z mobility requirements, unless additional width and amenities are provided, subject to design review. Projects are encouraged to locate publicly -accessible open a spaces adjacent to other sites to allow for expansion of public spaces over time. Z 0 N 3. Park and open space landscaping. Plant palettes for parks, open spaces, and newly developed properties shall enhance local identity, encourage biodiversity, and minimize environmental impacts by emphasizing the use of locally native and drought -resistant plant species and avoiding invasive plants as listed in the m Cal -IPC inventory. w H 33 5� 34 Figure 3-6. Conceptual Open Space Diagram 1 0 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY iq C, 2r.0 1;00 1,000 Feel !Wpaqw: Nan Roundary + ===I New street Terra Bella Vision Plan New Pede5trian/ail;e Pat L LAAVENMA Ov Conrept"al Nbk op" spatR , Conceptua I Jol nt-Use SchooC Park Site* Existing ParkslOpen Space Trails hfoo Awmian wjfi be dprerminsdas part cWmm Per iWoni'dow-0opmenr epojew process. 4 . deveLopment rinciples & implementation framework S MM E 17 '`'� _ l�l� � I ; � ♦� �� - �' : • �� d--�� sem-" - "- ��,� _ _ _ � . �iT4 7Oda=: f., 4. Development Principles and Implementation Framework Achieving the vision and other principles established by the Vision Plan will require important contributions from property owners and project developers to address key local and regional concerns, such as traffic congestion, park creation, and small business preservation. Future development in Terra Bella is expected to help address these concerns by implementing the following development principles and policies. Floor Area Ratio 1. Floor area ratio (FAR)." Base" FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district that meets minimum Vision Plan and Citywide requirements." Maximum" FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a project or master plan area including all FAR bonuses. "Maximum" FARs are established within each development type in the Vision Plan area (see Table 3-1). Floor Area Ratio is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided below. 2. Gross floor area exemptions. Building spaces for small businesses or educational, cultural, or other non-profit uses and neighborhood commercial uses may be excluded from gross floor area. The maximum floor area exemption shall not exceed 5% of the project's gross floor area, except when an existing structure is being preserved for use by a small business. An appropriate legal agreement shall be recorded on the property to identify the approved gross floor area exemption and use of the space for qualified businesses or organizations. 3. Dedications and easements. The area of new dedications and easements for publicly accessible streets, paths, or other transportation purposes shall be included in a site's lot area for the purposes of calculating FAR. 4. Parking -FAR calculations. Above -grade parking is not included in calculations of Maximum FAR for non-residential. Above -grade parking shall be included in calculations of Maximum FAR for residential or hotel uses. 5. Multiple areas. If a project site or master plan boundary includes more than one development type, the project's total gross floor area shall be the sum of allowed gross floor area in each constituent part. The floor area may be applied across the project as a whole if the project substantially complies with the purpose and intent of the Vision Plan. Z Z 0 1 LL 0 T 36 Maximum FAR The Vision Plan proposes maximum FAR guidelines for different land use categories (see Table 3-1) for development not consistent with the existing Zoning and the General Plan. The maximum FAR is suggested based on development studies in recent City Precise Plans and also the land use vision for the area. The maximum FAR program ensures that new development provides benefits and limits impacts to the community in exchange for additional project floor area. Individual projects may request additional FAR, above the Base FAR, for which they must provide community benefits to implement key Projects and policy goals established by the City Council. These projects must submit a master plan as defined later in this chapter. 1. School district strategy. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall submit a Local School District Strategy to the school districts and the City, intended to support new local schools serving the Vision Plan area. The School Districts and the developer shall meet and confer in good faith to develop the School District Strategy to support new local schools. The School District Strategy shall be memorialized as a legally binding agreement. The strategy may include, but is not limited to, land dedication for new school development; additional funding for new school development; TDR strategies to benefit developer(s) that provide new school facilities; or other innovative strategies supporting schools. 2. Community benefits contribution. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall contribute to community benefit projects. The maximum FAR amount for a given project shall depend on the contribution to the community benefit, and compliance with other Maximum FAR requirements. Community benefit value. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall propose community benefits contributions with minimum value proportional to the project's building square footage in excess of the Base FAR, as determined by the City Council. Community benefit projects. In lieu of monetary payment of community benefit contributions, projects may propose to provide a community benefit or district improvement project. These on- or off-site improvement projects may include additional affordable housing units, new dedicated public park space, shared parking facilities, district transportation or utility improvements, retention and/or expansion of existing small business, buildingarea for neighborhood commercial uses (such as a grocery store) or non -profits, dedication of land for schools, or other projects proposed by applicants. Table 4-1 provides a list of example projects. Specific public benefit or district improvement projects shall be determined during review of the proposed project, and approved by the City Council. Community benefit may not apply towards the Local School District Strategy and Jobs Housing Linkage program. 3. Affordable housing. All residential projects shall provide at least 20% affordable units. All projects shall comply with the City-wide Below -Market -Rate (BMR) Housing Program (ArticleXIVofthe ZoningCode and the BM RAdministrative Guidelines) forqualifying households, determination of rents and sale prices, alternative mitigations, timing, and administration. Development of affordable housing units on or off-site within Terra Bella, over and above the amount required under existing City and Precise Plan regulations is highly encouraged. 37 4. Green building. • Non-residential projects: Achieve LEED Platinum or equivalent. • Residential projects: Achieve 120 points on the Green Point Rated system or equivalent and submeter, or use other appropriate technology that can track individual energy use, for each residential unit. Table 4-1. Community Benefits/District Improvement Projects List Affordable Housing Development of affordable housing units on or off-site within Terra Bella, over and above the amount required under existing City regulations. District Transportation Improvements Off-site pedestrian, bicycle, or other roadway improvements. District Utility Improvements Off-site infrastructure and utility improvements above and beyond those required to serve the development (including water, sewer, and recycled water systems). Support for small local businesses Supporting or subsidizing small, local businesses including (but not limited to): • Providing new dedicated flexible space for small businesses located within new buildings; • Dedicating an existing building for small business use in perpetuity at below market rates through an appropriate instrument; • Providing relocation assistance to help small businesses in Terra Bella displaced by new development to locate elsewhere in Terra Bella or the City. Shared public parking facilities Constructing or otherwise providing publicly accessible parking facilities to serve district -wide parking needs. Floor area for neighborhood Providing dedicated building area for qualifying neighborhood commercial uses or community facilities. commercial uses or non -profits Dedication of land for schools Dedicating land to one of the local school districts (Mountain View Whisman School District, MVWSD, or Mountain View -Los Altos Union High School District, MV-LAUSD) Other Other benefits or district improvement projects proposed by applicants and approved by City Council W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 38 Jobs -Housing Linkage The City's recent planning efforts in East Whisman have strongly emphasized the need for a betterjobs-housing balance in the City by requiring commercia I development to support and facilitate residential development. The Plan requires a "jobs -housing linkage" program to ensure residential development is balanced with office and R&D growth in Terra Bella. The expectation is that all new office and R&D development will help facilitate residential development through jobs -housing linkage strategies which could include: direct construction of housing, dedication of land suitable for housing, contribution of fees to offset costs for residential development, residential development partnerships, purchase of existing office square footage from residential developers who demolish office buildings, and other creative strategies or partnerships that support or facilitate housing development. 1. Plan requirement. Office, R&D, and industrial development applicants shall submit a Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan. The proposed strategies to facilitate residential development shall be roughly proportional to the net new floor area proposed. This may be less if affordable units are provided in excess of the City's inclusionary requirements, or if other housing -related goals are met. 2. Timing.A phasing or housing delivery plan shall be included in the Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan. Proposed strategies, includingthe construction of units, should be implemented before non-residential building occupancy, unless otherwise determined by the City Council. Strict timing requirements may be waived if additional certainty is provided (such as a deed restriction or land dedication to an affordable housing developer). Projects may not use the Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan to satisfy the requirements of the Community Benefits contribution. 3. Partnerships. Subject to requirements established by the Jobs -Housing Linkage Program Administrative Guidelines, office projects may partner with residential projects to satisfy the Jobs -Housing Linkage Program requirement. SmaLL Business Preservation Helping existing businesses survive and grow is a vital strategy to preserve the unique, small business character of Terra Bella and create an economically diverse area. The vision for Terra Bella is to expand and intensity office uses, particularly to the west of North Shoreline Boulevard, while maintaining smaller, more affordable spaces for start-ups, small businesses, and non -profits to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard. New development projects should provide support for small businesses, such as small, flexible work spaces located within new buildings, rent subsidies for small or local businesses, and relocation assistance. 39 Parking and TDM Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the practice of influencing travel behaviorwith the goal of reducingdemand forsingle occupantvehicle use. In the context of Terra Bella, TDM can help reduce peak demand trips that contribute the most to existing vehicle congestion, reduce parking demand, and reduce vehicle miles traveled to help meet environmental goals such as greenhouse gas reduction. Parking and TDM are strongly interrelated since parking cost and availability are key factors that influence travel decisions. Given the relationship between parking availability and driving, making Terra Bella's parking policies efficient will help reduce impacts from new development on congestion. Parking While the Terra Bella Vision Plan builds on the strengths of the area's planned BRT transit access, network of complete streets, and mixed land uses, there will be parking demand from new development. The following principles will help the ensure that parking is efficiently used and supports community values such as safe walking and biking. Off -Street Parking The off-street parking requirements for Terra Bella are shown in Table 4-2. Parking maximums are an effective way to limit additional trips. Peak drive - alone trips cannot exceed parking availability. Developments in Terra Bella should be required to share parking resources with wadjacent developments where suitable. The Mountain View ordinance includes K a provision for adjacent land uses to pool their parking resources through "shared parking". Shared parking is beneficial in many ways - it reduces the Z total amount of parking needed, which reduces the amount of land needed for iparking, allows more flexibility in project design, and often saves developers U. money while making housing more affordable. U 40 Table 4-2. Off -Street Parking Standards Land Use • . Standards Office/Research and Maximum 2.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross Development building floor area Retail, restaurants, other Minimum 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross uses permitted by zoning building floor area designation Multi -Family Residential - Maximum 1 space per unit Studios and 1 -bedroom Multi -Family Residential - Maximum 2 spaces per unit 2 -bedroom and up Warehouse/Data Center Maximum 0.8 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building floor area Other Uses Minimum as defined in the Zoning Ordinance or through the Provisional Use Permit process The two predominant land uses proposed for Terra Bella are office and residential development. These uses pair very well for shared parking as offices have peak parking demand during the day but minimal demand at night, while residential developments have the exact opposite. The parking supply for shared parking can often be 30% lower than for individually provided parking, though the exact reduction depends on the composition of the adjacent land uses. While minimum parking requirements are still recommended for retail and restaurant uses, developers providing strong parking management, parking sharing, and TDM programs may request exemptions from the minimum requirement. Unbundled porhing Parking may be offered as unbundled: the cost of parking is sold or rented separately from housing or commercial units. With unbundled parking, occupants only pay for the parking spaces they actually need. Details of the unbundled parking program will be reviewed as part of the development review process. 1,� � � <_, ;Pv , .0 The intent of shared parking and unbundled parking is not to provide too little parking for the planned land uses, but rather to avoid providing too much. However, if residents in adjacent neighborhoods experience excessive demand foron-streetparking, the City of Mountain View has a residential parking permit program that can be employed to ensure that people visiting or living at Terra Bella do not park in adjacent neighborhoods. Designated Porhing for Carpools and Vonpools In office, R&D, and industrial developments, designated parking for carpool/ vanpool vehicles should be located near building entrances. These spaces should be included in the maximum allowable parking. Residentiol permit parking (photo credit: Brodie Thomas/Livewire z a z O N J W m UJ W H 41 '3 42 New multi -family residential and office and R&D developments should provide parking for carsharing services as shown in Table 4-3. Carshare spaces should be in a highly -visible location and accessible to both building users and the general public. Carshare spaces do not count towards the parking maximum. Table 4-3. Required Spaces for Carshare Services Land Use EM Carshare Vehicle Requirement mmmt:7:�im Office/Research and Development For buildings greaterthan 40,000 square feet, minimum of three parkingspaces per buildingsite for carshare. Multi -family Residential 0-49 dwelling units - 0 car -sharing spaces 1 per 2,000 sf or a minimum of 4 spaces, 50-250 dwelling units -1 car -sharing space 251 or more dwelling units - 2 car sharing spaces, plus 1 for every additional 200 dwelling units Bicycle and Mobility Device Porhing New development should provide bicycle facilities in accordance with Table 4-4 below. Short-term bike racks should be conveniently located in highly -visible, well -lit locations near building entrances. Long-term secure bicycle parking should be provided in convenient, covered locations such as near placard parking spaces within the garage on the level closest to the ground floor. Designated space for shared mobility devices should be provided with appropriate marking in a convenient, well -lit, publicly -accessible, and highly -visible location near building entrances. Table 4-4. Required Bicycle Parking Facilities Land Us (a Short -Term BicycLe Parkin A' I 01.�! howers Office/Research and Development 1 per 20,000 sf or a minimum of 4 1 per 2,000 sf or a minimum of 4 spaces, 1 unisex for the first 80,000 sq. ft and 1 spaces, whichever is greater whichever is greater additional unisex for each additional 40,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Commercial Uses 4 per5,000sf ora minimum of2spaces, 1 per 5,000 sf or a minimum of 2 spaces, None required whichever is greater whichever is greater Multi -Family Residential 1 per 10 units 1 per unit None required Transportation Demand Management The Vision Plan establishes an ambitious target for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Terra Bella. To meet this target, the Vision Plan prioritizes walking, biking, and transit use. Large blocks will be subdivided into a finer -grained network of pedestrian -oriented streets. Streets within the Plan Area will be "Complete Streets," safely accommodating bicycles through lanes or buffered cycle tracks, pedestrians through wide sidewalks and enhanced crossings, and buses and shuttles through improved shelters. All new development projects will meet the City's requirements for TDM, develop and maintain a TDM Plan, and join the Transportation Management Association (TMA). In addition, any new non-residential employment generating (Office and R&D uses) development in Terra Bella will remain net neutral (not increase) with no net new trips as compared to today's baseline. Each project should implement a robust monitoring program (including site-specific trips) to provide information on how the Plan is performing and help inform on-going City decisions on capital improvements, TDM requirements, developments, and more. The TDM measures shown below represent strategies that are positioned to work with the transit and multi -modal investments planned forthe area. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list. There are a variety of subsidies that can be provided to incentivize other modes besides driving, especially drive alone trips. The simplest is a parking cash -out, typically used in employee TDM programs, where employees are given money each time they commute to theirjob site and do not use parking. Employers often give transit passes for Caltrain (Go Pass) or VTA (Eco Pass) or a set amount of money per month to pay for transit. With both types of passes the price is negotiated annually with an institution such as an employer or property developer/manager at a steeply discounted rate compared to an individual transit pass. For residential sites, a non -driving subsidy can be in the form of a VTA Eco Pass or a monthly non -driving stipend per unit. The stipend can be used on any combination of transit (e.g. Clipper Card, VTA Eco Pass), car share (e.g. Zipcar, Getaround), or ride -sharing platforms (e.g. Uber/Lyft). Free or subsidized transit passes can increase residents' awareness of nearby transit options, and can reduce the financial barrier by making it a more cost -comparable option between the cost of public transportation and the cost of parking. Especially for residents of affordable units, this strategy can reduce household transportation costs, improve transit use, equity, mobility options, and further reduce the need for owning a car. Providing a flexible stipend rather than a specific transit pass maximizes residents' transportation options by providing residents' access to multiple services ratherthan just one. Commute trips are typicallythe longest dailytravel distance, the most consistenttrip throughoutthe week, and offer unique opportunities to reduce drive alone trips. Work sites often have multiple employees starting at similar times and converging on the same area, both of these trends increase with the size of the employment site. Employmentsites of more than 50 employees should develop a TDM Program. ATDM program can consist of multiple elements such as: TDM coordinator, parking cash out, subsidized transit pass, employee shuttle, carpool matching, vanpool subsidy, active transportation benefit, etc. The most effective programs reveal to motorists the actual cost of providing parking, either through parking fees, or by giving non -motorists the cash value of the free parking provided to motorists. For example, commercial property owners and theirtenants can be required to charge for parking at $1 an hour, up to $10 a day, or parking could be free, but employees who do not drive are given $10 a day in tax-free commuter benefits or taxable cash. A more detailed study will need to be developed to establish a goal and monitoring program such as developing a trip cap and/or transportation mode -split goal. 43 z 44 Master Planning Process A master planning process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly -accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing projects flexibility and with a review process focused on key development objectives. This section outlines the conditions and requirements forthe master planning process. 1. Required master plans. A master plan is required prior to Major Development Review permit or General Plan or zoning modification applications in Terra Bella, including new buildings and major additions, in accordance with the following: b. Terra Bella East of Shoreline. Projects east of Shoreline Boulevard shall submit a master plan for the east side of Terra Bella. The master plan shall include the following: • New public parks and open spaces, totally approximately 4 acres shall be provided across the area with at least 1 acre provided as a continuous space. The plan should include location, size, and design for each park and/or open space in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. • New publicly -accessible private open spaces, including location, size, and design. • Surrounding development, both proposed and existing, including location, mix, intensity, and square footage of new development. • The amount and type of affordable housing provided, the unit size mix, and the income targets. • Neighborhood transition strategies for the transition area along the southern boundary adjacent to single-family homes. c. Terra Bella West of Shoreline. Projects west of Shoreline Boulevard requiring a Major Development Review permit or general Plan or zoning modification permit shall submit a master plan for the entire west side of Terra Bella. The master plan shall include the following: • New public parks and open spaces, providing a combined total of 4 acres over the Terra Bella West area with at least 1 acre provided as a continuous space. The plan should include location, size, and design for each park and/or open space in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. • New publicly -accessible private open spaces, including location, size, and design. • Surrounding development, both proposed and existing, including location, mix, intensity, and square footage of new development. • The amount and type of affordable housing provided, the unit size mix, and the income targets. • Neighborhood transition strategies for the transition area along the northwestern boundary adjacent to single-family homes. • Potential school site dedication of 1.2 acres adjacent to Crittenden Middle School. 2. Project master plan preparation. in addition to the above, master plans shall include the following minimum components: • Signed development applications from all property owners within the proposed master plan. • Materials such as maps, surrounding and proposed uses, proposed building locations, circulation plan, total square footage, open space, and other materials that demonstrate compliance with the purpose and intent of the Vision Plan. • Parking strategy, including but not limited to, shared parking or district parking faciIities. • Urban design strategy, including a conceptual architecture plan, including how the location, intensity, and uses of planned and future buildings function and relate to each other, the project site, and surrounding area. • A block circulation plan shall be submitted. The block circulation plan should be consistent with the Future Transportation Network map (Figure 5-1) and Vision Plan land use map (Figure 3-1). The block circulation plan shall include the following: street design recommendations and cross-sections; each connection specified as public or private (e.g. dedication vs. easement); future connections to vacant sites and planned/proposed parks; and an implementation and phasing strategy for the connections. • Phasing and implementation strategy, including the timing and plans for any public improvements. The master plan shall identify an initial and final phase, with optional intermediate phases. The initial and intermediate phases need not include all open spaces, school dedication, district parking or other amenities and public benefittargets, butshall show howthe phase complieswith incremental increases in these targets and minimum development standards. The final phase shall show actions and fundingsources to achieve the desired amount and mix of land uses, and othercomplete neighborhood concepts identified in the Vision Plan. • Other components deemed necessary by the City. 3. District parking. If the project applicant proposes to accommodate required parking off site, the master plan shall include the parking structure (or below grade parking) location, number of parking stalls, number of parking stalls required for the new development, and the non -automobile connections between the project site and district structure. 4. Review process. Once the master plan application is deemed complete by the City, the Master Plan shall be reviewed by the Environmental Planning Commission, who will provide a recommendation to the City Council. 5. Planned Community (PC) permit process. The City Council shall determine, at the time of Master Plan approval, the City's subsequent development review process for PC Permit applicants associated with an approved Master Plan. Planned Community (PC) Permit applications associated with an approved Master Plan may be eligible for an expedited review process. 45 This page is intentionally left blank. 46 5 m mobility il O r 7' R aT`16f 4'llfil...4V, ^ 21 5 'N. 5. Mobility The transportation vision for Terra Bella is to provide access to and within the Terra Bella neighborhood for residents and employees with a multimodal transportation network that prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Transportation Network The future multimodal transportation network for Terra Bella is shown in Figure 5-1 and contains new internal streets, reversible bus lanes on Shoreline Boulevard, and proposed active transportation improvements, including full-time bike lanes, protected bikeways, and across -barrier connections. Reversible Bus Lane A reversible bus lane (RBL) is planned for Shoreline Boulevard with stops on Terra Bella Avenue. The lane will be situated in the center of North Shoreline Boulevard, protected by physical barriers, and will accommodate northbound buses on weekday mornings and southbound buses on weekday evenings. Transit service along the corridor will also have reduced stop frequency, and high frequency of bus service. The full design and implementation of this transit priority lane will determine how these elements are applied to North Shoreline Boulevard. Having a stop within the center of the neighborhood will provide a direct connection to employment centers in North Bayshore as well as to downtown Mountain View, VTA light rail, and Caltrain. New Internal Access Roads The block bounded by West Middlefield Road, Terra Bella Avenue, and North Shoreline Boulevard is significantly longer than would typically be recommended for walkable development. Adding a new street connecting Terra Bella Avenue to West Middlefield Road would improve access for all modes, but especially for people walking and bicycling. The new street would primarily provide access, and should be designed for low speeds, safe accommodation for all modes, and sufficient on -street loading for the proposed land uses. w Z H Z O i LL O } H U 48 Figure 5-1 Future Transportation Network OLD M I'DI) L FF FEL D WA y m ........... ■ db de 4' lb TIRM 014i .7 41F z.. ...................... .......... 0 02 raw % V, S'Xfl--9J 'NA SAM muo k)k 0- Ya :tin CVW213.tiWj 250 500 LOW Feet :F -%W4: Sul Iding rGotprinn. ;memo.; Man Eoum6ary EXBt1nVPrap05*d Trarrift Existin.MrGpcised Bike Facilities StFeeir Nettvark Terra Bella Vision Plan -010, VrA rov(eSJStQps ..... class I Path 44tw5rje" Cin -01 MOLNTMN VIFW mvp "I" Protected Elikeway JC IaSs IV) Ratecred intersectiam Future RSL foutWmops ... Class 11 Me Lane New signalized Class III Rom intwwaion 49 Walking and Bicycling Connections Planned bicycle lanes and shared bicycle and pedestrian paths will improve access for people walking and biking within the neighborhood as well as traveling to nearby destinations. In addition, emerging technologies such as electric skateboards and scooters are rapidly gaining popularity and are likely to play a larger role in future transportation. Mobility devices such as electric skateboards and scooters typically operate in the same space as people use to ride bikes and walk. Under California state law, however, motorized scooters are not permitted to be operated along sidewalks. Providing better connections and more space for people to walk and ride bicycles can also provide space to accommodate emerging mobility options in ways that reduce potential conflicts, encourage compliance with state and local laws, and enhance personal mobility. Connection to Stevens Creek Trail There are three options to add a connection between the Terra Bella neighborhood and the Stevens Creek Trail. These options include: • At grade under 101/85 interchange • Atunnel under 85 at San Leandro Street (the most direct, and likely most expensive option) • At grade under 85 on-ramp at Moffett Boulevard. Connectivity across North Shoreline Boulevard North Shoreline Boulevard is a barrier for people walking and biking in the Terra Bella neighborhood. It is characterized by large distances between crossings, long crossing distances, and relatively high vehicle speeds. The street's design is conducive to vehicles traveling faster than the 35 -mph speed limit, and is unwelcoming to vulnerable road users. To reconnect the two halves of the neighborhood, pedestrian crossing improvements are necessary. The intersections at North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and at North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, are optimized forvehicle throughput. The crossings are characterized by long crossing distances and wlarge turn radii that enable high cornering speeds. Z The Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study (2014) recommended that the North a Z Shoreline/West Middlefield and North Shoreline/Terra Bella intersections be D redesigned as protected intersections. Planned protected intersections will U. provide the following benefits: O Y H U 50 Closs IV cycle track • Shorter crossing distances for pedestrians • Lower vehicle cornering speeds • Protected waiting space for cyclists making left turns Connection to Permanente creek Trail Permanente Creek Trail is located just outside of the project boundary, but nonetheless is an important pedestrian and bicycle connection to the North Bayshore. A connection between pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within the Terra Bella Plan area and the Permanente Creek Trail would help create a more complete active transportation network. The connection could be achieved via two strategies, both of which are envisioned for the area: 1.) the proposed Class IV protected bikeway on West Middlefield Road, which would provide a direct connection to the beginning of the trail, and 2.) the proposed paseo between Rock Street and Terra Bella Avenue. This would require improved bicycle infrastructure on Rock Street leading into the Permanent Creek Trail. 51 Street Design Concepts General Street Design Recommendations This section provides general street design recommendations for Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. It is followed by specific design concepts for each street. 1. Travel lane widths. With the exception of Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road, travel lanes shall be 10 feet where possible. 2. Traffic calming measures. A range of traffic calming measures could be implemented to slow traffic and improve safety on Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. Several options include speed cushions and curb extensions. Speed cushions are small raised humps that require vehicles to slow down. Curb extensions ("bulbouts") reduce the radius of the curb at street corners, which reduces vehicle turningspeeds and the pedestrian crossing distance. 3. Loading space. While most parking for future development would be provided off-street, on -street space for short term parking and loading will continue to become more important as increasing numbers of people use ride -hailing apps such as Uber and Lyft. Where possible, space should be preserved for on -street loading, as shown in the street design alternatives that follow. At the same time, proposed protected bicycle facilities will protect people biking from loading or parking activity that today might occur in bike lanes. 4. Green infrastructure. Integration of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) design into streets and public spaces should be considered to provide w an attractive landscape feature while also capturing and treating runoff z to meet water quality requirement. GSI measures shall be placed into zretrofitted streets when required by the Municipal Regional Permit, and, if feasible, in alignment with the City's GSI Plan and the Countywide GSI X Handbook. LL O } H U 52 Figure 5-2. Protected Intersection Curb extension Rapid street improvements North Shoreline Boulevard The Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study (2014) envisions the street as a multimodal corridor with dedicated transit lanes as well as protected bikeways, protected intersections, and a pedestrian/bike bridge across US -101 between Shoreline/Terra Bella and Shoreline/La Avenida. These recommendations remain appropriate, and the improvements to transit, walking, and bicycling, will be crucial to accommodate anticipated trip growth without increasing vehicle trips. As mentioned previously, North Shoreline Boulevard is a barrier to pedestrians and cyclists. Figure5-2 illustrates a protected intersection that includes bulbouts to slow turning vehicles, and to provide safe spaces for pedestrians and cyclists to wait. This design reduces the potential for conflict between bicycles going straight and vehicles to rning right by slowing and to rningvehicles so that drivers are in a position with good visibility of oncoming cyclists in the bike lane. The design, while intended to better protect people walking and bicycling, should take into account all vehicles using the intersection, particularly emergency service vehicles and where necessary buses and trucks. Speed cushion az J IL z O a g J W m LU W H 53 W_ 7 Z H Z O 1 LL O z 54 Terra Bella Avenue As the main road providing access to the Terra Bella neighborhood from West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue should accommodate access for all transportation modes, as well as support commercial loading and deliveries. Since most properties will likely continue to provide parking onsite, there will be limited need for on -street parking. Flexible curbside areas could accommodate both loading and pick-up/drop-off of passengers. Terra Bella Avenue between West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard has a curb -to -curb distance varying between 48 - 50 feet. East of North Shoreline Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue is slightly narrower at 46 - 48 feet. This is enough space to accommodate a two-way protected bikeway on the north side of Terra Bella Avenue. This option would extend a high-quality network from the protected bikeways on North Shoreline Boulevard into the Terra Bella neighborhood. A two-way protected cycletrackwould requirespecial design consideration at intersections and driveways, including measuresto slow turningvehicles, ensure adequate visibility, and potentially add dedicated bicycle signal phasing at signalized crossings. More conventional buffered bike lanes are also possible, though there is insufficient width fora parking -protected design and buffered bike lanes do not eliminate the potential forconflict between active modes of transportation and curbsidevehicle activity. Examples of cycle tracks Figure 5-3 Terra BeLLa Avenue Two -Way Protected CycLe Track Alternative mini -0 =No r� 01 .. = No Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Figure 5-4 Terra Bella Avenue Buffered Bike Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Ar w Z H Z D O X LL O } H U 56 Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue provide access from Terra Bella Avenue within the Terra Bella neighborhood, and would support a mix of dense office and residential developments. As such they should provide a balance of access, safety, and placemaking. The cross-sections vary from 38 - 40 feet curb -to -curb. There are two possible alternative: 1. A parking -protected bike on one side of the street and another conventional bike lane on the other side, with parking or loading on one side of the street. 2. Shared lanes with traffic calming measures if loading is required on both sides of the street. Example of shared lanes with traffic calming Example of protected bike lanes. Photo credit: Joe Linton/Streetsblog LA Figure 5-5 Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue, Bike Lane Alternative Y MAN& w Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Figure 5-6 Linda Vista Avenue and San RafaeL Avenue, Shared Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord no 1 ■■ No ME ,n 57 San Leandro Street San Leandro Street provides internal connectivity and access, and varies from 32 - 34 feet. Given the limited width, a low -speed street with shared lanes and on -street parking or loading is recommended. Figure 5-7 San Leandro Street, Shared Lane Alternative F� Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 58 y IP APP`existing conditions Existing Conditions This section presents a summary of the existing land use, urban form, and mobility conditions in the Terra Bella area. Existing Land Use and Zoning Existing land use in the Plan area includes a mix of low -intensity office buildings, industrial uses, retail services, single-family homes, and institutional facilities. Figure A-1 shows the existing land use by parcel in the Plan area and the vicinity and Table A-1 below provides a breakdown of acreage and percentages for each existing land use. Predominant land uses are office/research and development (66%), followed by services (10%), which includes a Credit Union, a storage facility, and other services. There are two church facilities (7%) on the site and the Summit Denali charter school (1%). Among the industrial land uses (6%) is a Recology City of Mountain View facility site. Larger office complexes are found west of North Shoreline Boulevard, while the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard is home to light industrial, small businesses, and several non -profits. There is a small percentage of single-family residential (3%) in the Plan area, all to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard. The Plan area is, however, surrounded by single and multi -family housing to the northwest and southeast. In many cases, office or industrial properties directly abut single-family homes with little to no transition. w Z H Z O X LL O } H U Table A -i. Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percentage Office/R&D 62 66% Services 10 10% Church 6 7% Industrial 6 6% Institution/Recreation 3 4% Single -Family 3 3% Vacant 2 2% Retail 1 1% Grade School Grand TotaL 0.6 93.6 1% 100% Figure A -s. Existing Land Use ULD MIppLEFIELO WAY NOk G ;� (} LA rMYIwDA k 2 0 10 "fill m If I t ■�. ` *� t 7ikR14>f4J�NYi *#*i alk a i .f F14Hq Wa a !`rar+AalDdv C.- '� ff 8r � wu r+Arak't31�w 0250 SOO 1.G00 Fe&t Legend Existing Land Use OfkelR&D Retail - scbool Senices Terra Bella Vision Pian - Church ` motellmolel - I.ndustrial wit] -Family Medical Singk-Famlly y lr% • s,i• ••• •. 4 l- InstimmrvReereational yr<ani r-^■ 16■■. Project Boundary 61 W Z Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 62 The General Plan designation for the entire Terra Bella area is General Industrial. General Industrial is intended for the production, storage, and wholesale of goods and services to create abroad industrial base. The allowed land uses are industrial uses, including manufacturing and storage, research and development, administrative offices and ancillary commercial uses. Zoning designations for the Plan area are Limited Industrial (ML) east of North Shoreline Boulevard and General Industrial (MM) west of North Shoreline Boulevard, consistent with the General Plan General Industrial designation (see Table A-2). Approximately a third of all industrial zoned land in the City is located in Terra Bella. Despite its industrial designation, only a small percentage (6%) of existing uses in the area are industrial. Figure A-2 shows the zoning designations forthe area. Table A-2. Zoning Figure A-2. Zoning Ip LDMFOO,tFIELp WAY a m 7 W (AAVENI[JA 0 S Vi F N 0 2513 540 1.004 Feet Legend Single•Familyki General Industrial NAM MulupleFamilyR3 AgriCUILUreAAW Terra Bella) Vision Plan MobMe Home RMH � Planned COmn unitylPwNe lir, P Limited Industrial ML Public Facility PF ,rrrEr 11'j 411 N114 s[ IN I IV.. MW. ■ � �iO�fC �OI1 nQdr� Zoning Qz J IL z O a g J W m W H 63 f # t # y ■ 4 r *4M�r■�I#* *+4** 4# ■ •# F 4 111R *� ice},411, TEUA b{SIA AVE' -4m # ****4040 ;16 f f - N 0 2513 540 1.004 Feet Legend Single•Familyki General Industrial NAM MulupleFamilyR3 AgriCUILUreAAW Terra Bella) Vision Plan MobMe Home RMH � Planned COmn unitylPwNe lir, P Limited Industrial ML Public Facility PF ,rrrEr 11'j 411 N114 s[ IN I IV.. MW. ■ � �iO�fC �OI1 nQdr� Zoning Qz J IL z O a g J W m W H 63 Urban Design and Character The existing urban character and development pattern in Terra Bella can be characterized into two distinct subareas -the area east of North Shoreline Boulevard and the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard. West of Shoreline The site west of North Shoreline Boulevard consists of larger parcels (greater than 2 acres) with large suburban office development (see Figure A-3). The area includes two blocks and all parcels are accessed from Terra Bella Avenue, North Shoreline Boulevard, and West Middlefield Road. The west side of North Shoreline Boulevard is one long, continuous block (see Figure A-4). This presents an opportunityto break up this super -block and create more walkable, pedestrian -friendly block sizes in this area. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard, is characterized by large building footprints that reflect the commercial and industrial nature of the uses. In many cases, buildings have large front and side setbacks without a clear relation to either street or other buildings. In several cases the buildings have blank or inactive facades. Compared to the area east of North Shoreline Boulevard, the area has wider sidewalks with higher quality landscaping. The existing land uses, frontage character, and long block lengths arejust a few of the factors that make this area less conducive to walking. Examples of development west of North Shoreline Boulevard 64 two - ,Jwtll Existing Condtions W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O z 66 East of Shoreline East of North Shoreline Boulevard, the urban form follows a grid with perpendicular cross -streets creating distinct blocks. The parcel size is smaller, typically less than two acres, resulting in smaller -scale development and buildings in the area (see Figure A-3). Small parcels, less than an acre is size, are often more difficult to redevelop and require aggregation. The east side of North Shoreline Boulevard also has smaller blocks (about 600 feet) that allow for increased opportunities for crossings and provide more direct routes for pedestrians (see Figure A-4). A large percentage of land is devoted to surface parking, landscaping, outdoor storage, or other uses both on the east and west side of North Shoreline Boulevard. The area has narrow sidewalks with irregular landscaping. The area includes a diverse mix of uses, with vacant or underutilized parcels that provide an opportunity for infill redevelopment. low- I Examples of development east of North Shoreline Boulevard Examples of development east of North Shoreline Boulevard az J a z O N a� J J W m uj w H 67 Figure A-3. Parcel Size OLD MIDDLEFIELD wAY ;i -ilii 4.-. J IW k J W A AVf'HroA {+J Z 16. or 1,40D Feet Legend 0 -Q.5 acre -s 2.0 - 3.5 atrts 0.5 -1.D acres 3.5 - 5.0 acres 1.0 - 2-0 ages 5.0 - 10.0 ares fProject 8aundary Parcel Size w N V 25D 5S7t] z Z 0 Terra Bella Vision Plan x LL 0 } F- U V 1,40D Feet Legend 0 -Q.5 acre -s 2.0 - 3.5 atrts 0.5 -1.D acres 3.5 - 5.0 acres 1.0 - 2-0 ages 5.0 - 10.0 ares fProject 8aundary Parcel Size Figure A-4. Mock Lengths IC0 LA4y"JDA In sally ]IRRA a9k aA &VI 170 67V r 675' 685' Ab IrIk. 700' 70V Cr OLD MI D D LEFIE LD WAY IIN 4A IC0 LA4y"JDA In sally ]IRRA a9k aA &VI 170 67V r 675' 685' Ab IrIk. 700' 70V Cr < 4w feet 404 -SOD feet Terra Bella Vision Plan 800 - 16DO feet > 16011 fem CIA 4 44 544,w IAA % V-1 �A4 7Atg�O Block Lengths z z 0 W Z Z 7 O X LL O H U 70 Building Height and Intensitv Most of the buildings in Terra Bella are single story with a few 2 -story structures, less than the General Plan height guideline of 3 stories. The only 4 -story building in the Plan area is the recent recently constructed office building on the northeast corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. Figure A-5 shows a 3-dimensional view of existing uses and building heights. Building intensity is measured in floor area ratio (FAR), the ratio of a building or project's floor area to its land area. FAR is typically used to measure the intensity of commercial, office, and industrial uses. The maximum permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for parcels in the Plan area is 0.35. The majority of the parcels are developed between 0.20 and 0.30 FAR, belowthe maximum permissible limit. The parcels on the eastside of North Shoreline Boulevard have a lower FAR, and are thus underdeveloped as compared to the parcels west of North Shoreline Boulevard which are closer to the FAR limit with large building footprints. Figure A-5. Existing Building Heights and Land Use x"� - C Existing Use Legend Offire/ R&D quail = School services Church HotellMotel Industrial Multi -Family M-adical Seng.Ie•Famity _ lni5JiivJiOrVRLmrt!ateonal Vacant APPENDIX A: Existing Condtions 41 �110 Jim 4 u ` n 1 -S�. GAS` �� � -• - �wycfirvg $Buy:Hsc� Cwa�r � - '� 12 Parks and Open Space There are currently no parks or open space within the Terra Bella Plan area. Figure A-6 maps the parks and open spaces in and around Terra Bella. The open spaces around Terra Bella are limited to the Stevens Creek Trail that runs east of the Terra Bella Plan area, Permanente Creek trail, the proposed open space in North Bayshore, and a few smaller -scale parks within a half -mile from Terra Bella. Stevens Creek and Permanent Creek trails both function not only as open space but also as corridors for active transportation and wildlife habitat. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is part of the larger Stierlin Planning area which is in need of an additional 7.73 acres of open space to meet the City's goal of 3.0 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. The Crittenden Middle School and the Whisman Sport Center are located just west of the Plan area and provide nearby sports facilities. There is currently a joint use agreement between the City of Mountain View and the Mountain View Whisman Schools District that allows joint use of all the City's school park spaces for recreation outside of school hours. Crittendon Middle School (photo credit: dovidtroyer.com) 72 ,:Wj, A Figure A-6. Parks and Open Space 4w 1, 0 900 7.8014 3.600 Feet Legend ° Y One MWe WITee Terra Bella Vision Plan I Wall lleeufter 'f Falls 9 Uoah Baoate Proposed open Space L_!7 PM]mTe8undmy Parks and Open Space z O N_ J W m Uj W 73 Retail Centers The Terra Bella Plan area currently has a limited amount of retail properties - the Taco Bell located at Terra Bella Avenue and North Shoreline Boulevard and two gas stations at the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road. However, the area is served by the Bailey Park retail center approximately a third of a mile south of Terra Bella and will be served by the potential North Bayshore retail center to the north of Highway 101. Bailey Park Plaza currently includes a Safeway grocery store, some restaurants, and basic neighborhood commercial services. Nearby retail centers are shown in Figure A-7. 74 Figure A-7. Retail Centers �rt ,w ,tff <++•w+�Esrc�warr F m r o � + M I 2 I r`F r r' OLD PA r ;=" *kk r 14 WAY )c*me* i r LAAyfMpA r r ; q* y y. S r1tr I L 4 L 5 5 ti w r r F � ffk � �xk . r 4 f � Y 2 Jf !+ r#� 0 9€10 1,800 3.604 Feet Legend Oqeh+IleEulier Terra Bella Vision Plan `= Halt Mile BuTler Rmail rkmlcr L. <- C" pt N$* ' DowdMown wanh8ays'horePrapasedReradComm ■ C 1 Prn[arr 9aumdary Retail Centers 75 Environmental Cleanup The Plan area includes the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund, as shown in Figure A-8. The super fund site includes the former Teledyne Semiconductor (Teledyne) property located at 1300 Terra Bella Avenue and the former Spectra -Physics Lasers (Spectra -Physics) property located at 1250 West Middlefield Road. Investigations beginning in the 1980's documented the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (mainly trichloroethene (TCE) and its associated degradation products such as cis1,2-dichloroethene) into soil and groundwater at the properties within the Spectra -Physics site. Furthermore, contaminated groundwater that migrated north from another contaminated site, Teledyne Semiconductor (just north of Highway 101), merged with the contaminated plume of the Spectra -Physics site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) oversees cleanup activities in the superfund site. Various cleanup efforts have been ongoingsince the 1980's. New development within the Spectra -Physics site may need to invest in remediation, vapor barriers, or other clean-up strategies. While the past/ongoing groundwater remedy has substantially reduced contaminant concentrations, cleanup will likely continue for many years to come W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 76 Figure A-8. Sites with Listed Contaminants 0L M I DDLE FIFLD WAy z **m m lb 4b § ��- 46 b hL I "I 4p ERRA BELLA AVE 4p I�b Ib z b% dx Terra Bella Vision an 1.OGO FeLt Legend ftmurninged Sites Project Eloundafy tfflCAft6'UWAY Sites with Listed Contaminants Sourre: Environmental RaWticin ftency mfp22-epuZovfsuperlund) 77 Mobility Roadways Terra Bella is located along North Shoreline Boulevard adjacent to the intersection of Highways 101 and 85, which provides regional motor vehicle access to the area, as well as connectivity to both City and regional destinations. In addition, West Middlefield Road runs along the southern boundary of much of the area, and Terra Bella Avenue provides an important east/west spine within the neighborhood. Of these roadways, North Shoreline Boulevard connects Terra Bella to both Downtown Mountain View and the North Bayshore employment area. It is the only north -south roadway through the Plan area, is served by several transit stops, provides north -south bike connections suitable for confident bicyclists, and connects directly to and crosses the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101). Although the area has close freeway access, traffic congestion during the commute hours can make it very difficult to access. The most recent data on traffic volumes and congestion suggest that intersections in the Plan area do not experience significant congestion despite high volumes on North Shoreline Boulevard (though the intersections just outside the Plan area at North Shoreline Boulevard and La Avenida Street and North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road do). Table A-3 provides data on traffic volumes in the area. w Z H Z O X LL O } H U 78 Table A-3. Traffic VoLumes in Study Area Source: 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard Office Building Project Final Transportation Impact Assessment, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015 Note: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was estimated based on the PM peak traffic volume Traffic VoLumes Time Street Cross -street Period North Middlefield PM Peak Shoreline Rdst 1,110 756 758 1,588 Blvd North Middlefield Est. ADT Shoreline Rdst 11,100 7,560 7,580 15,880 Blvd North PM Peak Shoreline Terra Bella Ave 102 95 1,056 1,453 Blvd North Est. ADT Shoreline Terra Bella Ave 1,020 950 10,560 14,530 Blvd Source: 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard Office Building Project Final Transportation Impact Assessment, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015 Note: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was estimated based on the PM peak traffic volume Active Transportation Network The Plan area is served by a complete sidewalk network within and extending far outside of the area in all directions. All of the streets within the Plan area have sidewalks on both sides of the street, as do nearly all of the streets in the surrounding area. Sidewalks appear to be well maintained and in good condition. All major intersections have crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Bicycle access and bicycle level of traffic stress in the Terra Bella area is mixed. Both North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road are wide, heavily - trafficked roadways, with four lanes of traffic and turn lanes. The current Class II bike lanes on North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road are narrow with minimal separation from auto traffic, and are thus deemed moderate -stress facilities. However, North Shoreline Boulevard is slated for conversion to a Class IV protected bikeway. This upgrade will significantly reducethe intersection stress of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, and will improve connectivity to Terra Bella Avenue. U.S. Route 101 presents a major challenge for multimodal travel from Terra Bella to the North Bayshore employment area. The existing overpass provides minimal accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians, and the high vehicle speeds and challenging crossings largely deter travel on bike or by foot. A dedicated pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Highway 101 on the west side of North Shoreline Boulevard is currently in design. When it is constructed, it will significantly improve safety, attract bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and improve bike/ped connectivity between Terra Bella and North Bayshore. See Figure A-9 for existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure locations. 79 Figure A -g. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Infrastructure OLK) M1UDLE FPEL0 WAY 0: a 52 K � ........KIM....................... rx # y S � r �y.tr S •F4 •, p - TWA i ,iAAYi % r 4 # r 99, Ct fid* "'lob ■ .i ` OR 7 „- ...fi.....ram......�.■r�r.r��r.ira.asarrr.�ra� y} m i 4 LI •yFRqO VYiw�FyN;;* �` 4i 0 250 500 7.000 Fee[ ■f■a■®■ E cjildir�g Footprints Flan Boundary DdsOn&foposed Wi€e Facilities Terra Bella Vision Plan 4.4.. fta%51 Path k• M , 3 i !:. Protected Bikeway (Class IVi ••••• C9a5, 9 Hike Lane "+ Claris 911 %ute Transit Connections The Terra Bella neighborhood is served by three transit providers operating routes within the Plan area - Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MVgo), and Mountain View Community Shuttle. Combined, these operators run seven fixed -route services that travel near or through the Plan area. Of these services, five are within a half mile of the Plan area: • VTA Route 40 - Foothill to Mountain View • VTA Route 185 - Gilroy Transit Center - Mountain View • MVgo East Bayshore (Orange) Shuttle • MVgo West Bayshore (Green) Shuttle • Mountain View Community Shuttle The West and the East Bayshore Mountain View Go (MVgo) shuttle connects the Plan area to the Caltrain and the VTA Light Rail station in Downtown Mountain View. MVgo provides free shuttle service to reduce trafficvolumes forthe benefit of the community. While targeted for commuters accessing employment areas in North Bayshore and East Whisman, it is available for use by all members of the public. Transit route locations are illustrated in Figure A-10. Planned transit improvements along North Shoreline Boulevard (such as the planned dedicated reversible transit lane) and West Middlefield Road will improve transit access to both Caltrain and VTA by making bus service faster and more reliable especially during peak hours. This will enhance the development opportunities in Terra Bella. In addition, the City is studying automated guideway transportation (AGT) options for North Shoreline Boulevard to address anticipated commuter traffic between Downtown and North Bayshore. r $ - z a z O a g J W m LU W H 81 T Figure A-io. Bus Routes Operating Within or Near the Study Area ROCKST m «4»_ N az40 4813 1360 Feel Legend Building toorprinis C:11 Prole it Boundary Terra Bella Vision Plan o0- vrArautrsJstops Mou ntain Ilew Ga - hitureEIRS Irnelsttpps CrF' LI %k,; UA1% Vir.x `Note: this mop shows transit routes and stops os ofApri12018. Transit `� w r�r.wi�i�r.■����r.�*a �i���i�irrsar���s����+e�r.4 J Nr PABLO OR SAMCv2Rr4Vv Legend Building toorprinis C:11 Prole it Boundary Terra Bella Vision Plan o0- vrArautrsJstops Mou ntain Ilew Ga - hitureEIRS Irnelsttpps CrF' LI %k,; UA1% Vir.x `Note: this mop shows transit routes and stops os ofApri12018. Transit Key Considerations The following is a brief summary of the key considerations in the Terra Bella area. 1. Parks and open spaces. Though there are public parks located outside of the Terra Bella area, there are no public parks or community space within the neighborhood. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is in need of additional open space to meet the City's goal. 2. Traffic and parking. Traffic congestion is a key issue in the area, particularly along North Shoreline Boulevard funneling in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore. While many community members expressed interest in seeing more housing and non-residential development in Terra Bella, there was concern that new development could lead to more traffic congestion and parking spillover in adjacent residential neighborhoods. I Walking and bicycling conditions. Major auto -oriented roadways including US -101, SR -85, Shoreline Boulevard, and Middlefield Road create high stress conditions and substantial barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access in, out and through the area. Additionally, long block lengths in Terra Bella, particularly west of North Shoreline Boulevard, has resulted in poor pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by reducing opportunities for crossings and direct routes. Building pedestrian/bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), protected bikeways and full-time bike lanes, and breaking up large blocks with streets or greenways can improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 4. Mix of uses. Terra Bella consists of predominately office and light industrial uses, with limited residential and retail uses. The result is a commuter -oriented environment with limited neighborhood amenities and little to no evening or nighttime activity. The community expressed interest in encouraging a diverse mix of uses and activities in Terra Bella while maintaining the unique and quiet character of the area. rj. Development and building character. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard, is characterized by large suburban office parks. In many cases, buildings do not face directly onto the street and have deep front and side setbacks, with little interaction between private properties and the public realm. Active and well-designed building frontages are crucial for creating a more inviting, pedestrian -oriented environment that will attract people to walk, gather, shop, and spend time. 6. Residential adjacency. The Terra Bella area is bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast, including Rock Street and Stierlin Estates. Future development should be designed to respect and benefit the adjacent single-family neighborhoods by providing additional amenities for residents, improving multimodal access, and creating appropriate transitions to existing homes. 7. Small business preservation. Terra Bella, particularly the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard, is home to an eclectic mix of small businesses, light industrial uses, and non -profits. Redevelopment of the area could continue to put upward pressure on property values and rents, leading to displacement. S. Environmental conditions. Contaminated sites in Terra Bella, particularly the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund site west of North Shoreline Boulevard, pose a concern for new development. While cleanup activities are still ongoing, further studies and remediation will likely be required, especially if new housing and non-residential development is considered in this area. 83 FA 0 LiFA '\ 61 'o 0 Ah Ah 0 -W Ah carol mo `,:ro. Terra Bella Vision Plan Workshop 1 Summary Time and Da e: Saturaay, June 2, 2018 (9:30am — 12:00pm) Location: Mountain View Senior Center, 266 Escuela Ave, Mountain View, CA 94040 The first public workshop for the Terra Bella Vision Plan was hosted on Saturday, June 2nd at the Senior Center in Mountain View from 9 am to 12:00 pm. The workshop aimed to introduce the project, engage interested community members, and get a sense of their vision for the area's future. Approximately 45 people attended the event, representing a range of residents, property owners, businesses, and developers. The workshop commenced with an opening statement by Mountain View Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak and Project Manager Diana Pancholi, from the Mountain View Planning Department. After the introduction by Ms. Pancholi, Eric Yurkovich of Raimi + Associates, lead project consultant, addressed the participants and provided a more detailed overview of the Vision Plan project. His presentation provided a brief overview of existing conditions in the plan area and an explanation of the three interactive workshop exercises. Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan The workshop activities were organized around small group tables of six or eight participants each, with facilitators guiding and moderating the discussions at each table. The three exercises in the workshop were: Discussion Exercise - Strengths, Issues and Vision. Workshop participants were asked a series of discussion questions regarding their vision for the future of Terra Bella. The facilitators led the conversations, with participants listing the issues, strengths, and their vision for Terra Bella on sticky notes which were collected and summarized. 2. Mapping Exercise — Land Use Stickers. Each participant was given a map of the plan area and stickers representing different land uses. They were asked to place these stickers where they envisioned future uses such as office, housing, retail, parks/open space, and community facilities. They also had the option to use markers to highlight new street, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections in Terra Bella. Finally, the participants were also asked to note the appropriate heights for the various uses on the stickers. 3. Visual Preference Exercise - Character of Future Development. Each participant was given a visual preference survey package with a range of possible housing, office, and mixed-use development types in Terra Bella. The participants were asked to vote for their preferred building type in each of those development categories and explain why in text boxes below the images. Page 12 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Activity 1. Strengths, Issues and Vision Workshop participants were asked a series of discussion questions regarding their vision for the future of Terra Bella. The facilitators led the conversations, with participants listing the issues, strengths, and their vision for Terra Bella on sticky notes. A summary of the results is listed below, and a graphic tally of the results is shown on the following pages. Strengths. Some of the universally agreed-upon strengths of the area were: • The area's location and easy access to the 101 Freeway, State Route 85, and nearby bicycle paths • Proximity to jobs, such as in North Bayshore • Proximity to nearby open spaces including Shoreline Park and Stevens Creek Trail • Mix of uses and small business -friendly environment Other listed strengths included the quiet character of the area, industrial uses, and proximity to schools. Issues. Some of the prevalent issues that emerged were: • Traffic (particularly along Shoreline Blvd funneling in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore) • Lack of open space and parks within Terra Bella itself • Presence of Recreational Vehicles (RVs) in the area • Lack of housing • Development and building character (older buildings) • Pedestrian infrastructure and safety Among other issues listed were poor public transit, recycling facility, surface parking, and a lack of amenities. Vision. Many participants agreed that Terra Bella was poised for redevelopment/change and that new housing was a priority in the area. Some responses envisioned Terra Bella as a complete neighborhood with diverse uses, open space, amenities and improved transit facilities while maintaining the quiet character of the area. Page 13 Key Strengths Identified by Workshop Participants 0 2 4 Access (freeway, bike routes) Proximity to open spaces (Shoreline park and Stevens Creek) Proximity to jobs - Location Friendly to small businesses/ non -profits/ flex -office spaces - Mix of uses - Quiet residential neighborhood - Safety Recycling facility - Landscaping/ trees 2 Improve public transit 2 Proximity to school 2 Preserve low industrial 2 Light traffic 2 3 3 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan 6 8 10 12 14 12 8 7 5 5 4 4 Page 14 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Key Issues Identified by Workshop Participants 0 5 10 15 20 25 Traffic 24 RV Parking/ Homeless 9 Lack of Parks/ Open Space 8 Lack of Housing 8 Pedestrian infrastructure and safety 7 Building/ development type 7 Connections (to North Bayshore and Downtown) 6 Lack of retail/ amenities 6 Poor public transit 5 Recycing facility 5 Contamination 5 Surface parking/ trucks 4 Adhoc land uses 3 Circulation 2 High rents 2 Freeway 2 Air quality 2 No landscaping 2 Bike facilities 2 Page 15 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Activity 2. Land Use Mapping Exercise All participants were given a map of the plan area with stickers representing different land uses to illustrate their individual vision for the plan area. They were asked to use the stickers to show where they preferred office, housing, retail, mixed use, industrial, parks/open space, and community facilities, and also to use markers to highlight new bicycle, pedestrian, auto, and transit connections in Terra Bella. The sticker options also included street improvements such as crosswalks, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The participants were also asked to note their preferred height for these land uses by writing the number on the sticker itself. The results showed a wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella and the level of redevelopment. For the purposes of analysis, the overall results were broken down into the three distinct geographies — West of Shoreline, East of Shoreline and along Shoreline Blvd. The results for each separate geographic area were then qualitatively assessed for the degree and type of change marked on the maps. The overarching themes that emerged from this analysis are summarized below with maps that illustrate those themes. West of Shoreline. A majority of the audience envisioned some kind of redevelopment and introduction of other land uses on the west side of Terra Bella. A number of participants preferred to keep the area as is. Overall, most participants called for open space and streetscape improvements. About one-third of the participants expressed a desire to re -develop the area with higher intensities, heights, and mix of uses. • About a quarter of the participants wanted moderate change in the area with mix of uses. About a quarter of the participants wanted no change in this area, keeping it predominantly low-density office. Page 16 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Along Shoreline Blvd. A majority of the audience indicated a desire for increased retail activity along Shoreline, in addition to transit and bicycle/pedestrian improvements to create a more active street front. • About one-third of the participants • envisioned retail uses along Shoreline of varying intensity. The thorough traffic would yield high footfalls conducive to retail uses. 'v�1vf A majority of participants marked some sort of transportation improvement such as pedestrian crossings, traffic signals, protected bike lanes, and measures to relieve traffic on Shoreline. • A few participants also saw the intersection of Shoreline and Terra Bella as a potential site for a hotel. Page 17 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan East of Shoreline. The participants had a strong preference towards moderate to high change by introducing a diverse mix of uses with higher intensities than currently present on the east side. A large percentage voted to retain some kind of light industrial uses in the area and also for a park or open space. • More than half of participants were in favor of moderate/high change in the area, with a mix of residential and office use. They envisioned lower heights near existing single-family residential uses, and a gradual transition to higher heights along 101. • Approximately half the residents expressed a desire to retain light industrial/ maker's space in the area. Terra Bella is recognized as being friendly to small businesses and non -profits offering flex -office spaces. VII Ok • There was consensus among half of the participants to introduce new open space or parks in the eastern side with bicycle/pedestrian connections to Stevens Creek Trail. Page 18 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Activity 3. Visual Preference - Character of Future Development Each participant was given a visual preference survey package with a range of possible housing, office and mixed-use development types in Terra Bella. The participants were asked to vote for their preferred building type in each of those development categories and explain why in text boxes below. Overall, a large number of the participants chose more traditional architectural styles for both housing and office development. In some cases, a majority of respondents voted for none of the images. According to their notes, some of the participants who voted for the higher density building types based their votes on the need to create more housing and open spaces, add landscaped setbacks, and introduce more active ground floor uses. Below are the results for each land use and development type along with some selected comments. Page 19 r 'moi" -z 13 28.9% Liked style and scale, suitable for residential 3 6.7% 4 8.9% �- GG 10 22.2% Liked warmer material, retail on ground floor 2 4.4% 8.9% Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan I 7 15.6% Liked green space, setback 26 57.8% Liked open space, human scale, architectural style 17 37.8% None 9 20.0% Page 110 17 37.8% Liked open space, lower height Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan 8 17.8% Liked curved facade, reflective glass, height None 10 22.2% 4 1 7 5 18 8.9% 2.2% 15.6% 11.1% 40.0% Too boxy, character and type inappropriate for Terra Bella Page 111 4 10 8.9% 22.2% Liked green space, ped - friendly, colorful 8 17.8% Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Liked interesting massing 12 26.7% 6 4 4 4 16 13.3% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 35.6% Too boxy, character Liked interesting plaza and scale more suitable for Downtown Page 112 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Conclusion Overall, there was support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low to moderate density development was envisioned. Many participants saw the potential for Terra Bella to add more diverse uses — especially new housing and retail. There was support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; however, there was strong support for improvements that would enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. The overwhelming issue cited was traffic congestion, which prompted participants to call for mobility and streetscape improvements along Shoreline Boulevard to try to address traffic concerns. Other key takeaways included: • Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing mixed use, residential, and retail to create a more vibrant and thriving district. Some interest in preserving light industrial uses on the east side of Terra Bella. • Traffic was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. • For both residential and office, higher intensities were more acceptable away from existing residential neighborhoods. • New residential development should gradually transition from the existing low-density single-family homes to higher densities/heights. Fostering neighborhood character and introducing new open space and connections was important to workshop residents. • Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. • Retail and mixed use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Blvd. Page 113 Curur mo `,:ro. Terra Bella Vision Plan Workshop 2 Summary Saturoay, August 25, 2018 (9:30am — 12:30pm) Mountain View Senior Center, 266 Escuela Ave, Mountain View, CA 94040 The second public workshop for the Terra Bella Vision Plan was held on Saturday, August 25th at Mountain View City Hall from 9:30 am to 12:30 pm. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses., Approximately 62 people attended the event, representing a range of residents, property owners, businesses, and developers. The workshop commenced with an opening statement by Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel and Project Manager Diana Pancholi, from the Mountain View CDD. Eric Yurkovich of Raimi + Associates, lead project consultant, then led a presentation and large group discussion of proposed land use and transportation concepts for Terra Bella. Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan The workshop activity included a large -group discussion and participant questionnaire (see Appendix A) on the following topics: 1. Guiding Principles. Participants were asked to review the draft guiding principles for the project, circle their top three principles, and add any principles they thought were missing. 2. Land Use Vision Plans. Participants were asked to select their preferred land use vision plan for Terra Bella and explain why. If participants chose "Other Vision," they were asked to describe their alternative vision idea. 3. Building Heights. Participants were asked if new development should provide transitions between new projects and various existing uses, and if so, select uses and preferred strategies. 4. Parks and Open Space. Participants were asked if park space should be added to Terra Bella, and if so, where. In addition, they were asked what kinds of amenities they would like to see in open spaces. 5. Transportation and Street Concepts. Participants were asked to provide any comments they might have on the proposed transportation network for the area and street concepts for Terra Bella Ave, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. 6. Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Participants were asked if TDM strategies should be included in the plan and if so, which strategies they would support. 7. Frontage Character. Participants were presented with various frontage types/options and asked which would be appropriate for each street in the Terra Bella area. 8. Community Benefits. Participants were asked if development projects should provide community benefits and if so, which benefits they thought were a priority. 9. Small Business Support. Participants were asked if future development should support small businesses in Terra Bella, and if so, what type of support. Results of the questionnaire are summarized on the following pages. Page 12 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Guiding Principles In this exercise, participants were asked to review the draft guiding principles for the project, circle their top three principles, cross out principles they did not agree with, and add any principles they thought were missing. Priority Guiding Principles The top three guiding principles selected by a majority of workshop participants as a priority were the following: 1. GP#3: Promote housing at a variety of income levels and ownership types (27 votes) 2. GP#2: Create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses (17 votes) 3. GP#6: Create new public spaces (17 votes) Guiding Principle Revisions, Additions, and Comments Although GP#3 was selected by most participants as a priority, there were quite a few participants that disagreed with providing housing for a variety of income levels and ownership types and crossed it out on their questionnaire. The other two guiding principles that some participants did not agree with or feel were unnecessary included: • GP#5: Respect the Rex Manor neighborhood character — some of the residents who live in Rex Manor said they were not concerned that the Plan would impact the character of their neighborhood and thus this GP was not needed • GP#1: Maintain TB as a strong employment center — some participants wanted to see the area shift towards predominately residential uses Some of the suggested revisions to Guiding Principles included: • Revise GP#5 to state "Respect the Rex Manor and Stierlin Estates neighborhood characters" (13 votes) • Revise Gp#6 to state "Create new public parks" rather than "Create new public spaces" (5 votes) In addition, participants wanted to see the following incorporated or added to the Guiding Principles: • Be mindful of transitions between single-family residential and other uses • Encourage denser housing, office, and mixed-use development • Promote environmental sustainability • Create a village -like environment with a mix of uses Page 13 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan • Improve access to health services Among other comments listed were concerns over building heights, particularly near single-family residential neighborhoods, potential traffic impacts on existing residents, and the desire to build denser development to maximize housing (both market rate and affordable). Land Use Vision Plans All participants were presented with the three proposed land use vision options for Terra Bella and asked to select their preferred vision. The results show that most participants preferred Vision Plan 1 which proposes new parks spaces and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, and additional mixed-use/retail development along Shoreline. The option that received the second highest number of votes was "Other Vision." For those that selected one of the three proposed visions, a few people commented that they would like to see higher densities/heights among the proposed uses, while others suggested lowering the proposed heights for office and/or residential uses. Preferred Vision Plan Vision•Tally Vision Plan 1 25 Vision Plan 2 9 Vision Plan 3 6 Other Vision 15 Option 1 OLD MIDDUF IELD WAY rr r o r � i z 4 L_ T �4!`!• "+6. 'yam e*? SN i:.rr d k 9 s a,v,.eaa oik, iee.neEita avr " Oil- N �.� ali L� r k•Iam4i l ,,P O 3,. w.r Ansi)—nrl.� ....r.. — — — w 0 250 500 1,000 Feet besldentlal {up to 3 storks? 0" (up too storles) "••••� PWn boundary A Re5Wential JUP tv 55h)Fle5) 4Ffive(up to Fs stonesl Neighborhood Transitiom ResWential Iwo 7 storks) Church New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan ,,��.,,�� � ht lDdusvml I0M. New PedestdanlBike Path Mimd Use with Geta it / ��Light C—ptual Public 0j.. SWC [VP to 1 stvneA Hotel [up to P stones) Page 14 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan When asked why participants selected Vision Plan 1, the reasons most often stated were: • Great balance of uses • Adds the most housing • Increases density Participants who selected Vision Plan 1 also liked it because it: • Would create a walkable neighborhood • Includes two proposed park spaces • Proposes additional retail along Shoreline • Preserves office uses near 101 • Includes diverse housing options Approximately 15 participants selected "Other Vision," with varying reasons or proposals for an alternative. The "Other Visions" proposed included the following: • Hybrid of Vision Plan 1 (housing focus) and Vision Plan 2 (light industrial preservation east of Shoreline) (1 vote) • Hybrid of Vison Plan 2 (west side of plan) and Vision Plan 3 (east side of plan) (2 votes) • Lower density 1-2 story residential development only, with green buffers between existing single-family neighborhoods and new development (proposal from Stierlin Estates residents; 5 votes) • No comments or suggestions, but a request for more data on each vision plan (2 votes) • More high-density office and residential (1 vote) • More residential, less office (1 vote) • Reduced heights/density for office and residential uses (1 vote) • Less office, lower -density residential (1 vote) • No new streets. New development will increase traffic. (1 vote) As seen above, the comments for "Other Vision" suggest that there is a wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella and the level of potential redevelopment. Some chose "Other Vision" because they wanted a hybrid of the proposed vision plans, some wanted to see higher densities and/or more housing, and others wanted to see lower -density residential development. Some participants also commented that they would like to know the number of potential new residents and employees associated with each vision plan. Page 15 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Building Heights As seen in the graphs below, when asked whether the Plan should include neighborhood transitions, most participants said they would like to see transitions between new development and neighboring single-family and multi -family residential development. There appeared to be broad support for all the proposed transition strategies, particularly height transitions. Participants also proposed additional transition strategies such us open space, landscaping, parking, and setbacks. Existing industrial uses Across residential streets Neighboring MFR Neighboring SFR Landscaping Setbacks Height transitions Priority Uses or Conditions for Transitions 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Preferred Transition Strategies 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Page 16 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Parks and Open Space When asked if new park space should be added to Terra Bella and where, the majority of workshop participants said east of Shoreline. Preferred amenities for new parks included tot lots/playgrounds, landscaped areas, and community gathering areas (see graph below). Tot lot/playground Landscape areas Community gathering areas Community garden Dog park Exercise equipment Pop-up retail Preferred Park Amenities 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Transportation and Street Concepts A majority of participants seemed to be supportive of the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and street concepts for Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Avenue. The following is a list of key takeaways based on individual participant comments on the transportation network and street concepts: • The community would rather have protected (or separated) bike lanes on all the key streets through the area rather than shared lanes, even if that means removing on -street parking. • Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. • The community would like to see better walking/biking connections between the east and west sides of Terra Bella, across Middlefield Road, and also to North Bayshore and Stevens Creek. Page 17 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan • There is concern over the impacts of new development on the parking supply and potential spillover onto surrounding neighborhood streets. • The City should consider making San Leandro a dead-end street closed to through -traffic. Parking and Transportation Demand Management The majority of workshop participants agreed that the Plan should include TDM strategies. The TDM strategies supported by most community members were (see graph below): 1. Shared parking between projects (22 votes) 2. Bicycle Parking/shower/changing facilities (19 votes) 3. Carshare parking (13 votes) 4. Development to provide fewer parking spaces (12 votes) Some participants also suggested making all parking in the area paid parking and increasing the cost of street parking to reduce potential spillover effects on neighborhood streets. Shared parking Bike parking/showers Carshare stalls Few parking spaces TDM plan Transit passes MVGo participation TDM coordinator Preferred TDM Strategies 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Page 18 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Frontage Character Workshop participants were asked to choose up to three preferred frontage options for each street in the Terra Bella area. Generally, frontage preferences were in keeping with the types of land uses that the community would like to see along each street. For instance, most people chose the retail/shopfront for Shoreline Boulevard. Participants chose residential -type frontages such as stoop and door yard/porch for quieter residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. The responses indicate that the community would like to move away from parking frontages, which are currently the predominate frontage type along many of the streets in Terra Bella. A detailed tally of participant responses is shown in the table on the following page and the preferred frontages are summarized below: • Terra Bella Ave (E of Shoreline): Retail shopfront, stoop, landscape • Terra Bella Ave (W of Shoreline): Retail shopfront, landscape, forecourt • Linda Visa Ave: Stoop, door yard/porch, landscape • San Rafael Ave: Stoop, landscape, door yard/porch • Shoreline Blvd: Retail shopfront, forecourt, landscape • W Middlefield Rd: Retail shopfront, stoop, landscape Terra Bella (E of Shoreline) Terra Bella (W of Shoreline) Linda Vista San Rafael Shoreline W Middlefield 26 15 17 22 19 7 23 12 11 10 23 6 12 7 18 23 17 7 12 9 17 23 19 5 32 15 10 6 15 5 *1' 9 12 17 17 3 Page 19 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Benefits A majority of workshop participants (over 85%) responded in favor of requiring community benefits as part of new development projects. As seen in the graph below, the priority community benefits selected were public open space, bike improvements, streetscape improvements, and affordable housing. Public open space Bike improvements Streetscape improvments Affordable Housing Green buildings Local business prservation/ retention Commercial retail space Local business/ fagade improvements A school/ educational facility Childcare center Preferred Community Benefits 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Page 110 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Small Business Support When asked whether new development should support existing businesses, most workshop participants responded "yes." The small business support activities most favored by the community were (see graph below): 1. Create new building space (25 votes) 2. Support public art and placemaking (18 votes) 3. Maintain existing building space (17 votes) Many of the individual participant comments specified that small business space should be preserved east of Shoreline Boulevard. Create new building space Support public art and placemaking Maintain existing building space Allow access to project facilities Employ local workers Use local businesses in contruction of projects Preferred Small Business Support Activities 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Page I 11 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Conclusion Overall, most participants seemed to support Vision Plan 1, which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed vision plans, and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. Generally, most participants were supportive of the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception that people would like to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets rather than shared lanes. Other key takeaways from the workshop included: • Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. • New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. • There was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. • There was support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. • Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. • The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. • The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/changing facilities, and carshare parking. • The community showed a preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominately residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues • Most participants were in favor of requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Page 112 Appendix A: Questionnaire Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Page 113 AGENDA CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop Time and Date: Saturday, August 25, 2018 (9:30am-12:30pm) Location: Mountain View City Hall, 500 Castro St, Mountain View, CA 94041 Meeting Objectives • Review high-level themes and results from Community Workshop #1. • Examine land use vision plans for Terra Bella and discuss elements or ideas for a preferred vision. • Provide preferences for the location and function of streets in the area and the character of public sidewalks along Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, and San Rafael Avenue. • Discuss key policy questions related to community benefits approach, parks, schools, and small businesses. • Review draft guiding principles for the Terra Bella area. Workshop Agenda 9:00am — 9:30am: Doors open and registration 9:30am — 9:40am: Welcome and introductions 9:40am — 12:20pm: Presentation, large group discussion, and questionnaire exercise 12:20pm—12:30pm: Wrap-up and adjourn For more information please contact: Diana Pancholi City of Mountain View Senior Planner diana.pancholi@mountainview.gov (650) 903-6306 Eric Yurkovich Raimi + Associates Senior Associate eric@raimiassociates.com (510) 394-3715 VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Draft Guiding Principles 1. Maintain Terra Bella as strong center of 6. Create new public spaces employment 7. Minimize vehicle trips and congestion 2. Create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses 3. Promote housing at variety of income levels and ownership types 8. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity 9. Preserve space for a number of small, employment - generating uses 4. Create walkable blocks with buildings that support 10. Ensure new development provides community the public realm benefits 5. Respect the Rex Manor neighborhood character 11. Other?: Circle your top three guiding principles. Strike out any principles you do not like. Add any principles that are missing. 2 QUESTIONNAIRE Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop #2 Land Use Vision Plans 1. What is your preferred land use vision plan for Terra Bella? (circle one) CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 2. Please briefly describe why you support your selected vision 3. If you select "Other Vision", please describe your vision plan. Would you change anything about your vision plan? idea. QUESTIONNAIRE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Building Heights Near Existing Residential 4. Should new development projects provide appropriate transitions between new projects and the following types of uses, and if so, what are some preferred strategies (height transitions, setbacks, or landscaping). (circle all that apply) Uses • Neighboring single-family residential • Neighboring multifamily residential • Across residential streets • Existing industrial uses • Other Parks and Open Space Strategies • Height transitions • Setbacks • Landscaping • Other 5. Should park space be added to Terra Bella area? (circle all that apply) • East of Shoreline Boulevard • West of Shoreline Boulevard • Along Shoreline Boulevard 6. What would you like to see in the open spaces? (circle all that apply) • Community gathering areas • Community garden • Tot lot / playground • Dog park • Pop-up retail • Exercise equipment • Landscape areas • Other ideas? QUESTIONNAIRE Transportation Network and Streets Concepts 7. Do you have any questions or comments on the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella? ARA - CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 8. What do you think about the concepts for the following streets in Terra Bella? What do you like / dislike about each concept? Terra Bella Avenue 1 I IN Linda Vista & San Rafael Avenues :J� 4 San Leandro Street QUESTIONNAIRE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Parking and Transportation Demand Management 9. Should the plan include parking and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to help address traffic and parking concerns in the area? (circle one) Yes No 10. If yes, please circle the strategies that you support. If you wish to add an item, please add at the bottom of the list. • New development to provide fewer parking spaces • Shared parking between projects • A TDM coordinator • A TDM plan be developed and submitted to the City for review • MVGo participation • Subsidized transit passes • Bicycle parking and shower / changing facilities • Carshare parking stalls • Other QUESTIONNAIRE Frontage Character CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 11. Check up to three frontages you think would be appropriate for each street in Terra Bella and note why in each box. QU ESTI ON NAI RE Community Benefits 12. Should development projects provide community benefits? (circle one) Yes No ARA - CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 13. Select and prioritize three community benefits for Terra Bella. If you wish to add an item, please add at the bottom of the list. (circle your top 3 choices and prioritize them (1 through 3)) • Affordable housing • Public open space • Streetscape improvements • Bicycle improvements • Local business building / facade improvements • Local business preservation / retention • Commercial retail space Small business support • Green buildings • A school or educational facility • Childcare center • Other • Other • Other 14. Should future development support small existing businesses in Terra Bella? (circle one) Yes No Other 15. If yes, please circle activities that you support. If you wish to add an item, please add at the bottom of the list. • Maintain existing building space for small businesses • Create new building space for small businesses • Use local businesses in the construction of new projects • Employ local workers • Allow access to project facilities (meeting spaces, open space) • Support public art, murals, and creative placemaking projects • Other Appendix B: Comment Cards Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Page 114 COMMENT CARD Terra Bella on Plan Community Workshop 00,,Yoll havo aqv odnw, que�oYons Or f/votf/d like loshorr;,? CITY OF MOUNTAIN Vim 1��F.R,�. 111111111TS1 mm 9 'Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop you f/voul'I yc t,.Y� zl��4 . .. ....... ,�ov/ 1�vlAc� I Terra Bella Vision Plan community Workshop Yoe- y�'Ji..i hao, Y T LOG 61) IM!, INAII E N ('!i I: INI 0 [.1 X. I 1,\Vww ­Ferra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop '!:'� rra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop ... .. ... .... ..... .... ... .. r� To 1141, U lle,-- i--\ vv v e- Xv,,\ f� 0 [A� IM k )t I f V I m 'Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop jvad f / IV,! �,,n,j/ w - ----- ---- 01ov N FA t N V11: W OMMENTCARD ... ...... . CI I Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop i;-,� ale)tj O/W mvuh.) c; c`,' veillue- -rL,� ?OU, . ..... . . .. ca's , -.1�".-.----�-�-�-�--.----�-.-�- - ----- --- - -- 17-F' ...... ...... awd veillue- -rL,� ?OU, . ..... . . .. ca's , -.1�".-.----�-�-�-�--.----�-.-�- - ----- --- - -- 1MOI:.\1"\I\ Vww 'forra Bella Vision PlanCommunity Workshop Ycwl hi,ow( i I y I bb// D CARD y ('I OI rnI\ N/I v Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop 1 F r You { i � ._ ! p , / < ¢� < y°::.� _ . �..P�7 FP�.:. �.. l',1F { _ F,Y�e..t n.� q f R s ;- 'i x b J 4 r a' T ,; �I [!� f F s �s. � f G F': E � f C'3E +.e��4 Ddk.%F 6f:.,: �'�. � � v,C ....._......, ............,, ..,...; ,;.., ... ... ... ..._ 1� � 1 F� ..I F.... ,. ......... ... .. >. ... .,. .-r ...... .,_....... .., �.,..,. ....,_. 4F r M1 1 c"I 1), (.)1 lkloll�[;\I� V "ferra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop fjlj�v /,t) f. I fli,41 j I O�s I COMMENT CARD Tema Bella Vision Plan Community rksh CITYOF MOUNTAIN VII:W C-0- MMENT CARD V CITY 0 F MOUNTAIN VIEW Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop Doyou haile aqy wYiot, qf ORd........ .... . I Rol 15 v,�Qr&d 11 9 ... �,�rra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop A) K� .... .. . . ... ... . .. ..... . 0, G Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop ,.I - 11 '1 , V. ., , .1 I I .� i - I:f , yo I I ; , ", ? 1) s+D,p o.— KAd 01)'(WIMOUNIAIN vin\, COMMENT CARD Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop 00.^w havo any ofher qw--,wdons Or I/vould fike �,Y)share? '- I -1 2211=.,-., CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW f% COMMENT CARD Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop /)0.]/(,)/-$ ho ve ai-T o Oor que�iions or cofnim"'t? i's flou m/ofdd fila" i -o shan-"? 11 Al--,=-�_. CITY OF MOUNTA IN VIFU 9 Exhibit 4 Terrace 13W,aa V 4 o-pv P l a*v. 042" SfCL � M s y CrrY OF MaunpTnln VrRN' During August, September, and early October, the City of Mountain View and the Raimi + Associates team conducted ten stakeholder meetings with Mountain View business leaders, employers, and residents about issues and opportunities for the design and neighborhoods within the Terra Bella Vision Plan Area. The list of stakeholders can be found at the end of this document. Many of the responses could be categorized into one of three groups, as seen in the notes consolidated below: V 4 o -w for Terra 6 ala, • Balance different land uses within the Terra Bella area. o Create new parks and open spaces to serve current and future neighborhood residents and employees. o Add residential housing to Terra Bella, east and west of N Shoreline Boulevard. o Create a mixed-use area with neighborhood -serving retail, either along N Shoreline Blvd or along Terra Bella Ave. o Preserve some area for light industrial, makers space, or similar. • Create a more pedestrian and bicycle -friendly district. Improve access to the Crittenden Middle School and Theuerkauf Elementary School, making crossings and routes safer for students. • Create clear gateway signage for the neighborhood (an identity) and Mountain View. • Allow denser development, particularly away from the existing single-family neighborhoods. • Provide an appropriate transition between existing single-family residential neighborhoods and future development within the area. GrZt� 1 • Provide a sensitive transition between future development and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. o Consider larger transitions and setbacks than currently required under City Code. o Use mature trees. • Create both renter and owner -occupied housing in Terra Bella. • Location of the recycling center and the potential impacts on a residential neighborhood. • Existing non -conforming uses. • Ensure future development provides adequate parking in order to minimize spillover parking. • Review existing City Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) to ensure that the requirements to participating within the program are not excessive. • Address cut -through traffic within the Terra Bella area. Individuals use San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues to avoid traffic on N Shoreline Blvd and W Middlefield Rd. • Closing the SR 85 on-ramp may have significant neighborhood traffic impacts. Terra Bella Vision Plan: Stakeholder Meeting Summary October 10, 2018 11 • Existing right-of-way widths are small. Consider creative street and public realm design that does not require expanding widths, while still meeting overall mobility goals. • Safety issues associated with RV parking in the neighborhood. • Consider the impacts of future development on neighborhood school capacity, including Crittenden Middle School and Theuerkauf Elementary School, making sure there is adequate capacity to meet future student needs. � ' • Define clear development transition areas, with established setbacks and maximum heights in those areas. • Mix residential development types (e.g., townhomes, mid -rise, and mixed-use podiums) to provide a variety of tenure types (e.g., owner and renter) to households at different income levels. • Explore a small elementary school in the neighborhood. • Establish a neighborhood parking plan that may include RPPP and no overnight parking in industrial areas. • Create non -automobile connections east and west of N Shoreline Blvd to promote safer and more conformable pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Provide a non -automobile connection to the Steven's Creek Trail. • Restrict southbound u -turns on N Shoreline Blvd during commute hours to minimize neighborhood cut -through traffic. • Implement traffic calming, complete street concepts on Linda Vista and San Pablo Avenues. • Create a framework that balances development fees and requirements with community benefits, such as parks, bicycle and pedestrian connections, and small business support. • Integrate existing transportation planning projects (e.g., Shoreline Boulevard, Highway 101 freeway ramp, and Highway 101 bicycle and pedestrian bridge) with the Terra Bella Vision Plan. • Google • Mountain View-Whisman School District • Palo Alto Housing Corporation • Prometheus Real Estate Group • Public Storage • Irvine Company • Swenson • Sares Regis Group • Sterlin Estates neighborhood residents • SummerHill • Zappettini Capital • Kilroy Realty Corporation • Others A separate small business roundtable is scheduled for October 16, 2018. Notes from this meeting have not been included within this summary due to timing issues. Terra Bella Vision Plan: Stakeholder Meeting Summary October 10, 2018 12 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Third Community Outreach Meeting January 28, 2019 As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was held on Monday January 28, 2019, 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at Crittenden Middle school and was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around reduced -intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to implement similar development intensity and buffers in the plan area at this location that is proposed at the southeastern border adjacent to the Steirlin Estates neighborhood. The suggested changes are shown below in Figure 2: Figure 2: Community Outreach 3 —Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY - z — f J 41vFNla4 O AtJ. w I 4 N.** Office (up to 4 stories) FAI ; --= •• Office iup toff stories) , Neighborhood Transitions •---r---- 1••.offi,. %' Light industrial /Office asseress-I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan larwnrw (up to "i"') - New Pedestrian/Bike Path a_m er sf�lan'raln rlr+ 1 F • o�lr Light lndustilal/Office � _ �W.aVr 4 C RO' a 1 � w NrsMenlnl - M� wnh �axtnvr � 7 m I.-tVu, aeYll 1 �s°;Y' Retat o �: 12 LghtlnEatLF,tl r - +rRRA eF4rn nv[ •. L9hrlMv V LIgAflndwtrlau' prKe ,_ Offce Recidenrkl _ ft. Its 2 ResMenNd HR� � '� 3 .•F"4 SINrUIJ <YF� Reskmlud � Six wal0' swrarsuow..r 6 256 500 1,006 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) ' C Plan Boundary AResidential (up to 5 stories) Office iup toff stories) , Neighborhood Transitions Residential(upto7stariesl %' Light industrial /Office asseress-I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to "i"') - New Pedestrian/Bike Path a_m er sf�lan'raln rlr+ Mbed Use with lietail/�� Light lndustilal/Office (up to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space' • Actual location will tre determined as Proit came forward At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity development alternative as suggested through public input was already being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to move the higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories) from medium -intensity Residential Land Use along the Middlefield Road frontage. FA 0 Lipi Exhibit 2 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small -group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects / terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses— especially mixed-use, residential, and retail —to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists. 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1of8 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well as additional mixed- use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 2of8 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use Alternatives and, specifically, neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around Reduced -Intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to include reduced development intensity and additional transition strategies in the area bordering the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood, and the area is identified in the blue dashed box in Figure 3 below. At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower - intensity land use alternative was being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to increase the residential density along West Middlefield Road, currently identified as medium -intensity Residential Land Use (up to five stories), to higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven 3of8 stories). The area for the suggested modification is shown in the green thick dashed box in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Community Outreach Meeting, January 28, 2019—Input on Land Use Alternative 0 OLD MIDDLEFFfLD WAY m Z f LA AVENrQA yc 2 S . 2 ROEr ST '' 1000 y _ _' ■ Residential ■ ■ de L S4N RgyRcas 4R Ah W�q� 3d 3 � � e F ............. Toy a fiesidentlalY e. Mixe6 use �>f/e'Of ':' ��• Office to 4stories) p With Retail Llghtlndustrl If Residential (up to 5 stories) N otese Ls O TERAA BELLA AVE ===I New Street � 9t'rEt — Light lndustriaV LightlntlustrlaV 4WL - I i Residennas omce - DW - / ✓�f�i�, Light Industrial / Offi[e IEesidential MJK W I^ '( � Residential ``B O - Residential Residential E4N PR90 wax g SArc Paato➢R _____� o f vvy�` ,� SAN GRflIZ9 W4Y N 0 250 SOfl 1,000 Feet Residential to 3stories) p Office to 4stories) p `:::■:' Plan Boundary suu.i Y Residential (up to 5 stories) office (up to 6 stories) %. ^Avv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories} Ught Industrial!Office ===I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to 2 stories) �. New Pedestrian/Bike Path Unne M111411111tu. : Mixed use with Retail / ✓�f�i�, Light Industrial / Offi[e (up to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space* Actual location will he determined as projects come forward Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is provided as Attachment 4 to this report —Stakeholder Meetings Summary. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles, and Other Policies The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning Plan area in October and November 2018. 4of8 In summary, the Councilmembers were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding principles for the Plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use Alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the Analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern Plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as jobs -housing balance and school strategies. Environmental Planning Commission Meeting —February 20, 2019 On February 20, 2019, the EPC held a Study Session to provide policy direction on the preferred land use alternative (see Attachment 2 — EPC Study Session Report). The meeting was focused on land use alternative selection for the Plan area. Seven members of the public spoke at the EPC meeting, including residents, property owners, and business representatives. Comments included: • Maintain the General Plan 2030 vision. • Strong need for sensitive neighborhood transition strategies to preserve the existing neighborhood character. 5of8 • Support lower building heights adjacent to current single-family zoned properties. • Concern with the amount of change proposed in the area. • Concerns with additional traffic issues from the proposed land uses adding to the current traffic issues along Shoreline Boulevard. • Concerns with additional office land uses contributing to greater jobs -housing imbalance. The EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: 1. Mixed -Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the Plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 2—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single - story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern Plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two- story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher - intensity residential (up to seven stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to three stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6of8 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to six stories to up to three stories (3 to 3 vote). 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to two stories immediately adjacent to existing R1 -zoned property along the southeastern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (up to five stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to three stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to seven stories to up to five stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 7of8 �FW4yF �kfgyF 7 Figure 2: Areas of EPC Discussion Based on Alternative 5 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY a m z rr 0 iuRfry�sr � 2 Z W SJ ♦ • f ■ 4 3 Residential 3 "kp `.�§....: •' •.. ■ TFgg4 Residemial B 4 of 1 ■•1••• *i,' Mlwlth Office ; Residential RQ •,. Muoed use Residential F�Aq ••. Z with a� "�o � •. Mired use- Retail 10 .• Z �MNtCaSgR =t4". ,Z •': ■ �N�N�S AVF 0 3 a JA AViNIDA nor Lghtindustrial/ Office '.• �. FE RRA RFLLA AVE Lightlndustrial! Eight Industria, Office Office residential N ReWgtial sr,ry ARX WA+ SAN PABLO nn � � F 1. GRa¢0 W, N�.....� 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to3stor'les} Office (up to4stories) ---'-� Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) 4� Office (up to 6 stories) vwvv Neighborhood Transitions Light Industrial/Office ���I New Street Residential (upto7stories) �%IN/1 (up to2stories) Terra Bella Vision Plan ---- New Pedestrian/Bike Path C11 I ')I Nh<�,1rNV1 J��/� Mixed Use with Retail / Light Industrial /Office (up to a stories) 4"h, Conceptual Public Open Space ' Actual location will be determined as projects come forward EPC expressed concerns about how the land use alternatives impact the jobs -housing balance, schools, and traffic in the area EPC also emphasized on providing context - sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. DP/5/CDD 807-10-23-19GP 8of8 DATE: April 2, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner Martin Alkire, Principal Planner Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director VIA: Daniel H. Rich, City Manager TITLE: Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives PURPOSE Exhibit 3 The purpose of this Study Session is to present revised land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan and summarize input from the February 20 Environmental Planning Commission meeting. Staff is seeking City Council input and policy direction on a preferred land use and next steps for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan. BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan process started in April 2018 and has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Attachment 1 (Summary of Prior Meetings). This work was authorized by the City Council as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and develop strategies to guide future development in the area. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. Therefore, no specific vision was identified for the area during the 2030 General Plan update process. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 19 Figure 1: Vision Plan Area EPC and Council Meetings "s AM PA9LC OP 0 The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on potential land use alternatives and other policy direction on October 17, 2018 and November 13, 2018, respectively. In summary, the City Council was supportive of the addition of residential land uses in the Plan area, and envisions a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Several members of the public spoke at both the EPC and City Council meetings, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, the need for policies that create sensitive transitions adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in the area, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The City Council responses to all the questions from the November 2018 Study Session are summarized in the table below, including EPC comments where noted. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 19 P Vision and Guiding Council supported the proposed vision and Principles guiding principles for the plan area. 2 Land Use Alternatives Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative with certain changes discussed in the Analysis section of this report. 3 Neighborhood Transition Council supported proposed transition Strategies strategies and suggested additional transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Council supported the community benefit Strategy strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. 6 Other Strategies Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring other strategies such as jobs -housing balance and school strategies. The City Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative 4 (refer to Figure 2—EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative) and further directed staff to study several changes to Alternative 4. The Council also directed staff to study an additional alternative with reduced residential densities at key locations. These changes are discussed in the Analysis section of the report. Council further directed staff to hold an additional focused outreach meeting to gather input from residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Northwestern Plan boundary; a summary of this meeting is discussed below. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 19 Figure 2: EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative o - OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY ? �3 m $ iLAAWNIDA i 11 It Z • •y �f • 1: ■ Residential '1"0 6 �• ■ ■ O�cA `�•.....: •••� •••. 707 ■ ♦ •. • Church •• ■ 4* *4'yq Re5ldential •*4' .• �, LY••.• 1N1 NP , �' 7FCokn••.1 3 M Y o•4� aN M4 4R $qN fU15A"/E O N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet AdIML Terra Bella Vision Plan Curr ur 1+tO0NIAl.v V" SAN AFOO WAY s O .' snre aaata oA � ('Lvt�, Residential(upto3stories) Office(upto4stories) Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (upto 6 stories) 1 • �•.� ryptel M. 1 1 RCsidemiad light induseria� Othce ••• Hotel (upto 7 stories) e TERRA BELLS AVE Office MMeduw 1 _ Lght Industrial/ m ssAth 1 Residential Qtfice Wall 1 i Z Mf ed llse� 1 `+ Residential Re9dential RcWG O Office — — —s— Residential SAN AFOO WAY s O .' snre aaata oA � ('Lvt�, Residential(upto3stories) Office(upto4stories) Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (upto 6 stories) Residential (upto 7 stories) Church Mixed Use with Retail Light lndustdal / Office (up to 2 stories) Hotel (upto 7 stories) Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) SAN rAARDO WAY Plan Boundary ■■■wwv Neighborhood Transitions mmm1 New Street • — — • New PedestrianBike Path Conceptual Public Open Space As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use Alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around Reduced -Intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to include reduced development intensity and additional transition strategies in the area bordering the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood, and the area is identified in the blue dashed box in Figure 3 below. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 5 of 19 At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity land use alternative was being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower - Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to increase the residential density along West Middlefield Road, currently identified as medium -intensity Residential Land Use (up to five stories), to higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories). The area for the suggested modification is shown in the green thick dashed box in Figure 3 below. r ASM Figure 3: Community Outreach Meeting, January 28, 2019 — Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY • _.111P - I � flesitlential ® ,41 ''•• O �► `F<oRo � COs rtq �iNtL�A� m o z - J � O LAAVENIDA N z aesidentlaf! •� Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui S C i Office {up to 6 stories) Llgh lndusttiaV ••!•! snonRoo war ' Mixed use DFfiee ' flesidelrcfal saa R,& QR ••!! Aetai! i Lgl tl dustrlal,' !!! !1! 411 Office TERRA SELiA AVE !� office ® - Light Indust -1/ Llghrindus,_V � m �Rlixed use flesldential ` OtSee - UFFre With M,Istff{� flesldenCyl R.esitlential !!� Residential Residential N 0 250 500 1,006 Feet •� Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui S C i Office {up to 6 stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions snonRoo war ff------__- saa R,& QR ��r�tl New Street � 6 F Cur or Mauivraln vi... Mixed Use with Retail� 6 � SAN [ARRIZO WAY Conceptual Public Open Space N 0 250 500 1,006 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui A Residential (up to 5 stories) i Office {up to 6 stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions Residential {upto7stories) i��� Light industrial (up to2sturies) ��r�tl New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan New Pedestrian/l Path Cur or Mauivraln vi... Mixed Use with Retail� Light Industrial / Office (up to 4 storles) Conceptual Public Open Space 'Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 6 of 19 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting—February 20, 2019 On February 20, 2019, the EPC held a Study Session to provide policy direction on the preferred land use alternative (see Attachment 2—EPC Study Session Report). The meeting was focused on land use alternative selection for the plan area. Seven members of the public spoke at the EPC meeting, including residents, property owners, and business representatives. In addition, staff also received e-mails, letters, and other correspondence since November 2018 (these are included in Attachment 3 —Additional Public Comment). In summary, comments included: • Maintain the General Plan 2030 vision. • Strong concerns related to a proposed six- to seven -story building height and areas of greater intensity adjacent to existing one- to two-story residential neighborhoods. • Strong need for sensitive neighborhood transition strategies to preserve the existing neighborhood character. • Support lower building heights adjacent to current single-family zoned properties and landscaping as a buffer. • Concern with the amount of change proposed in the area. • Concerns with additional traffic issues from the proposed land uses adding to the current traffic issues along Shoreline Boulevard. • Concerns with additional office land uses contributing to greater job -housing imbalance. EPC input is summarized in the Analysis section. ATVAT YET% Since the November 13, 2018 City Council Study Session, the project team has refined the land use alternatives based on Council direction, the February 2019 EPC Study Session, and public input. The major refinements include the following: 1. Created additional mixed-use areas along Shoreline Boulevard to create an area that allows a mix of retail, services, and active land uses. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 7 of 19 2. Incorporated neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary west of Shoreline Boulevard to reduce potential impacts of new development on existing single-family home areas. 3. Extended the Industrial/ Office Land Use along San Rafael Avenue up to Terra Bella Avenue to create a more continuous industrial zone. 4. Increased the intensity of Industrial/ Office Land Use between Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and south of U.S. 101 to accommodate higher -intensity office use close to U.S. 101, which acts as a natural barrier. 5. Shifted the bike/ pedestrian path closer to the Southern Plan Area boundary east of Shoreline Boulevard to create a better access along the single-family homes. These topics are enumerated 1 through 5 on Figure 4 below to more easily reference the geographic location to which the Council directed changes (refer to Figure 4 —Revised Land Uses — Alternative 5). The City Council asked staff to update the alternative based on the above input (Alternative 5 below) and a second with lower overall residential densities (Alternative 6 below). Revised Land Uses —Alternative 5 Land Use Alternative 5, shown in Figure 4 below, incorporates all the City Council direction from the November 2018 Study Session meeting discussed above. These changes result in additional potential housing units and nonresidential square footage (due to the current church site being suitable for housing in the future). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 8 of 19 Figure 4: Revised Land Uses—Alternative 5 OLD MIDQLEFIELD WAY } m dF LAAVENeDA _ 1 Z r L' aocssr Ns. ♦ ♦♦L ♦ P• a aResidenoal p e ♦;i* ...w♦'.. •♦.'♦, Ior 4 ■ ■ r rFg � Retiderrtiai �. ■ , 9� F♦. ti♦•♦♦' `,` %-Ith— Qrfice Residential ,✓/�.f ♦♦♦♦♦' (y a♦ q \ Retail Lightindustrial/ / ♦♦ /oD�f!.♦♦ �`�'aar �,�, i - otRc TERRAR€!!nave ♦♦ /f7 .♦• Office ♦ j, J Li9h[Industrial! Light lnd.m.1/ �♦ oRrwAVE F RQ ♦'♦♦ as Mued use Residential office p� $sA' ♦♦ Z oath Residential • ti 3 •♦♦ enixedus,Z Retail n Residential °oAVEA � ,� aye c� .♦ w�tlt w ■� yr ♦♦♦♦RMall = Residential Residential �M^Rcas 3` ♦♦♦ ■ hlll� K7 GR �„ �■ - .. to . _ ■ SnH .1HL r�;3ay SAM PABLO RR "� �ry r�lS AVE 1 SAN � H.0 WAP 5 N �uuu 1 0 250 500 1.000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to6stories) vwvv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) ��'-, Light Industrial/Office -- l New Street (up to 2 stories) New Pedestrian/Bike Path C. uH Cv os MorniR view Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retail Light Industrial /Office (up to 4 stories) Oil Conceptual Public Open Space Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Revised Land Use —Alternative 6 (Lower Density) At the November 18 Study Session, Council also asked for a lower -density alternative. Alternative 6, as shown in Figure 5 below, was developed based on City Council input by further refining the revised land use alternative discussed above and studying an alternative with lower residential densities. The highest residential density areas allowing up to seven stories are reduced to up to five stories throughout the plan area, and the medium -density residential land uses areas allowing up to five stories are reduced to up to three stories west of Shoreline Boulevard. A portion of the higher - intensity office use (up to five stories) north of Terra Bella Avenue and south of U.S. 101 was changed to lower -intensity office (up to three stories). Alternative 6 reduces the projected housing units significantly from 2,500 to 1,700, whereas the nonresidential Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 9 of 19 square footage has increased from 1.6 million square feet to 1.7 million square feet (due to some residential being changed to light industrial). Comparison of Alternatives 5 and 6 Charts 1 and 2 below compare several key factors between existing conditions, the original EPC -recommended option, and the two land use alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use and Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Figure 5: Revised Land Uses —Alternative 6 (Lower -Residential Density) 0 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY 1 z I� d LAAV■afoA z RXR st a � • ■'. • a It y■ ■ ♦ ♦ A. ■ ■ �rP ■ � A ■ RPSidentlai `N�1...■T�•`+ ?E,gagB� Residential fi rFt�q ----r---- '.. •.moi +� �+ � OrRrn ' ResMentral fj // �,��� H � , �TjQO.�` � e� ��,I ' Light lnduudaV �• Office %f •�� b TERRA SELLA AVE ��• ogEH,A R F 1� F�QRO•••,, light lndustrlaV •• - tight lndushiaU • Residential • �yRq '- Ofike b _ •.• 2 with MlxeduRetail Residential 6 Residential Npa ® 5 i with ••� Rett D Residential Residential•` �414111eCIe y �� SAN AR6p WAy m tAk[Ill54VE d g SAN PAnl00R Uz ff $ r 54N CARRI$P WAY N 0 250 500 1,01M, Fr or Residential (up to 3 stories) �s.•ru� Office (up to 3 stories) Plan Boundary iuu•i N i { Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) w+.wP Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) - Light Industrial/Office m== i New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to 2 stories) . New Pedestrian/Bike Path Mixed Use with Retail X111.1 Light Industrial /Office (up to 4 stories) Ak Conceptual Public Open Space . Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Comparison of Alternatives 5 and 6 Charts 1 and 2 below compare several key factors between existing conditions, the original EPC -recommended option, and the two land use alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use and Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 10 of 19 Chart 1: Land Use Options and Mix of Land Uses Residential Housing 3(3%) 35(38%) 35(38%) 35(38%) Area 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF Office Area 62(66%) 28(29%) 25(27%) 25(27%) Light Industrial/ Office 19(20%) 15(16%) 18(19%) 18(19%) Area Mixed Use / Retail Area 1 (1%) 5(5%) 11(12%) 11(12%) Hotel Area 0% 3(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Park/ Open Space Area 0(0%) 5.1(5%) 4.6(5%) 4.6(5%) Institutional/ Church 7(8%) 2.5(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) *Figures in Chart 1 represent number of acres and composition of land use based on acreage. Chart 2: Land Use Options Comparison —20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 3,200 to 3,600 9 Residents* 2,000 to 2,600 1,500 to 1,700 1.4 msf Housing Units 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF (-73 ksf retail) Employees** Jobs — Housing Mix —20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 3,200 to 3,600 9 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 1,500 to 1,700 1.4 msf 1.6 msf 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) (-56 ksf retail) (-73 ksf retail) (-73 ksf retail) -4,200 *Assumes 2.1 residents per unit **Assumes 3 employees per 1,000 square feet 4,700 -5,400 -5,200 0 e 0 Better to worse Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 11 of 19 EPC Input At its February 2019 Study Session, the EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: 1. Mixed Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 6—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single - story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two- story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3-3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher - intensity residential (up to 7 stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to 3 stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to 6 stories to up to 3 stories (3 to 3 vote). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 12 of 19 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to 2 stories immediately adjacent to existing R1 -zoned property along the southeastern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote) . 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (up to 5 stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to 3 stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to 7 stories to up to 5 stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 13 of 19 Figure 6: Areas of EPC Discussion Based on Alternative 5 Transition Strategies At the EPC Study Session on February 20, 2019, there was considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. In November 2018, staff presented a series of potential strategies to provide appropriate transition buffers for future development in the Plan area, including: increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs, 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes, orientating primary windows away from existing homes, providing landscape buffers, and limiting balconies. Below are some illustrative examples of what these transition strategies could look like along the edges of the Terra Bella Plan Area near single-family homes. The following illustrations show a OLD MIDDLEFI EL6 WAY 0 � �3 0 0 LA AVENIVq 2 ROCK ST . ♦ •• z r•• • • is ■ ♦ K■ ■ • J 4 i f . , , 3 w Residential Q 6 :. ...... .•.. .`...■.'`••.••'•♦ X07 ,7 � � a TtRq „� Resldemial %/� Jh ti••••• ��"a �`I Mduw •••••• Office Res. i wlth .�A i Retail LightlndustdaV •• iv • Ps 49,0••'.erl� i 40'e ,/ office ••. o�PR••• ru, ,' / T"", - FER"RELUAVE ••• onF wgvF �4� . `. •!. J Lightheugtrial! - Lightlndustrial/ G. � ., 2 + • m Residenihal Off*.ce CHfice Mired uxe �:' Np _. i ••• '�1�k .t 1• ` Z with �esidenRal (] Miae'h Reran RRRIghtial eve^✓� m 2 �' 4 e - ••. �� •• heta'el 10 O 8 f$Idenhai Resijintial •. x lJJ �'M WC sc �• �`...�..tiill��Lt! titV* F SnN Aa��S•rAP 5AN P68L0 DR �NtU,s4t'a o 5 � 2 b) S1N CARi,.a WAY g 4 250 500 1,111111 11111t Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to4stories} Plan Boundary A iiesidential(upto5stories) Office (Up to6stories} wvw Neighborhood Transitions Residential (upto7stories) Light Industrial /Office ���I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan to 2stories) ■��■ New Pedestrian/Bike Path cnvoa n7ouufn,N Vii •:. /(up Mined Use with Retail J//1/� Light Industrial /Office (up to4stories) dft Conceptual Public Open Space" " Actual location will be determined as projects tome farward Transition Strategies At the EPC Study Session on February 20, 2019, there was considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. In November 2018, staff presented a series of potential strategies to provide appropriate transition buffers for future development in the Plan area, including: increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs, 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes, orientating primary windows away from existing homes, providing landscape buffers, and limiting balconies. Below are some illustrative examples of what these transition strategies could look like along the edges of the Terra Bella Plan Area near single-family homes. The following illustrations show a Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 14 of 19 combination of several transition strategies that could be considered in a variety of circumstances and are not necessarily specific to just Terra Bella. Example No. 1: Landscaping along the edges creates a buffer and screens views into neighboring homes. An alley or street is accommodated in the minimum setback area between new development and existing single-family homes. Townhomes are two stories at street/ alley level, stepping up to three stories. Maximum height is established (as shown on the Vision Plan diagram), and follows a 45 -degree daylight plane. Figure 7: Landscape Buffer Strategy 1 Single-family home Alley -loaded townhomes Example No. 2: Landscaping along the edges creates a buffer and screens views into neighboring homes. A new street, and an expanded setback area, provides a setback between new development and existing single-family homes. Three (3) story townhomes are turned sideways so that primary windows are not facing the backyard of single-family homes. Maximum height is established (as shown on the Vision Plan diagram), and follows a 45 -degree daylight plane. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 15 of 19 Figure 8: Landscape Buffer Strategy 2 Single-family home Townhomes rotated for privacy In addition, the Vision Plan could stipulate that any new development proposals include additional analyses to reduce the impacts on neighboring single-family homes, which could include view and shadow studies. Other Impacts EPC was concerned about how the land use alternatives impact the jobs -housing balance, schools, and traffic in the area. The Vision Plan intends to gather community input on key topics such as land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement big -picture General Plan direction and Council goals. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. Such detailed development standards and regulatory framework would require additional studies through a Precise Plan process. In reviewing this information, the Council should consider which alternative best represents its vision for Terra Bella Avenue and any particular policy areas that should be addressed. Staff also notes that elements within each alternative can be mixed and matched. Council Question No. 1: Which Land Use Vision Alternative does the Council prefer for Terra Bella Avenue? Council Question No. 2: Are there particular policy areas or direction that Council would like the Plan to emphasize or address? Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 16 of 19 Future Precise Plan During the last round of public meetings, some Environmental Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers as well as community members discussed interest in developing a Terra Bella Precise Plan once the Visioning Plan was adopted. The following is a comparison of the pros and cons of the City embarking on a new Terra Bella Precise Plan or just using an adopted Terra Bella Visioning Plan. Option 1: Terra Bella Precise Plan Pros: • A comprehensive and detailed standards and guidelines, such as floor area ratio, building setbacks, and TDM requirements, etc., would provide greater clarity and expectations for developers, the community, and decision makers. • More detailed analysis, including environmental review and technical studies on topics such as development feasibility; transportation, utility, and air quality impacts; and school and public infrastructure needs would provide more information to help evaluate new development proposals. • More efficient and consistent environmental review of development projects based on one Precise Plan EIR. Cons: • Would require significant additional staff time and funding. • The Precise Plan could take approximately 18 to 24 months, which could result in delays of pending projects or missed opportunities if market conditions change. Although preparation of a Precise Plan can take up to 24 months, the City Council could consider allowing Gatekeeper projects once the Public draft of the precise plan is available (time frame -12 months) to reduce the delay in project review time, as shown in the following graphic. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 17 of 19 Summer '19 Summer '21 I I I I I I I I Visioning I I 18 Months (Programmatic EIR) Precise Plan I 1 I I I I I I Draft PP - 12months I I I I 1 Gatekeeper 1 1 I � � 18 months with a Neg. Dec 1 1 I I I I I 1 I Total 2.5 years > Option 2: Terra Bella Vision Plan Pros: Winter/' Spring'2e • Review Time: Allows Gatekeeper project to move forward sooner instead of waiting for a Precise Plan process, which could result in some desired land uses, such as new housing, to be built. Cons: • Each project would be reviewed ou a case-by-case basis without detailed and established development standards or guidelines. This would involve negotiations on a project -by -project basis over key topics, such as building setbacks, which could result in an inefficient process and inconsistent City requirements. • Project CEQA Review: Each Gatekeeper project would need individual CEQA review which would create greater inefficiencies and require more staff review. • Resources: Individual Gatekeeper projects would require more staffing resources. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 18 of 19 Council Question No. 3: Does the City Council wish to add creating a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a possible priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as the next step following the Vision Plan Adoption? When staff brings back the final Vision Plan for adoption, after Council has determined its priority projects, the question of when or whether to accept Gatekeepers can be addressed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback on the preferred land use alternative for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Area and direction on the following questions posed in the Study Session memo: 1. Which land use vision alternative does the City Council prefer for Terra Bella? 2. Are there particular policy areas or direction that Council would like the Plan to emphasize or address? 3. Does the City Council wish to add creating a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a possible priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as the next step following the Vision Plan Adoption? NEXT STEPS Following this Council Study Session, the project team will continue preparing the Draft Vision Plan. The public draft of the Vision Plan is anticipated in spring 2019. Final adoption of the Plan is anticipated before the summer 2019 Council break. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 19 of 19 PUBLIC NOTICING The City Council agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations: Rex Manor Neighborhood Association and North Whisman Neighborhood Association. Social media was used to notify the public and the school districts were notified. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SE. DP-MA-AS/5/CAM 807-04-02-19SS 190191 Attachments: 1. Summary of Prior Meetings 2. EPC Study Session Report —February 20, 2019 3. Additional Public Comment Attachment 1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses —especially mixed-use, residential, and retail — to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. asR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. PJ 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is provided as Attachment 4 to this report —Stakeholder Meetings Summary. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles and Other Policies The EPC and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning plan area in October and November 2018. In summary, the Council members were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke 3 at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding rind les for the plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e. near Mor an Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Council members supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as Job -housing balance and school strategies. al Attachment 2 6.1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 20, 2019 6. STUDY SESSION 6.1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives RECOMMENDATION That the Environmental Planning Commission to review and provide input to the City Council on land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning Plan Area. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations— Rex Manor Neighborhood and North Whisman Neighborhood Associations. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: https: / /www.mountainview. gov / depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terra_ bella.asp BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan process started in April 2018 and has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and EPC and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Exhibit 1 (Summary of Prior Meetings). This work was authorized by the City Council as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and develop strategies to guide future development in the area. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. Therefore, no specific vision was identified for the area during the last General Plan update process. Visioning Process Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 9 Figure 1: Vision Plan Area Visioning processes provide an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key topics like land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement big picture General Plan direction and Council goals. The resulting Vision Plan is a guiding document that can inform future creation of a Precise Plan to accomplish the identified vision for the area. While some specific objectives may be articulated for preferred land uses, intensity of development and general circulation conditions, a Vision Plan does not establish specific regulations, or regulate land use, zoning or properties. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. This can be achieved through a Precise Plan development. Prior Public Meetings The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on the land uses and other policy direction on October 17 and November 13, 2018, respectively. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 9 In summary, the City Council was supportive of the addition of residential land uses in the Plan area, and envisions a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Several members of the public spoke at both the EPC and City Council meetings, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, the need for policies that create sensitive transitions adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in the area; the need for additional housing in the area; and preserving existing small businesses. The City Council responses to all the questions at the meeting are summarized in the table below, including EPC comments, where noted. 1 Vision and Guiding Council supported the proposed vision and Principles guiding principles for the plan area. 2 Land Use Alternatives Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. 3 Neighborhood Transition Council supported proposed transition Strategies strategies and suggested additional transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Council supported the community benefit Strategy strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. 6 Other Strategies Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring other strategies such as jobs - housing balance and school strategies. The City Council further directed staff to study a few changes to the EPC Preferred Land Use alternatives and study an additional alternative with reduced residential densities at key locations. These changes are discussed in the Analysis section of Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 4 of 9 this report. Council also directed staff to do an additional focused outreach meeting to gather input from residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Northwestern Plan Area boundary; a summary of this meeting is discussed below. Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around reduced - intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to implement similar development intensity and buffers in the plan area at this location that is proposed at the northwestern border adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood. The suggested changes are shown below in Figure 2: Figure 2: Community Outreach 3 —Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MI DDLEF I ELD WAY y m Ll aVF4lap S 4 erx,s, • 4 / is fy4q '? ' f4siaera4l • ' • IMrce I4ssdem4l 7 WMA•• om' ,� :` � lgnunaussaaV / •••• 'r DN tIQ ' • rru orrwc exCwxvE G ' iF7ORd �.; ' aesbernlnl1. Lglrc IMruP ruV �: u9Ft Inau56iaV •% ar Cm irpad� J �'� Reslderrt4l MIc Broil Pesden[NI � i s4swexs4i `4 T) ' ••••, �r ",,■}■, rp LK! �"P sw axoow.r g �xne�oo � 3 8 � S soh rswsrm w.v N Residential (up to 3storiesl Office fop [o4storiesl :.....0 Plan Boundary ~I Peddentlal(upto5stodes) Office (up to 6 stories.) vww Neighborhood Transitions P-1dendal(up to 7 stories) Light Industrial/Office New Street Cup to 2 stories) ol, rrr:Mrwrslx rlers Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retail �� light Industrial/Office New Pedestrian1ilte Path (ops to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space. • Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 5 of 9 At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity development alternative as suggested through public input was already being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to move the higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories) from medium -intensity Residential Land Use along the Middlefield Road frontage. Additional Public Comment E-mails, letters, and other correspondence received since the last Study Session are included in Exhibit 2 —Public Comment. The comments include strong concerns related to a proposed six- to seven -story building height and areas of greater intensity adjacent to existing one- to two-story residential neighborhoods. Traffic issues in the area were again raised as another major concern. Increased lower -density development buffer and landscaping were noted as a few suggestions. ANALYSIS Since the last public meeting, the project team has refined the Land Use alternatives based on Council direction and public input. The major refinements include the following: 1. Creating additional mixed-use areas along Shoreline Boulevard to create an area that allows a more diverse mix of retail, services, and active land uses. 2. Incorporated neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary west of Shoreline Boulevard to reduce potential impacts of new development on existing single-family home areas. 3. Extended the Industrial/ Office Land Use along San Rafael Avenue up to Terra Bella Avenue to create a more continuous industrial zone. 4. Increased the intensity of Industrial/ Office Land Use between Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and south of U.S. 101 to accommodate higher -intensity office use close to U.S. 101, which acts as a natural barrier. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 6 of 9 5. Shifted the bike/pedestrian path closer to the Southern Plan Area boundary east of Shoreline Boulevard to create a better access along the single-family homes. Revised Land Use Alternative 5 Land Use Alternative 5, shown below, incorporates all the City Council direction from the last Study Session meeting listed above. These changes result in additional potential housing units and nonresidential square footage. Figure 3: Revised Land Use Alternative 5 OLD MIDDLEFIEED WAY � m e P W a ,00 OW tAAVENfDA umRryG f h p� z aacK sr • ♦'1' el . a Residenpai � quP e'�♦`....+�• '♦♦+♦+•♦ SOF . + �g4BA //f �♦♦ tip♦ 4� ��'r'e LF M7d usr,/%//�".• • ♦,, tle office Residendal / ♦♦• je,♦♦' ♦ Retail Light Indus HA/ "/ ♦♦ �. •• "`��, �� I � Office �♦♦ Ob�E^A,♦1♦ fid ,� TERRA RELLAAVE ♦♦ /fir 1♦ Office �4R .♦ J Lightlndustrial! - Ligh[lndustriaV >• -��W4VE o=M1 O i, m Mrn.eduse Reslde'nTal D(hCe Office z �♦ 'gay ♦♦ Z with Residential RP"�oy e 4 ♦.♦ Mz..d.1, Retail Residential .W '�� ♦♦ with "4eE 2 .♦♦♦Iteyll = Resid_tial Residential IQ d 5"'t'Mnsco � ♦♦. ■ iFirl�Piiti orlr9Pi'�R1la}S �7 RrLr �� S'tR■ SAH APoa :vnr F A-PM1BLu o.� k/ Ury tU154VE � o. UA rAU.0 WA, s 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) A Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (Up to6stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) Light Industrial/Office r. ri ra New Street I (up to 2 stories) �. New Pedestrian/Bike Path L:n of Mo Nrnmnu V..Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retailrj.��`ri Light Industrial/Office (up to4stories) �•„ Conceptual Public Open Space J�+ ' Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative 6 This alternative was developed by further refining the Revised Land Use Alternative discussed above. The highest residential density (up to seven -story Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 7 of 9 densities are reduced to medium -residential intensities (up to five stories) throughout the plan area, and the Medium -Density Residential Land Uses are reduced to lower -density residential (up to three stories) to the west of Shoreline Boulevard. A portion of the higher intensity office use (up to five stories) north of Terra Bella Avenue and South of 101 was changed to lower intensity office (up to three stories). With this lower intensity option the projected housing units are reduced to half, whereas the non-residential square footage has only slightly reduced. Figure 4: Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative 6 a OLD MIODLEFI ELD WAY � �Z m 3 a / a LA AVENIOA Z gOQIT �OgGAry t . ♦♦� • oft ■ � w ■ P r �. ReAdennal \� ,`♦♦r aaar�"rr"■r1♦♦111 ■ TfRd e Residential S Oyu. 6f ' ��''r�////%♦♦ ♦♦1 ♦` � � Mfice � Resadential ��� 1111♦ {y♦11 a ,� tight Indus 0,1; / ♦O .t/, ♦1 est �1 � � Office - ♦♦ (F'ei♦1♦ Orrice _ TEgRA SELLA AVE ♦. FSA ♦♦♦,� L-ghtlndusrw/ 4gEkiavE Light lntlustrial/ Rp 1 1 m Smidentlai z Orrice � as S°�ay ♦♦♦♦♦ j �Residential � +� MoH ems: 1♦1 MiY .ry,^-+.. Residential • 4� NE4VE ® § f i ♦♦♦ R O Residential ■¢ �2 ♦1 T _.._ gesidential Na sAN N°Agcasoe � ♦♦♦,�■ islR"fiffYlA rr�.G r.r ♦• n gWz vN Al. -14 sAN vnato oq � °p '�N1itISAVE j R yp s� g 2 SAN GPEI20 WAY O N �u■u� ` 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 3 stories) Plan Boundary /■' iu■ui Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) wvw Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to7stories)%/,/LightI dustrial/office ���I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan �% (up t.-2 stories) New Pedestrian/Bike Path t:rtt or Moorttnm vrEw Mixed Use with Retail / Light Industrial /Office (up to4stories) Alilkj, Conceptual Public Open Space* "Actuallocation will bedetermined as projects come forward Alternatives Comparison A comparison chart has been prepared with estimates of several key factors to provide a comparison between existing conditions, the EPC recommended option, Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 8 of 9 and the two Land Use Alternatives discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use; Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Chart 1: Vision Option Land Use Mix Residential Housing Area 3(3%) 35(38%) 35(38%) 35(38%) Office Area 62(66%) 28(29%) 25(27%) 25 (27%) Light Industrial / Office Area 19(20%) 15(16%) 18(19%) 18(19%) Mixed Use/ Retail Area 1 (1%) 5(5%) 11(12%) 11(12%) Hotel Area 0 3(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Park / Open Space Area 0(0%) 5.1(5%) 4.6(5%) 4.6(5%) Institutional / Church 7(8%) 2.5(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Chart 2: Land Use Vision Options Comparison WResidents* 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 Housing Units 1.6 msf 1.8 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF (^73 ksf retail) Employees" -4,700 Jobs - Housing Mix *Assumes 2.1 residents per unit **Assumes 3 employees per 1,000 square feet "20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 9 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 1.4 msf 1.6 msf 1.8 msf (-3 ksf retail) (-56 ksf retail) (^73 ksf retail) 4,200 -4,700 "5,400 O 0 0 2,700 to 3,200 1,300 to 1,500 1.7 msf ("73 ksf retail) -5,200 e oeo Better to worse Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 9 of 9 In reviewing this information, the EPC should consider which alternative best represents their vision for Terra Bella Avenue. Elements within each alternative discussed can be mixed and matched. EPC Question No. 1: Which Land Use Vision Alternative does the EPC prefer for Terra Bella? CONCLUSION Staff recommends the EPC provide input to the City Council on Preferred Land Use Vision Alternatives. NEXT STEPS The City Council will review the EPC input and comments at their March 05, 2019 Study Session. After that, the project team will continue preparing the Draft Vision Plan. Staff will return to the Council in May 2019 with the public draft of the Vision Plan and discussion on next steps and gatekeeper project review process. Final adoption of the Plan is anticipated by summer 2019. Prepared by: Approved by: Diana Pancholi Martin Alkire Senior Planner Principal Planner DP/ 3/ CDD/ 807-02-20-19SR Exhibits: 1. Summary of Prior Meetings 2. Public Comment Exhibit 1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses —especially mixed-use, residential, and retail — to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. asR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. PJ 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is available on the project web page. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles and Other Policies The EPC and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning plan area in October and November 2018. In summary, the Council members were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with 3 greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding rind les for the plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e. near Mor an Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and re uirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Council members supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as Job -housing balance and school strategies. al Exhibit 2 Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Diana, We live on Morgan Street, near the Terra Bella visioning plan area, and like many of our neighbors we are a dual -income working family with kids and have not had the free time to attend the workshop sessions that have been held. I wanted to send commentary ahead of the next round of reviews, after reviewing the latest proposals. We've notice that plans are calling for immediate transition from single -family -home zoning to 7 -story residential immediately adjacent to our neighborhood, which we've learned is not something that's been done in any other project like this. While we are not opposed to the conversion of light commercial zoning over to multi -story residential, this abrupt transition seems rather extreme and will significantly impact the character of our neighborhood. Three-story residential seems like a more reasonable limit that will still add a considerable amount of housing in a needed area. We recently remodeled our home to add a second story, and had a few learnings from that process which I wanted to make sure we shared with you. First, we were a borderline case with the EPA with regards to subfloor ventilation requirements due to our proximity to the groundwater plumes; the Terra Bella area is right on top of these and so there may be restrictions on residential building. Second, we learned through soil studies that the water table is already very high in our area, and the ground is at risk of liquefaction in an earthquake. For a two-story home, this required significant additions to our foundations in order to mitigate the risks, and limited our ability to dig. For dense multi -story construction, I can only imagine how much more would need to be done, and wonder if it is even possible to build dense residential of —7 stories (including what I'd expect to be underground parking for buildings of that size) with the local geology being what it is. It would be good to get these questions answered with a detailed study before too many conclusions are drawn regarding the size and height of buildings in the Terra Bella area. As frequent users of the Shoreline athletic facilities, we've also noticed the extreme traffic during the evening commute. As part of the development plans, I'd love to see both widening of the Shoreline Boulevard highway crossing, as well as addition of public transit from Terra Bella to the Shoreline office parks, in order to help ensure easy movement of traffic in and out of that area. The Terra Bella area will be highly desirable for tech workers to live there, and the current set of overpasses over 101 are really undersized for the amount of people that need to get in and out of that area every work day. Thanks for considering this input and we look forward to hearing more about the development plans. If the City has an e-mail interest list forming for the visioning plan, I'd be happy to be added. Thanks, Patrick Neschleba Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:46 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning - Input from Impacted Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We have recently been made aware of the plan for the redevelopment of the Terra Bella, Middlefield, Shoreline area. We have also become aware that only those areas whose residents speak up the loudest are being accommodated. Those of us who trusted the City to plan according to what is fair and right for the entire neighborhood are being ignored. Clearly our trust in the City has been misplaced. So here are our voices: WE VEHEMENTLY PROTEST THIS PLAN! 6 TO 7 STORY BUILDINGS TOWERING OVER OUR 1 STORY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! Linda and Michael Thomas Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:16 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Debbi Beauchesne; Chris Beauchesne; Sue Stabell; Sue Stabell-Work.Desk Subject: Terra Bella Vision - Morgan/Spring St. Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Diana, Thank you for taking the time to speak to us last night about the Terra Bella Vision Plan. It was good to hear about the plan first-hand from you. My Morgan Court neighbors and I felt we missed a good opportunity to add our input at last year's Vision Plan workshops, but we plan to be more vocal in the future. Anyway, in reviewing some of the information about the plan, I wanted to share some of my own thoughts with you. Hopefully better late than never... I counted about twenty Stierlin Estates 1 -story single-family residences, along San Pablo Drive area, bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. It sounded like that neighborhood was well represented at the previous Vision Plan Workshops. Unfortunately, my Morgan/Spring St neighborhood, was virtually unrepresented, partly because we have nothing resembling a homeowners association. We too have about twenty 1 -story single-family residences directly bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. I would hope that we would get equal consideration, just as the more organized Stierlin Estates homeowners did, when it comes to being mindful of the transition zones between our older 1 -story residences and the new construction. I personally feel that with the Terra Bella zone adjacent to so much residential, that 5-7 story buildings seem excessively high for most of the area. As I'm sure you've already been hearing from the Stierlin Estates residents, we in the Morgan/Spring St area also would like to see a thoughtful transition from our 1 -story homes to taller buildings. I'm thinking nothing more than 2-3 stories high adjacent to our residential properties would be acceptable, combined with a generous buffer space and perhaps a landscape screen or other consideration. Noise from our new neighbors should seriously be taken into consideration also. With that said, when I look at the proposal options, my thought would be to consider having the tallest buildings right along noisy/high traffic Shoreline Blvd, and perhaps along the freeways (they would make great sound walls!), all the while keeping them fairly far away from the existing single-family residences in the neighborhood. Taller buildings on Shoreline might make for a nice gateway into central Google, which could complement (or even copy) the beautiful new4-story Google building at the corner of Terra Bella &Shoreline. (Did I mention it's only 4 -stories?). I really think it would be best for us neighborhood residents to have the tallest buildings a minimum 1-2 blocks away from all the existing 1 -story residential. Thanks for listening and we look forward to hearing about future meetings on the topic. Please keep us posted with any developments and City Council dates on the matter. Sincerely, Eric Stabell Sent from my iPhone Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:06 PM To: City.Council Cc: , City Manager, Pancholi, Diana; Tim Schrotenboer Subject: Terra Bella Visioning To Mayor Siegel, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Councilmembers, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Terra Bella area yesterday evening at the council meeting. It was clear that the council and staff have spent many hours working toward a plan for this area that considers the needs of the larger community as it grows and changes, as well as taking the time to consider the existing residents in the area, for which I personally am very grateful. I wanted to take a minute of your time to request again that this plan be moved forward through the Precise Plan process. As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the Precise Plan process was what we were told would be used when we attended the first vision planning meeting this past June, and I believe it is the only responsible way to allow development in this area that is outside of the current zoning and general plan allowances. I understand that this area is not one of those identified as a change area within the General Plan; however, it has become clear that this is an area of interest for developers. I credit the council for recognizing that when multiple projects started coming in for this area, a broader, more holistic approach was needed, and starting the visioning process. As the developer interest in this area has continued, and even increased, I ask that council continue to build on the work that staff has already started, and incorporate the environmental studies that accompany a Precise Plan, including traffic impact reports, to help inform the density thresholds that make sense for this area as a whole. While all of the vision is good, and I have been encouraged by the plan as it has morphed and changed over the past months, we don't yet have a clear picture of what the impacts of the type and scale of the envisioned development would have on the area. Beyond not having that clear picture, an additional concern with moving forward without a Precise Plan is that we end up with infrastructure that is not unified. As projects come through the gatekeeper process, the frontage improvements, building setbacks, utility sizes, etc. are all considered for that project individually. A precise plan allows for not only the vision of the what the area could be, but the studies to show that the vision will function well once constructed, and the requirements to actually construct it that way. This is helpful to both neighboring residents and to developers, as they know exactly what will be required when a project is constructed. Another major concern is the community benefits item, and how that is incorporated into the area. As a number of council members mentioned, having a "floating' park may mean that the park gets pushed onto a piece of land that doesn't make sense for the area, or worse yet, not included at all. I am concerned about how the community benefit approach will be put into practice without the "teeth" of the requirements that generally come from a Precise Plan. A Precise Plan can also include phasing, which would ensure that the community benefits are constructed in tandem with the developments, and not pushed to the end. As a public sector employee myself, I am acutely aware that staff resources must be considered here. My request is to recognize that this area is a priority for development, and to direct the resources to develop it properly through the creation of a Precise Plan. Alternatively (and this is not my personal preferred alternative), only allow projects to move forward that meet with the current General Plan and zoning for the area. Each project that comes in under the gatekeeper process requires a certain amount of staff resources. If the amount of staff time and resources spent on each gatekeeper project could be combined and focused up -front on a Precise Plan, we would end up with an area more likely to benefit all community members. Thank you again for your time, your service to our community, and your attention to this area. Sincerely, Attachment 3 Pancholi, Diana From: Eric Stabell Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 7:00 AM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Matichak, Lisa; Abe-Koga, Margaret; Hicks, Alison; Kamei, Ellen; Clark, Chris; Ramirez, Lucas; McAlister, John Subject: Terra Bella Vision EPC Meeting Feedback Attachments: EPC 2019-02-20 Item 6.1 Staff Report Addendum.pdf, EPC Study Session Memo 2019-03-05.pdf, Terra Bella Addendum Figure 6 -Alt 5.png To: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner From: Eric Stabell, Mountain View Homeowner Re: EPC Meeting - Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Hello Diana, I'd like to give you some feedback from us homeowners in the neighborhoods surrounding Terra Bella regarding the recent Environmental Planning Commission meeting on Terra Bella Visioning. This includes many folks from both Stierlin Estates and the Morgan Street area. I was just reviewing your March 5 Study Session Memo "Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan - Land Use Alternatives", after you released the Addendum "Item 9.1 with Revised pages 11-13". It looks like corrections were made to the paragraph numbers, so they now match the numbers shown in Figure 6 /Alternative 5 Vision Map. For anyone else reading this, I want to first quote your PURPOSE statement that the Study Session Memo starts out with... "The purpose of this Study Session is to present revised land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan and summarize input from the February 20 Environmental Planning Commission meeting. Staff is seeking City Council input and policy direction on a preferred land use and next steps for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan." We want to state that, as a homeowners directly adjacent to the Terra Bella area, we felt that the EPC suggested many excellent visioning improvements for transitions to existing residential, but unfortunately many of the straw votes were deadlocked in a 3 to 3 tie. If they had all passed the EPC vote, I believe all the homeowners surrounding Terra Bella would have been very relieved and pleased to see the vision turn into something much more reasonable for the neighborhood. Myself and my neighbors would greatly appreciate if Planning Staff and the City Council could together consider implementing every one of the EPC suggestions into a new improved Vision Plan. Below is the list of the EPC's great suggestions, as copied directly from the Addendum of the March 5 Study Session Memo. I have underlined all the EPC suggestions that my neighbors and I are most in favor of. The accompanying Addendum Vision Figure 6/Alternative 5 map is included at the end. EPC Input At its February 2019 Study Session, the EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: Mixed Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 6—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3-3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher intensity residential (up to 7 stories) to lower -intensity residential (Lip to 3 stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to 6 stories to up to 3 stories (3 to 3 vote). 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to 2 stories immediately adjacent to existing RI -zoned property along the southeastern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (uug to 5 stories) to lower -intensity residential (0 to 3 stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to 7 stories to Lip to 5 stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). Figure : Ares of EPC Discussion P OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY � ao ,0 w 00 00 W a ADCK sr �4S, ■ � i■ 1 �° '1** # Residential /+'' ' +4► 0 4 P Vjr 46 Mix -ad me with flffira R@s&ratial go ■atv n. *44 Rel i LightInclu! D C]€fice •t1•}� �Ffice F r 4P Q < Lige Ir #40A4oced Resi*nual *#4*# W with r#c co h1ix�puc "R�ek('i�l *■ Sara ARoc Wa,•r £qy r��A4F N Cl ? Soo 1,00c) reet Residential (up to 3 stories) Of Residential iupto 5 stories) Of Residential (up to 7 stories) 0' Lid Terra Bella Vision Plan cul r-'trr m Min rm LAIN VIFW Mixed Use with Retail I' "' , Li( (U II Thank You, Eric Stabell Homeowner - 0 PROMETHEUS March 27, 2019 Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan - City Council Study Session on April 2, 2019 Dear Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers: We are excited about the City's Vision for Terra Bella and see this area as a terrific opportunity to achieve the City's goals for a more intensive mix of commercial and residential land uses. Prometheus Real Estate Group owns 918-940 San Rafael Avenue, totaling approximately two acres (formerly El Camino Paving site) highlighted on the attached map. Our hope is to be able to add housing units to this area and offset the amount of jobs that already exist or that will be added nearby. We support the City's vision to create safer paths of travel and promote connectivity in this area for all modes of transportation. However, we do not think that the current plan alternatives offer the best way to accomplish this due to the following reasons: 1. Alterative Path Locations - During the Community Workshops for the plan, the public supported shared travel lanes or buffered bike lanes along Terra Bella, San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues (two slides from the Workshops are attached) - adding any additional paths would be duplicative for Terra Bella. 2. Compromised Site Plans - Vision alternatives provide for a bike and pedestrian path within private property, which compromises the site plan opportunities for narrow parcels. 3. Bike Path Safety - Bike paths through city blocks rather than around blocks create additional safety hazards for bikers and pedestrians because of reduced public visibility and added street crossings. 4. Increased Public Access - Public access across private property, as currently planned, brings public access adjacent to the backyards of the existing single family homes of Sterling Estates. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the plan discussion, and we look forward to the results. Sincerely, vl"�-J Jon Moss Executive Vice President, Partner Prometheus Real Estate Group CC: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner, City of Mountain View Adam McMichael, Development Manager, Prometheus Real Estate Group 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 150 - San Mateo, CA 94403 1650.931.3400 0 PROMETHEUS Prometheus Project Map 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 150 — San Mateo, CA 94403 1650.931.3400 , .n vi,n."..r, %,, Alm vm .............p,.... r...... SAN PAI 3 O= O O = O q7 O�� J�� z SAI` C, h `¢ 960 Feet Future Tra Legend Building Footprints r i Project Boundary I n Existing/Proposed Transit Existing/Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Facilities -0-VTA routes/stops Class I Path Mountain View Go Class II Bike Lane Future BRT line/stops •••••• Class III Route •••"° Class IV Protected Bike Lane Terra Bella Avenue - Proposed • Buffered bike lanes (Class II bikeway) • On -street parking �II and/or flexible curbside zone for �II� loading and pick- up/drop-off of7.1 9 , _ passengers .ei ra Bella Vision Plan I Mountain View San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues — Proposed • Shared travel lane (Class III bikeway) • On -street parking and/or flexible curbside area on BOTH sides of the street for loading Ir and pick-up/drop-off of "09mm passengers Terra Bella Vision Plan I Mountain View EMBARCADERO REAL T Y S E R V I C E S March 27, 2019 Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan — Addition of Bike/ Pedestrian Path Dear Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers: ECI Four San Rafael LLC owns the office building located at 909 San Rafael Ave. We are concerned because the location of the future bicycle/pedestrian path as depicted on the Draft Vision Plans looks like it encroaches on our private property resulting in the reduction of our lot size and property value. Also, due to public accessibility, it would create both security and maintenance issues for us. While we support the City's Vision to create safer paths of travel and promote connectivity in the Terra Bella Area, we think the City should provide bike paths within the existing public right of ways such as Middlefield Road, Terra Bella Ave and Linda Vista Ave, rather than through private property. We will not support any such public pathways which would encroach on our property. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our feedback to the Vision Plan and we look forward to more discussions. Sincerely, OWNER: ECI Four San Rafael LLC By: EMBARCADERO REALTY SERVICES LP, Its Managing Agent By. �QtV1 1L� M wr47tqh-'1 Name: Shanna Murtagh Title: Regional Operations Manager 2479 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 135, Palo Alto, CA 94303 • (650) 494-6113 embarcaderocapita Ipartners.com Pancholi, Diana From: Albert Jeans Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:07 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella housing capacity Attachments: Residential Analysis.doc Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Diana, With the extra time caused by the delay in the City Council Study Session, I've been working on trying to understand how much building is possible in the Terra Bella area. With the help of a CAD program, I'm able to show that using typical apartment buildings, even 5 story buildings covering the residential zones designated in the options would have a hard time housing even the scaled back population in Option 6. There simply isn't enough room with the open space requirements and existing long term owners. These buildings include I level of podium parking since underground parking is not feasible in the area. I believe the number of residents needs to be significantly scaled back if the Vision Plan is to come anywhere close to reality. I'm attaching a report of my findings. Sincerely, Albert Jeans Estimating the Residential Capacity of the Terra Bella Area by Albert Jeans March 20, 2019 Up until now, we've been dealing with the Terra Bella area in a somewhat abstract sense: a colored map with projected numbers of residents. S.5°NiyCrr , N MogC T '• I ■ ♦ o ■ • i 363 W Residentialar O ♦��... �#• ♦�1� 707 • 1sce 4b 41110 .� Mixeduse ' J •� �♦ �, with Office Residential 04b 4Y��♦ qP # Retail Light Industrial/ .46 2110 60 41* Office ♦♦♦ O��C 4.Office ,, - TERRA BELLA AVE •• F/F Office - �� ♦�� > _ Light Industrial/ ' Light Industrial/ ♦♦ 2� R� ♦� m Residential r Office Office ��' Mth W Mixeduse • o �gR9"t'O,p 3P♦*� Mix Z Retell 21 7 Residential Residential ■ R. 270 ksf 9 QPPW ♦♦.. 6 $2 �'• = Residential esi enha � MARCOS QR 3P •�.�■ � fY*� J 2 SAN AftpO WAY o SAN PA8L0 DR � � /[ O O ¢O SAN CARRIZO WAV The areas (in thousands of square feet, ksf) were calculated by entering the map into a CAD program. But in fact, how much building does the area permit, and how many people could live there? The floating green dots representing open space also need to be dealt with. The de facto standard seems to be 3 acres per 1000 people. If 3000 people are housed in the area, that comes out to 9 acres or 392 ksf, a significant portion of the area available. Besides land that needs to be reserved for open space, some areas have long- term occupants (the Korean Baptist Church (153 ksf) and the Church of Scientology) which are unlikely to move, and the block at 1001 N. Shoreline Blvd. is already committed to an existing project, Shoreline Gateway (341 ksf including the Church of Scientology). What's left comes out to 1466 ksf as shown below in yellow. 1 We can get a rough idea of the residential capacity by simply taking known apartment buildings and trying to arrange them on the map. I did this by entering the plans for the apartment complex under construction at 500 Ferguson Dr. into the same CAD program. One possible arrangement is shown below. Note that these buildings are 5 stories tall: 1 story of podium parking and 4 floors of apartments or condos. The actual buildings use underground parking, but this is not feasible in Terra Bella due to a high water table and soil contamination. Here I've placed 31/22 -building complexes in the larger residential areas and also put in 305 ksf of open space (bright green) which is still short of the 374 ksf needed by the 2867 residents (including 498 in Shoreline Gateway) in this configuration, but some of the "leftover" yellow areas could also serve as open space. In estimating the number of occupants, I assumed one person per bedroom except in the case of 1 bedroom 2 apartments where I used an average of 1.5 persons. Of course these buildings were not designed to fit these lots; nevertheless they do a reasonably good job of filling the area. Despite this density of 5 -story buildings, this configuration only slight exceeds the minimum number of people in Option 6 of 2700. Implementing acceptable transitions to the single -story homes in the neighboring communities would certainly significantly reduce the number of people that could be housed. A more detailed analysis taking into account the interdependency of open space, residents, and building area is given in Appendix 1. The result is slightly fewer people, 2737, 3.3 apartment complexes, and 358 ksf (82 acres) of open space. A portion of the land adjacent to Shoreline Blvd. has been designated as "mixed use" and there have been recommendations to include residential there. Perhaps the equivalent of one more building (half a complex) could be put there, increasing the resident count to around 3050, but again, without transitions. Transitioning, especially around Morgan St., would make meeting the 2800 person goal of Option 6 challenging at best, if not impossible. The question we have to ask ourselves is, do we even want a dense mass of 5 -story buildings in the Terra Bella area? Will the infrastructure even support it? If not, then the projected populations for the area need to be drastically scaled back. I hope this report will give the reader a better feeling for what kind of development is realistically possible in the Terra Bella area. Appendix 1 Symbols A = area of all apartment complexes A, = area of one apartment complex (2 buildings) AT = total available area =1466 ksf (Churches & 1001 N. Shoreline subtracted) AO =open space area P = number of people housed in apartment complexes P, = number of people in one apartment complex = 679 PT = total number of people PS = number of people in 1001 N. Shoreline = 498 n = number of apartment complexes a = open space ratio = 3 acres = 0.1307—ksf 1000 people person To calculate the number of apartment complexes that can be built, one need only divide the available area by the area of one apartment complex. However, the available area is reduced by the open space requirement, which in turn depends on the number of people to be housed plus those in 1001 N. Shoreline. Since the number of people to be housed depends on the number of apartment complexes, we have a system of simultaneous equations. Then, AT= A + AO PT=P+PS AO = aPT P=nP, A n=— A, We can combine the first and third equations to eliminate AO and the last two equations to eliminate n: AT = A + aPT P AP PT =P+PS Combine to eliminate A and PT and solve for P: M AT = PA, +a(P+P,) AT- aPS = P Pl +a) P -- `� -aPS = 2239 people A, + a P, Then PT= P + PS = 2737 people Aa = aPT = 358 ksf n =— = 3.3 complexes These calculations are easily implemented in a spreadsheet. November 7, 2018 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 SUBJECT: Terra Bella Visioning Study Session on November 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers: SummerHill Housing Group appreciates the City's effort to establish a vision and land uses for the Terra Bella area. To help alleviate the housing crisis, SummerHill advocates for a housing -focused approach that delivers a variety of housing types, densities and price points, along with neighborhood serving retail, parks and recreational amenity space. SummerHill controls approximately four acres of land in the Terra Bella area (highlighted in green on the map on next page) and we have participated in the City's two workshops. To effectively inform the gatekeeper process, the Guiding Principles should be clear. Given its proximity to jobs, transportation and open space, the Terra Bella area offers the potential for significant housing. Allowing higher density will help the City address its challenging housing goals - including more affordable housing - and meet the need for additional housing to balance the City's recent and continuing employment growth. As such, we suggest the Council consider combining the ideas from the east half of Option 3 and the west half of Option 1 in order to envision a clear residential focus that helps the City meet its housing goals. Encouraging a greater residential focus in the Terra Bella area will help the City achieve its housing goals by taking the pressure off other planned residential areas, since the City must make up for any shortfall in residential production on sites already designated for housing in the Housing Element. Striving for a greater residential density also helps the City generate more affordable housing opportunities. In addition, permitting more flexibility in height, such as allowing seven (7) stories in select areas, while providing two - to three-story maximum heights in buffer zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods, helps projects produce more open space areas, better address contextual issues, and accommodate desired circulation improvements such as bikeways and other urban design features such as wider sidewalks and parks. Finally, establishing a focused vision for a higher density neighborhood in the Terra Bella area is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element and Land Use policies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Terra Bella Vision Plan and we look forward to your discussion and guidance. Sincerely, �aiia l�q�as�csru/ Katia Kamangar Executive Vice President, Managing Director 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com SUMMERHILL COMMUNITIES OF HOUSING DISTINCTION GROUP November 7, 2018 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 SUBJECT: Terra Bella Visioning Study Session on November 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers: SummerHill Housing Group appreciates the City's effort to establish a vision and land uses for the Terra Bella area. To help alleviate the housing crisis, SummerHill advocates for a housing -focused approach that delivers a variety of housing types, densities and price points, along with neighborhood serving retail, parks and recreational amenity space. SummerHill controls approximately four acres of land in the Terra Bella area (highlighted in green on the map on next page) and we have participated in the City's two workshops. To effectively inform the gatekeeper process, the Guiding Principles should be clear. Given its proximity to jobs, transportation and open space, the Terra Bella area offers the potential for significant housing. Allowing higher density will help the City address its challenging housing goals - including more affordable housing - and meet the need for additional housing to balance the City's recent and continuing employment growth. As such, we suggest the Council consider combining the ideas from the east half of Option 3 and the west half of Option 1 in order to envision a clear residential focus that helps the City meet its housing goals. Encouraging a greater residential focus in the Terra Bella area will help the City achieve its housing goals by taking the pressure off other planned residential areas, since the City must make up for any shortfall in residential production on sites already designated for housing in the Housing Element. Striving for a greater residential density also helps the City generate more affordable housing opportunities. In addition, permitting more flexibility in height, such as allowing seven (7) stories in select areas, while providing two - to three-story maximum heights in buffer zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods, helps projects produce more open space areas, better address contextual issues, and accommodate desired circulation improvements such as bikeways and other urban design features such as wider sidewalks and parks. Finally, establishing a focused vision for a higher density neighborhood in the Terra Bella area is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element and Land Use policies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Terra Bella Vision Plan and we look forward to your discussion and guidance. Sincerely, �aiia l�q�as�csru/ Katia Kamangar Executive Vice President, Managing Director 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com Cc: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner / City Clerk 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com L IIIA PARKING REQUIRED PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES �i 'Ir/I IIID/III/ rIII,III�\` \\VIII/�/,IIII IIID\'llV/VIII 2.6 SPACES / UNIT X 9 = 23 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED PRIVATE GARAGES 18S ACES TERRA BELLA AVE 3 I I I U O OPEN GUEST PARKING 5 SPACES I I I I TOTAL PARKING 2J SPACES PROVIDED Architecture+Planning a ou uu u12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 DD DENSITY STUDY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN S P.1 LOSAngeleS, CA 90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #171077 DECEMBER 17, 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 310 394 2623 �iGgyCem c0MMUN1-11ES 0f DIS[ INCIION PROJECT SUMMARY \ SITE AREA168,206 SF (3.86 AC) TOTAL UNITS 274 DU �\ DENSITY 71.0 DU/AC OR OSS FLOOR AREA 39],406 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO 236 FAR YARDS(SETBACKS) PROPOSED FRONT (NORTH) 9' STREET SIDE (EAST) 15' \ STREET SIDE (WEST) 9' INTERIOR SIDE 5 T 20' REAR (SOUTH) 33' (nAPARTMENTS SUMMARY: y `\ SITE AREA 130, 863 SF(300 Acre) UNITS 265 DU DENSITY 883 DU/AC 9�0 PO OFFICE/ INCUBATOR SPACE 19,000 SF GROSS FLOOR AREA 375,000 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO 2.86 FAR BUILDING HEIGHT 5 STORIES (4 OVER 1 PODIUM) s� UNIT MIX'. Type Beds Baths Area Units Mi. Phn 1A 1 1 700 112 \ Plan 1B 1 1 710 56 Plan Li 1 1 700 7 7 One Bedroom Mots' 175 66% Plan 2A 22 1,020 86 \ Plan 2B 2 2 1,095 4 Two Bedmon SuStotd 90 34% Total 215,160 265 INDOOR AMENITIES/ COMMON AREAS PROVIDED FITNESS/CLUB ROOM 3,400 SF \ 2500 SF CODS TGYA/LOBBV COURTRDS (d!PODIUM 30.000 SF TOTAL PROVIDED 35900 SF@135 SF/UNIT PARKING RATIO SPECIFIED (SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER PRECISE PLAN) OFFICEPARKING@1/250SF 76 SPACES RES. PARKING (d!12DU 318 SPACES 1 TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED J94 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED GROUND LEVEL 36 REST DENT SPACES ( 35GUEST SPACES (10% OF RES. PKG.) 77 OFF E SPACES BASEMENT RESIDENT 269 REDT SPACES (22 TANDEM) TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 417 SPACES BIKE PARKING _ LONG-TERM 268 SPACES PROVIDED(2-TIERED RACKS) AT AA AA AA AA FEESIMPLE TOWNHOMES SUMMARY . SITE AREA 37343 SF (0 86 Acre) UNITS DU `+ 19 DENSITY 105 DU/AC GROSS FLOOR AREA 22,406 SF(EXCL. 200 SFIUNIT FOR GARAGE) FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.60 FAR (0.6D FAR MAY, PER TOWNHOUSE) r BUILDING HEIGHT 2 STORIES, 35MAX UNIT MIX'. Type Beda Baths s AUnits I 2Smry 3 2.5 1850 9 OPEN AREA PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES REQUIRED MINIMUM 16, 804 SF @45% PROVIDED 16,821 SF@45% I BUILDING COVERAGE PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES REQUIRED MAXIMUM 13,070 SF @35% PROVIDED 11,700 SF@31% PAVEMENT AREA PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES REQUIRED MAXIMUM 9336 SF @25% PROVIDED 8,822 SF@24% O OPEN GUEST PARKING 5 SPACES I I I I TOTAL PARKING 2J SPACES PROVIDED Architecture+Planning a ou uu u12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 DD DENSITY STUDY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN S P.1 LOSAngeleS, CA 90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #171077 DECEMBER 17, 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 310 394 2623 �iGgyCem c0MMUN1-11ES 0f DIS[ INCIION �mmm m ,1 21 MEM, 2A 2A sv I vz A BASEMENT LEVEL O I I I I Architecture +Plano in9 a ou uu inu 12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 S,Ie100 TERRA BELLA DENSITY STUDY PODIUM FLOOR PLANS SP.Z L31 0 os Angeles, CA90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #1]1"1 DECEMBER 1], 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 394 2623 �i ktg ° COMMUNI-1IES 01 DIS[INC]ION LEVELS 3 THROUGH 2A sv I vz A BASEMENT LEVEL O I I I I Architecture +Plano in9 a ou uu inu 12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 S,Ie100 TERRA BELLA DENSITY STUDY PODIUM FLOOR PLANS SP.Z L31 0 os Angeles, CA90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #1]1"1 DECEMBER 1], 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 394 2623 �i ktg ° COMMUNI-1IES 01 DIS[INC]ION Pancholi, Diana From: Patrick Neschleba Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Diana, We live on Morgan Street, near the Terra Bella visioning plan area, and like many of our neighbors we are a dual -income working family with kids and have not had the free time to attend the workshop sessions that have been held. I wanted to send commentary ahead of the next round of reviews, after reviewing the latest proposals. We've notice that plans are calling for immediate transition from single -family -home zoning to 7 -story residential immediately adjacent to our neighborhood, which we've learned is not something that's been done in any other project like this. While we are not opposed to the conversion of light commercial zoning over to multi -story residential, this abrupt transition seems rather extreme and will significantly impact the character of our neighborhood. Three-story residential seems like a more reasonable limit that will still add a considerable amount of housing in a needed area. We recently remodeled our home to add a second story, and had a few learnings from that process which I wanted to make sure we shared with you. First, we were a borderline case with the EPA with regards to subfloor ventilation requirements due to our proximity to the groundwater plumes; the Terra Bella area is right on top of these and so there may be restrictions on residential building. Second, we learned through soil studies that the water table is already very high in our area, and the ground is at risk of liquefaction in an earthquake. For a two-story home, this required significant additions to our foundations in order to mitigate the risks, and limited our ability to dig. For dense multi -story construction, I can only imagine how much more would need to be done, and wonder if it is even possible to build dense residential of —7 stories (including what I'd expect to be underground parking for buildings of that size) with the local geology being what it is. It would be good to get these questions answered with a detailed study before too many conclusions are drawn regarding the size and height of buildings in the Terra Bella area. As frequent users of the Shoreline athletic facilities, we've also noticed the extreme traffic during the evening commute. As part of the development plans, I'd love to see both widening of the Shoreline Boulevard highway crossing, as well as addition of public transit from Terra Bella to the Shoreline office parks, in order to help ensure easy movement of traffic in and out of that area. The Terra Bella area will be highly desirable for tech workers to live there, and the current set of overpasses over 101 are really undersized for the amount of people that need to get in and out of that area every work day. Thanks for considering this input and we look forward to hearing more about the development plans. If the City has an e-mail interest list forming for the visioning plan, I'd be happy to be added. Thanks, Patrick Neschleba Pancholi, Diana From: Linda Thoma Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:46 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning - Input from Impacted Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We have recently been made aware of the plan for the redevelopment of the Terra Bella, Middlefield, Shoreline area. We have also become aware that only those areas whose residents speak up the loudest are being accommodated. Those of us who trusted the City to plan according to what is fair and right for the entire neighborhood are being ignored. Clearly our trust in the City has been misplaced. So here are our voices: WE VEHEMENTLY PROTEST THIS PLAN! 6 TO 7 STORY BUILDINGS TOWERING OVER OUR 1 STORY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! Linda and Michael Thomas Pancholi, Diana From: Eric Stabell Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:16 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Debbi Beauchesne; Chris Beauchesne; Sue Stabell; Sue Stabell-Work.Desk Subject: Terra Bella Vision - Morgan/Spring St. Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Diana, Thank you for taking the time to speak to us last night about the Terra Bella Vision Plan. It was good to hear about the plan first-hand from you. My Morgan Court neighbors and I felt we missed a good opportunity to add our input at last year's Vision Plan workshops, but we plan to be more vocal in the future. Anyway, in reviewing some of the information about the plan, I wanted to share some of my own thoughts with you. Hopefully better late than never... I counted about twenty Stierlin Estates 1 -story single-family residences, along San Pablo Drive area, bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. It sounded like that neighborhood was well represented at the previous Vision Plan Workshops. Unfortunately, my Morgan/Spring St neighborhood, was virtually unrepresented, partly because we have nothing resembling a homeowners association. We too have about twenty 1 -story single-family residences directly bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. I would hope that we would get equal consideration, just as the more organized Stierlin Estates homeowners did, when it comes to being mindful of the transition zones between our older 1 -story residences and the new construction. I personally feel that with the Terra Bella zone adjacent to so much residential, that 5-7 story buildings seem excessively high for most of the area. As I'm sure you've already been hearing from the Stierlin Estates residents, we in the Morgan/Spring St area also would like to see a thoughtful transition from our 1 -story homes to taller buildings. I'm thinking nothing more than 2-3 stories high adjacent to our residential properties would be acceptable, combined with a generous buffer space and perhaps a landscape screen or other consideration. Noise from our new neighbors should seriously be taken into consideration also. With that said, when I look at the proposal options, my thought would be to consider having the tallest buildings right along noisy/high traffic Shoreline Blvd, and perhaps along the freeways (they would make great sound walls!), all the while keeping them fairly far away from the existing single-family residences in the neighborhood. Taller buildings on Shoreline might make for a nice gateway into central Google, which could complement (or even copy) the beautiful new4-story Google building at the corner of Terra Bella &Shoreline. (Did I mention it's only 4 -stories?). I really think it would be best for us neighborhood residents to have the tallest buildings a minimum 1-2 blocks away from all the existing 1 -story residential. Thanks for listening and we look forward to hearing about future meetings on the topic. Please keep us posted with any developments and City Council dates on the matter. Sincerely, Eric Stabell Sent from my iPhone March 11, 2019 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan Dear Mayor Siegel and City Councilmembers: This letter is a response to the latest Vision Plan which depicts the location of a future bicycle/pedestrian path through the edge of my property at 915 Linda Vista. While I am excited to support Mountain View's growth, safer travel paths, and community connectivity — I am worried that this proposed path will reduce my privacy, security, and property value. The reduction of my lot size in favor of this path could potentially increase noise, theft, and need for maintenance. Please reconsider main thoroughfares such as Terra Bella or Middlefield Road, which have the size to accommodate a new and efficient bike path. I encourage the city council to consider using existing public right of ways, rather than private property. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Harry Cheung Pancholi, Diana From: Patti Schrotenboer Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:06 PM To: City.Council Cc: , City Manager; Pancholi, Diana; Tim Schrotenboer Subject: Terra Bella Visioning To Mayor Siegel, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Councilmembers, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Terra Bella area yesterday evening at the council meeting. It was clear that the council and staff have spent many hours working toward a plan for this area that considers the needs of the larger community as it grows and changes, as well as taking the time to consider the existing residents in the area, for which I personally am very grateful. I wanted to take a minute of your time to request again that this plan be moved forward through the Precise Plan process. As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the Precise Plan process was what we were told would be used when we attended the first vision planning meeting this past June, and I believe it is the only responsible way to allow development in this area that is outside of the current zoning and general plan allowances. I understand that this area is not one of those identified as a change area within the General Plan; however, it has become clear that this is an area of interest for developers. I credit the council for recognizing that when multiple projects started coming in for this area, a broader, more holistic approach was needed, and starting the visioning process. As the developer interest in this area has continued, and even increased, I ask that council continue to build on the work that staff has already started, and incorporate the environmental studies that accompany a Precise Plan, including traffic impact reports, to help inform the density thresholds that make sense for this area as a whole. While all of the vision is good, and I have been encouraged by the plan as it has morphed and changed over the past months, we don't yet have a clear picture of what the impacts of the type and scale of the envisioned development would have on the area. Beyond not having that clear picture, an additional concern with moving forward without a Precise Plan is that we end up with infrastructure that is not unified. As projects come through the gatekeeper process, the frontage improvements, building setbacks, utility sizes, etc. are all considered for that project individually. A precise plan allows for not only the vision of the what the area could be, but the studies to show that the vision will function well once constructed, and the requirements to actually construct it that way. This is helpful to both neighboring residents and to developers, as they know exactly what will be required when a project is constructed. Another major concern is the community benefits item, and how that is incorporated into the area. As a number of council members mentioned, having a "floating" park may mean that the park gets pushed onto a piece of land that doesn't make sense for the area, or worse yet, not included at all. I am concerned about how the community benefit approach will be put into practice without the "teeth" of the requirements that generally come from a Precise Plan. A Precise Plan can also include phasing, which would ensure that the community benefits are constructed in tandem with the developments, and not pushed to the end. As a public sector employee myself, I am acutely aware that staff resources must be considered here. My request is to recognize that this area is a priority for development, and to direct the resources to develop it properly through the creation of a Precise Plan. Alternatively (and this is not my personal preferred alternative), only allow projects to move forward that meet with the current General Plan and zoning for the area. Each project that comes in under the gatekeeper process requires a certain amount of staff resources. If the amount of staff time and resources spent on each gatekeeper project could be combined and focused up -front on a Precise Plan, we would end up with an area more likely to benefit all community members. Thank you again for your time, your service to our community, and your attention to this area. Sincerely, Patti Schrotenboer Pancholi, Diana From: Edith Hugo Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:45 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning meeting April 2, 2019 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Diana Please include this email in the packette which will go to the City Council for the April 2, 2019 Study Session To the Mountain View City Council: From: Mountain View Industrial Associates LLC owner/manager Edith Hugo Property location: This correspondence is to comment on the proposed Bike Path through properties connecting San Leandro Avenue and San Pablo Avenue with possible extensions. It appears from the site drawings that this Bike Path will go along the property line of San Leandro Avenue and perhaps impact the property negatively by going into the property, past the property line, and using the area which is now permitted parking spaces. As the owners of this property have no desire to change the useage or sell this property, changing the property line and removing parking areas will not only reduce the value of the property, but limit it's useage. The property now falls within the desired usage of the proposed Vision Plan by providing small office and R and D space for people wishing to live and work in the Terra Bella Vision Area. Many of the tenants of this building now bike to work from their residences within the area and use the provided roadways to do so. Thus falling within the Vision Plan. As we fall within the Vision Plan, we would like to keep our property lines in tack. I propose that the City incorporate into the Vision, Bike Lanes within the now existing streets, which are already being used as "bike paths" to and from residences and the building. The proposed Bike Path between San Leandro and San Pablo is extraneous. There is also an advantage to having a bike lane in the existing streets as that is a preventative to habitational vehicles parking along the curbs and lining the street, causing issues of vagrancy and vandalism in the area. Having owned said property since 1982 I can attest to the fact that vandalism, crime and vagrancies have become a major problem in the area in the recent two years. To the point that I am now installing a fence and electronic gate to prevent negative impact on the property. A bike path as proposed would increase unwanted access to the property and encourage the same problems we are now encountering. I am therefore requesting the reconsideration of the placement of the proposed bike path. I proposed the Bike Path be placed as a lane on the existing City streets. Should you have any questions I will be present at the April 2nd meeting. Thank you, Edith G Hu o VIA Electronic Mail March 5, 2019 The Honorable Lisa Matichak Mayor City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94043 RE: Agenda Item 9.1—Terra Bella Visioning Dear Mayor Matichak and Council Members: Zappettini Investment Company (ZIC) owned and managed by the Zappettini Family is a longtime member of the Mountain View business community, with particularly deep roots in the Terra Bella neighborhood. We have enjoyed working with the City on the Terra Bella Visioning and look forward to our ongoing partnership throughout the process. The following are a few points for your consideration tonight. As you know, the Zappettini family is the majority stakeholder of property in the Terra Bella area on the west side of Shoreline Boulevard and first developed the properties in the 1970's. Our longtime holdings in this area provide us with the unique opportunity to deliver the City's ultimate vision for the western Terra Bella areaa complete ecosystem of residential, office, mixed-use, commercial, bicycle and pedestrian - friendly streets, open space, public spaces, and infrastructure—all knit together in a comprehensive way with appropriate densities that are sensitive to the neighboring conditions. First, as we have pointed out, we are sensitive to the transitional concerns expressed by single-family homeowners; therefore, we strongly believe that it makes sense to allow for higher, densities along W. Middlefield Road. As shown in the aerial below, W. Middlefield Road is at least 125 feet wide with a significant street median with mature tall redwood trees which serve as a buffer and transition that separates the two sides of the road from multi -family uses across the street (i.e. not single-family). Consequently, density along W. Middlefield Road not only makes sense in the Terra Bella Visioning context, but we believe it is where the density belongs, especially in light of the transition sensitivities. 235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 415, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 415 495 9222 1 WWW.ZAPPETTINI.COM 125 feet wide median + mature tall redwood trees which are a buffer and a transition Second, we would like to express our support for Alternative 5 as presented to the Environmental Planning Commission, with the optionality for higher densities of residential along West Middlefield and the potential for a hotel in the Mixed -Use with Retail location at the corner of Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. As the City continues this visioning for the area, we believe it is critical to provide maximum flexibility for future uses while being sensitive to the edge conditions. These edge conditions can be treated through the various transition strategies emphasized in staff's Study Session Memo. Third, we understand that the City Council will consider whether to add a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as a next step to the Visioning Plan adoption. Regardless of the City Council's decision on this point, The Zappettini family is prepared to put forth a comprehensive proposal for a gatekeeper to be a catalyst to redevelop a major portion of the west side of Terra Bella with a fully integrated, mixed-use community of which the city of Mountain View and its residents can be proud. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We appreciate the City's thoughtful deliberation on the future of the Terra Bella area. Sincerely, cc: Martin Alkire Diana Pancholi Aarti Shrivastava Thomas S. deRegt tpl r SV1 Kate Jorgensen 235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 41S, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 415 495 9222 1 WWW.ZAPPETTINI.COM RECOMMENDATION Attachment 2 DATE: August 25, 2020 CATEGORY: Public Hearing DEPT.: Community Development TITLE: Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Authorize the assignment of staff resources for consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment, General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, and General Plan text amendment to allow redevelopment of an existing personal storage facility site with new personal storage buildings and 105 affordable housing units located at 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue. BACKGROUND Gatekeeper Process The Permit Streamlining Act (State law) requires a city to process any development application submitted by a property owner/ applicant that complies with City zoning and General Plan regulations. The Permit Streamlining Act does not apply to an application that requires legislative actions such as General Plan, Precise Plan, and/or zoning amendments. In these cases, the City Code gives the City Council the authority to control the processing of these applications based on available resources and consistency with City policies. This Council authorization is commonly referred to as the "Gatekeeper" process. Council can authorize staff to work on the proposal, defer staff work to a later date, or reject the study of a proposal based on the availability of staff resources and the proposal's alignment with other City policies. Gatekeeper Timing In November 2019, Council provided direction to allow the submission of a Gatekeeper application for a joint Public Storage and Alta Housing (formerly Palo Alto Housing) affordable housing and personal storage redevelopment project at 1020-1040 Terra Bella Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue August 25, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Avenue. In early 2020, during the mid -year goal -setting discussion, Council decided to defer consideration of all Gatekeepers to fall 2020, but provided direction to continue the submission of this Gatekeeper application due the project's affordable housing component. The timeframe for all Gatekeepers has since been deferred to fall 2021 in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This item was originally scheduled to be heard by Council earlier this year, but was deferred due to COVID-19 disruptions in public hearing dates and priority considerations for the City. ANALYSIS It should be noted that the Gatekeeper request under consideration has only undergone a cursory review for the purpose of preparing this report. Detailed analysis, including compliance with General Plan goals, policies, site and architectural design, and other City policies, regulations, and guidelines, will only begin in earnest if Council authorizes City resources to review these applications. Authorization of a Gatekeeper request does not presume staff or Council support of the project. Address: 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Applicant: Public Storage and Alta Housing Site and/or Planning Area: Moffett/ Whisman Existing GP Designation: General Industrial Existing Zoning District: General Industrial (MM) Proposal The applicants are seeking Gatekeeper authorization for staff consideration of a rezoning of the entire site to P (Planned Community), a General Plan designation change for the housing site to High -Density Residential (36 to 80 dwelling units per acre), and General Plan text amendment to allow greater industrial intensities under the General Industrial designation. The proposed amendments would support a new development project which includes the redevelopment of the approximately 4.8 -acre project site with 105 affordable family units and two new personal storage buildings (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). The project site includes two properties located on the northwest corner of Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue. The proposal would rearrange the current property Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue August 25, 2020 Page 3 of 5 configuration so that the housing site, which currently fronts primarily on San Rafael Avenue, would be along Terra Bella Avenue, and the storage facility would be behind this adjacent to the freeway. To facilitate this and allow a larger housing site, Public Storage would donate approximately 0.5 acre to Alta Housing, which increases the number of affordable housing units that could be built on the current property owned by Alta Housing from approximately 56 units to 105 units. With the donation of 0.5 acre, Public Storage would redevelop the remainder of their site with two five -story personal storage buildings and new site improvements and landscaping. This would be done in two phases to allow completion of one of the new buildings for occupancy by existing customers and then demolition of the second phase and construction of the second building. To facilitate the phasing of the project, Public Storage would be seeking approval of a Development Agreement as part of the entitlements in order to lengthen the entitlement period beyond the allowed entitlement length of two years. Alta Housing would develop a seven -story, 105 -unit, 100 percent affordable housing community. Alta Housing is also intending to apply for funding through the City's Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process if Council authorizes the Gatekeeper. Review Criteria Is the project in a General Plan Change Area? The project is not in a General Plan Change Area. However, the project is in the Terra Bella Vision Plan area, which was reviewed but not ultimately adopted by the Council in 2019. The land uses for the two sites are generally consistent with that of the Terra Bella Vision Plan but are proposing greater intensity (heights and FARs) to facilitate the affordable housing project. Does the project provide affordable housing on-site? The project would include a 100 percent affordable housing development with 105 affordable units. Is tenant relocation required? The project would not include any residential tenant relocation as there are no residential units on-site. Is the project near public transit or commercial services? The project is close to transit and commercial services, including the MVgo shuttle station near the intersection of Terra Bella Avenue and Shoreline Boulevard and the Bailey Park Shopping Center approximately one-half mile south of the site on Shoreline Boulevard. The site is located in the Mountain View Whisman School District and Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District and is currently served by Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue August 25, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Theuerkauf Elementary School, Crittenden Middle School, and Mountain View High School. • Does the project dedicate park land? The project would not include any park land area. Next Steps Staff recommends that Council authorize the assignment of staff resources for consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment, General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, and General Plan text amendment to allow redevelopment of this site with new personal storage buildings and 105 affordable housing units located at 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue. ALTERNATIVES 1. Defer consideration of the Gatekeeper to a future date. 2. Do not authorize the Gatekeeper request. PUBLIC NOTICING The City Council's agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners within a 750' radius and other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting. Prepared by: Stephanie Williams Planning Manager/Zoning Administrator Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director SW-AS/6/CAM 818-08-25-20CR 200167 Approved by: Kimbra McCarthy City Manager Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue August 25, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Attachments: 1. Gatekeeper Request Letter 2. Project Plans Attachment 1 August 8, 2020 Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 RE: Joint Gatekeeper Application - Public Storage Redevelopment of Existing Facility and New Alta Housing Project at 1020 Terra Bella Avenue Dear Ms. Shrivastava: Alta Housing ("AH"), formerly known as Palo Alto Housing (PAH), and Public Storage ("PS") have proposed a one -of -a -kind collaborative venture, that will build much needed affordable housing, while creating a diverse, compatible and vibrant mix of land uses. On November 18, 2019 the City Council unanimously voted to allow the joint Public Storage and Palo Alto Housing proposal to move forward to a Gatekeeper hearing. To that end, please accept this letter as the joint PS/AH Gatekeeper Application for review and consideration of General Plan and zoning modifications to make this project a reality. I. The Development Proposal Alta Housing ("AH") and Public Storage ("PS") own adjacent property on Terra Bella Ave. Attachment 1 identifies the two properties owned by AH and PS in their current configuration. AH and PS have engaged in extensive and cooperative discussions regarding a property contribution to facilitate more robust housing and commercial development. PS will donate roughly 0.50 acres of land to AH, to increase the number of affordable housing units from 56 units to roughly 105 units and to provide a significant community benefit. The PS donation is valued at approximately $9 million. This contribution would increase the number of affordable housing units built by AH from the original 56 units and 101 bedrooms that could have been built on the land solely owned by AH to yield a total of approximately 105 affordable family housing units yielding a bedroom count of approximately 220. In addition, the land identified by PS for contribution contains valuable frontage on Terra Bella. By facilitating residential development along the street -frontage, PS and AH will help foster a pedestrian -friendly environment within the Terra Bella neighborhood. The PS project would be located behind the AH project and adjacent to the freeway, with the AH project creating an attractive buffer between the freeway effects and the future residents of the AH project. Attachment 2 identifies the sites once the proposed land transfer takes place. These benefits cannot be achieved through the current property configuration, only through this unique collaborative venture proposed by AH and PS. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-244-8080 publicstorage.com IL Gatekeeper Request. PS is required to submit a Gatekeeper application for rezoning, and AH, an affordable housing project, must complete a separate NOFA process. As part of Gatekeeper approval, if City Council agrees to assign staff to this project, PS and AH would move forward with the rezoning of the two (2) properties and AH would also proceed concurrently with the NOFA process. PS and AH are seeking Gatekeeper approval that would authorize a General Plan Amendment to allow residential to accommodate the AH project and a higher FAR to accommodate the PS project. PS & AH are also seeking a rezoning of the two properties from MM (General Industrial) to a P district (Planned Community) to allow both projects to move forward. A Zoning Amendment from MM to P will allow the City to not only establish residential and personal storage as permitted uses for the subject properties, but would permit the PS and AH project to incorporate the following: 1. FAR — Increase the allowable FAR from 0.5 under the current MM standards to approximately 2.6 to accommodate increase in intensity for the PS project; 2. Uses — Rezoning the properties to a P Zone could allow both personal storage and residential uses on the reconfigured parcels. The MM Zone currently allows personal storage as a permitted use. 3. Parking — Evaluate the parking requirements for personal storage and affordable housing. 4. Setbacks — Evaluate required building setbacks to permit the higher density being requested. 5. Development Agreement (DA) — As part of this Gatekeeper request PS will be seeking a DA. PS will be building the project in two phases and will seek a DA as part of the entitlements to allow the construction phasing of the project. A. Project Details Assuming the AH/PS proposal is approved and the City enables the land transfer from PS to AH, PS and AH propose to develop their respective properties as follows: Public Storage (PS) PS will transfer 0.5 Acres of land to AH and redevelop the remaining 3.85 -acre personal storage facility, including the construction of two five -story buildings, approximately 69 feet in height, and all new site improvements and landscaping (See Attachment 3). The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of the completed project would be approximately 2.63. The redevelopment would take place in two phases, with the eastern portion, including Building 1, developed as Phase I_ The western portion of the existing property would continue to operate while Phase I is constructed. After Phase I is completed and existing customers are moved into the new building, Phase II would redevelop the western portion of the site by demolishing the existing buildings and constructing Building 2. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com The proposed PS project will have minimal impact on the neighborhood and is anticipated to have the benefits of improved aesthetics and additional blocking and visual and noise buffering of the neighborhood from Highway 101. Alta Housing (AH) With the Public Storage land donation of 0.5 Acres, Alta Housing proposes to develop a seven -story, approximately 105 -unit, family housing community for households with income levels between 30- 80% of the area median income. (See Attachment 4). The project will contain one, two, and three- bedroom units to support households of various sizes. The proposed buildings would be approximately 74 feet in height. On-site amenities will include a community room with a kitchen, a conference room, laundry facilities, and an 11,000 SF outdoor deck area for tenants. 1020 Terra Bella is centrally located with good proximity to transit and amenities, including a grocery store. The site is near the future Shoreline transportation corridor, which will provide enhanced transit, bicycling, and pedestrian facilities between North Bayshore and Downtown Mountain View while fostering a pedestrian -friendly streetscape along Terra Bella. This Gatekeeper request will allow Alta to file the necessary applications—General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Community Permit, and Density Bonus request—to begin the development review process. B. Community Benefits of the Proposal. Some of the community benefits of this PS land contribution to PAH are: • Achieves one of the City's goals to offer a variety of housing types at varying income levels • Nearly doubles the number of affordable housing units from 56 to approximately 105 units. • Contribution reduces cost of all the affordable units by roughly $80,000 +/- per unit. • Creates a 100% affordable, family housing community with one, two- and three-bedroom units. • Improves layout, quality and design of the affordable housing project • PS is prepared to relinquish frontage on Terra Bella and place their project behind the AH project. This proposed layout buffers the AH project from the freeway and creates a more pedestrian friendly environment • PS has one manager residential unit that would be incorporated into the AH project • Increase in number of bedrooms from 101 to approximately 220. • Increase in the number of extremely low and low income individuals housed from less than 150 to over 320. C. Compliance with the Gatekeeper Requirements. Mountain View Municipal Code sections 36.52.15 and 36.52.55 require the gatekeeper application to include the following information. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com Prior Studies Relevant to the Project MVMC §§ 36.52.15 f (1)(a), 36.52.550 (1)(a)). The most recent study completed was the Terra Bella Visioning Plan that began to define a Vision for the Terra Bella area. No further studies have been completed for either the PS or AH sites. Community Benefits and Contributions (MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(b), 36.52.55(g,)(1)(b)). As described in more detail above, the proposal will create significant community benefits by contributing property worth approximately $9 million to facilitate the development of almost 50 new affordable housing units while promoting a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and insulating future residents from the impacts of the adjacent freeway. General Plan and City Council Goals ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15 f (1)(c), 36.52.550 (1)(c)). As illustrated in Attachment 5, the joint project from AH and PS will advance multiple goals articulated by the City in its General Plan and Housing Element, including providing new housing opportunities and a diverse and flexible mix of land uses. Fiscal Impact ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(d), 36.52.55(g)(1)(d)). This project will have limited fiscal impact other than increase in property taxes from the redevelopment of the PS site. Consistency with Amendment Authorization Criteria ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(e), 36.52.55(g)(1)(e)). The project is designed to meet the findings required for all amendments. It is consistent with the General Plan, will promote the public interest and welfare of the City, and will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Community Outreach During the past several months, PS met with representatives of the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood Association to discuss the PS and AH project and in November, 2019 AH provided them with an onsite tour of some of the affordable housing projects operated by Alta Housing. We will also be reaching out to them prior to the August 25, 2020 City Council meeting. III. Conclusion If the City Council grants this Public Storage/Alta Housing Joint Gatekeeper application, both teams are committed to working with the City to implement this plan. This joint collaboration between PS and AH is a unique opportunity that will result in an increase in the number and quality of affordable housing units to be constructed by Alta Housing and allow Public Storage to reinvest in the community and provide a "state of the art" personal storage facility to better serve its customers. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com Public Storage Prior Studies Relevant to the Project MVMC §§ 36.52.15 f (1)(a), 36.52.550 (1)(a)). The most recent study completed was the Terra Bella Visioning Plan that began to define a Vision for the Terra Bella area. No further studies have been completed for either the PS or AH sites. Community Benefits and Contributions (MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(b), 36.52.55(g,)(1)(b)). As described in more detail above, the proposal will create significant community benefits by contributing property worth approximately $9 million to facilitate the development of almost 50 new affordable housing units while promoting a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and insulating future residents from the impacts of the adjacent freeway. General Plan and City Council Goals ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15 f (1)(c), 36.52.550 (1)(c)). As illustrated in Attachment 5, the joint project from AH and PS will advance multiple goals articulated by the City in its General Plan and Housing Element, including providing new housing opportunities and a diverse and flexible mix of land uses. Fiscal Impact ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(d), 36.52.55(g)(1)(d)). This project will have limited fiscal impact other than increase in property taxes from the redevelopment of the PS site. Consistency with Amendment Authorization Criteria ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(e), 36.52.55(g)(1)(e)). The project is designed to meet the findings required for all amendments. It is consistent with the General Plan, will promote the public interest and welfare of the City, and will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Community Outreach During the past several months, PS met with representatives of the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood Association to discuss the PS and AH project and in November, 2019 AH provided them with an onsite tour of some of the affordable housing projects operated by Alta Housing. We will also be reaching out to them prior to the August 25, 2020 City Council meeting. III. Conclusion If the City Council grants this Public Storage/Alta Housing Joint Gatekeeper application, both teams are committed to working with the City to implement this plan. This joint collaboration between PS and AH is a unique opportunity that will result in an increase in the number and quality of affordable housing units to be constructed by Alta Housing and allow Public Storage to reinvest in the community and provide a "state of the art" personal storage facility to better serve its customers. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com We greatly appreciate your time and consideration of this joint request, and if you have any questions or need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, (2: �� Andres Priedman Senior Vice President, Development Real Estate Group Randy Tsu a President and CEO Alta Housing Enclosures Attachment 1: Aerial of existing properties Attachment 2: Land swap plan Attachment 3: Public Storage proposed site plan, elevations, and renderings Attachment 4: Palo Alto Housing proposed site plan, elevations and renderings Attachment 5: General Plan and Housing Element Policies C.C. Bryan Miranda Diane Dittmar Anna Cole Rose Bacinski Stephanie Williams Diana Pancholi Ellis M. Berns PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com 1020 TERRA BELLA I PRELIMINARY PROJECT CONCEPT MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING Attachment 2 CONTENTS AO ................ COVER SHEET Al................VICINITY MAP A2 ................ SITE PLAN - LEVEL 1 A3 ................ FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 A4 ................ FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 A5 ................ FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4-7 A6 ................ ROOF PLAN A7 ................ BUILDING ELEVATIONS A8 ................ BUILDING ELEVATIONS A9 ................ MATERIALS & COLORS A10 ............. SUSTAINABILITY GOALS All ............. RENDERING Al2............. RENDERING A13 ............. RENDERING A14 ............. RENDERING A15 .............. PROJECT STATISTICS w VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK ---------------------------- /////// :Z :0 m SCHOOL TERRA BELL 4fe mreESiAUR4N �D ..... r.••••............. :D :Z :D :m 0A55iAi1ON SAN PABLO DR ............................ - - 21 3T_+J aE 1020 TERRA BELLA I VICINITY MAP MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17128/20 1 ALTA HOUSING ♦R i Ip ad. 1. SITE CORNER LOOKING NORTH WEST � I 2. FROM TERRA BELLAAVE LOOKING SOUTH WEST 3. FROM TERRA BELLA LOOKING NORTH EAST Al VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK 1 CRRH DCLLH HVCIVUC 0' 20' 40' 80' 1020 TERRA BELLA I SITE PLAN - LEVEL 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17128/20 1 ALTA HOUSING A2 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK I I I I I I I I 0' 15' 30' 60' 1020 TERRA BELLA I FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING A3 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK - - 210' -- -- 1020 - 0' 15' 30' 60' 1020 TERRA BELLA I PODIUM PLAN - LEVEL 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING A4 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK 3BD 3BD 3BD 2BD 1BD 1BD 2BD 2BD 2BD STORAGE STORAGE ITTTT I 2BD 1BD 2BD 3BD PODIUM BELOW n n l n cl ¢ S AIR 1 TRASH JAN. 2BD 2BD 2BD 2BD 3BD L 0' 4' 8' 16' 1020 TERRA BELLA I FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4-7, TYP. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING A5 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK I liil!lIIIIIIIII III 111111111116 �'i..� - � l� - '7 �.�. VIII � �F II -�'i C'7�11111� All 11 111 11 1111 11 111 11 IN 11 ::: ::: 10 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 0' 15' 30' 60' 1020 TERRA BELLA I BUILDING ELEVATIONS MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" I� MATERIALS 111 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ❑ BRICK ALT'. EXT PLASTER WITH STEEL TROWEL FINISH ❑3 METALSIDING-STANDINGSEAM ❑4 METAL SIDINGPANEL CONCRETE ❑6 ALUMINUM WINDOW ❑( ALUMINUM STOREFRONT ❑8 HORIZONTAL METAL SUNSHADESOLIDPANEL ❑9 METALAWNING-SOLIDPANEL 10 METAL COLUMN EMETAL GUARDRAILPERFORATED 12 METAL GUARDRAILGLAZED 13 PERFORATED SCREEN HALUMINUM SPANDREL 15 PARAPET CAP 16 PUBLIC ART LOCATION COLORS METRO BRICK "EMPIRE" METRO BRICK "CHARCOAL" METRO BRICK "COMMONS" AEPSPAN "METALLIC CHAMPAGNE" ❑E AEP SPAN ETERNAL"SUNGOLD" AEP SPAN TO MATCH COLOR G METAL ACCENT COLOR ❑H KELLY MOORE'PALO MIST" KELLY MOORE TO MATCH COLOR G A8 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK METRO BRICK "COMMONS" 101 ALT: EXT PLASTER STEEL TROWEL FINISH SIM COLOR METRO BRICK "EMPIRE" 507 ALT: EXT PLASTER STEEL TROWEL FINISH SIM COLOR METRO BRICK "CHARCOAL" 710 ALT: EXT PLASTER STEEL TROWEL FINISH AEP SPAN ETERNAL "SUNGOLD" AEP SPAN FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING FRAMED BY BRICK "METALLIC CHAMPAGNE" KELLY MOORE "YANG MIST' 4576 STANDING SEAM 1020 TERRA BELLA I MATERIALS & COLORS MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28120 1 ALTA HOUSING BRICK BASE ALUMINUM WINDOWS A9 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK Jill 11111111W"` . v I°'- _ _ �'�f1lllllllllll h� 111-„, � ` �i�� _ — ■ ■ i ■ —■ � � u�iuiiiiii�� i��iiiiiiu���� ���iiiiiiiii� iuiiiiiiii,, llllllllllllllllll/l/ll/�� — �� 11�I�� �\� �, ' 1111 11\\�'���N� fID . ■ I�� 'I, I ' ' '� u'I IIIIIIIIIIIu�IIIII�lllllllllllllll��llll'flllllllllll l' 11 /� / {,: � i� i. I. �. '3 11/11111 f►l �.� \\\\\\ ,� `..., 11 11►x.'11, �--. r� sa ■' \I' ■' ■I ■� ®� . ,�. � �JI//11/ /ll �!///L'� i 0r” 6, F �.a II s - - + W _ c` r + � �. �I I .��■.■�! lid 40 e PROJECT DATA PLANNING Control (6Reeam cam wlxarenwyiare"Ntl Mewd-u 1 R Pided Provided) FAR: 65a hUSYn'm+ a.sz t�reity Na tui wlaw MapM: a6'ruM Neta T#' mai Fane: T eNAee SnLvdr-Frdi ®SLeet{f[sfaeNlef itl' 1a'•PG' SHLepI:-9i0e�Streetl�n Reseal) iP 5-12 Sxhad � s,sb � Ira.rur 36' 13'-15' SrPLxk•Rea f6 1T ekrunun SiLalLm: ApplicaW¢R {umnml7 d5,1ST IX3. FT. Elle Open Area Apgkel+k Repurement? 13.3133O.6T- ©tree bw.W Kwrorim Na 313369. FY 1%>An1�14 AW65a6 WPa're a C¢re ¢ga ,M_Rey__ it®Sia. FT IY>ade Ciwn Spxa ® W SF per erst Bpm Sp. IT 14QM SGL FT Aveai¢us¢Heogsnsgpm Na 101a S4 IT uaede Open 9wwltffi 9P paruNt 1Nel. enRmion are pmretal 14,R1a B9. Fr. 15-a916tl. si Raaitlmt Srvmge Ia5Awegpprda 1✓M amm9p rune 1im 9F par Una Parking rw Na 1Reno, ape spaces 4 unl Pruiv:l.s:l forme eoRMe ane z-{ fa hq aV IM1rea SnRMe IassPact=s Ice sPAces AFos.ihk spam. SSPApES {r �>w{ 6�ACFS 9mgr'emd EVC$ U ev 1NAe11 as EV—w Too.1 vm EV lAsiimlerycti Pahirrg 13PAt'E _1IMT 11153PACP3 Shoe'ie.m a yea Pare a WALE - 1Q UW1S 11 SPACE& Unit Count 1 Bedraam 17 2 Bedroom 61 3 Bedroom 27 Total: 1679 1020 TERRA BELLA I PROJECT STATISTICS MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17128/20 1 ALTA HOUSING PROJECT DATA BUILDING Lot Area x.w Building Areas inatneicpaeraa asking inn�eorewome.aaneing 3},333 s4 nemar h},)a3 Y¢Mor aN Nmr 51h Mor A.a3 eN Knr 1e,h1 Yin Mmr 18.89 retY 3Sa.5YY Usable O n Spare u rxludes gmun¢le.vk ¢oqv. 5.63 la 15Aa Residential Units 4 wnd gad 6 hw now u wk ' V NM1 Rwr L ilP aper 66. Blnmgr 3h rhe M¢r rw xhY A15 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK PUBLIC STORAGE MOUNTAIN VIEW 1040 TERRA BELLA ROAD MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SEA19-0015-00 04.09.2020 WARE MALCOMB ARCHITECTURE I PLANNING I INTERIORS BRANDING I CIVIL ENGINEERING It This conceptual design is based upon a prel im inary reviewof entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended m erelyto assist. e.plori.gho the project might be developed. Signage shown is for ill.shztin' purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect T. iipal code compliance, PROJECT DATA: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: SITE AREA: ZONING: MM GROSS: 3.78 AC 164,453 SF MAX. F.A.R.: MAX:COVERAGE: 0.55 BUILDING AREA: BUILDING 1 (5 -STORY) 187,680 SF MAX. HEIGHT: NONE ' BUILDI NG 2( 5 -STORY) 248,555 SF OFFICE 900 SF BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT: PROPOSEO FRONT.' 25 FT' LOFT TOTAL AR EA: 437,135 SF EXIST. BLDG. AREA TO BE DEMO'D. 76,788 SF SIDE: 0 FT ' NET NEW BLDG. AREA 360,347 SF REAR: DFT' BUILDING USE: PERS. STORAGE 436,235 SF LANDSCAPE SETBACKS: �—.. a -'v OFFICE 900 SF FRONT: SIDE: 50%° FAR: GROSS: 2.66 REAR: COVERAGE: GROSS: 53% LANDSCAPE REQ.: AREA REQ.: 10% 16,445 PARKING REQUIRED: PERS. STORAGE 1/2000 SF 217 STALLS AREA PROVIDED: 22,170 OFFICE 1/300 SF 3STALLS %PROVIDED: OFF-STREET PARKING: 13% TOTAL 220 STALLS PARKING PROVIDED: AUTO: 53 STALLS STANDARD: 8.5X18 @0.15/1000 SF COMPACT: N/A REQ. ACCESSIBLE 3STALLS CON PACT %: DRIVE AISLE: N/A 24 FT APNS(EXISTING); 153-015-030 153-015-002 FI RE LANE: 26 OVERHANG: NOTES: ol 2' CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NINLC.0MB 04.09.2020 12L MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 I , �—.. a -'v NORTH ----------------------------------�I ..Buis ss° a ao ajo CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NINLC.0MB 04.09.2020 12L MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 Thisconceptual design is based upon a preliminary reviewof entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merelyto assist in expls-ghowthe project might be developed. Signage shown is for iI nt- tine purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect municipal code compliance, AERIAL VIEW ��r�7� MAL 7� PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE 1y A COMB MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 04.0e.2020 "4L ` s , , w J 4.5 l o / , a , TT ` u J ` a' 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I II I I I I I I I I I I 1 \l b3 4 4.5 V 8b �7 b8 V 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 1: FIRST FLOOR PLAN and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merely m assist in expioringh—the projectmightbe developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WY1l\F, Nf�T,C�MB 04.09.2020 "s shown is for a ntatro, purpose only and does not n--riry reflect mnni'Ipal 5 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 1 i I I I �- -I- --1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n I T __I-_ - I_ _ _ --i __i II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I -- o- - ---1---1-- I I I 1 r -rt I I --I-- - j -- �.� - ---fi----t---t------I-----� I I o- - -! --i-- I ---- I -- I - 1 - I I -----I-- I I - I I I c�a -----I- I I -----I-- I I I 1 -----I-- I I I -!-� I ----0 I�--f---F---I---�-+-- J _ _�__I_- o- g - - ----1---1--I-- I I I I I I I-rt----1--1--� I I I I I I I I I I ----1--1-t-I--t-----I---1--t-- I I I 1--t-- I rl I -I --0 I n I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N a (IN � _ — _ 1 _ -- I —I 1 ---- � T— - ! - _II------ I 1 T— I �r �� 37,716 SOOTPRIf�T _-- +--T---�--I I — --T --- _ T C— — -- --1 --- T T _-- } — T - _ JI — N a o- ---! --I--� I I --�--L-�--1-1-J-L-1-1--J--�> I I I I I II �-i--I--L-J--1-�-L-�-1-1--L-!- I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I ---� I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a- ----r--i--� I I I --�-�-�-�-I-�-�-�-i-�-TTT-T-T-T-T--T-�-T-�-T-�-T-�- I I I I I I I I I I ---Q I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a �- ----r--I--� i I --�--L ----1--J--1 I I -1--1--J--L1J--1--1-- I I I --1--1--I-- I I ---1--1 I I - - --Q I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I II I I I I I I I I I I 1 \l b3 4 4.5 V 8b �7 b8 V 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 1: FIRST FLOOR PLAN and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merely m assist in expioringh—the projectmightbe developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WY1l\F, Nf�T,C�MB 04.09.2020 "s shown is for a ntatro, purpose only and does not n--riry reflect mnni'Ipal 5 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 12 3 7, 4.5 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. 29 ITT I I I I I I I I 11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1b 6 3b 4 4.5 b5 6� b7 b8 �J 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \.7 27 28 8. NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 1: TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (SECOND -FOURTH) and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merey to assist in expioringnowtne project might be developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARENfAT,COMB oa.os.zozo " shown Is for II nt-'tive ",poses only and does not n— ,ily reflect municipal 6 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o--- --1--1 1--rt-rt-- I - fi - 1 --I--1--1 t 1--t-- - --t--I-- --I--t---- I - �- ---0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1^E� IC I I I I I I I I _L_—_I—_I__L L _I—_ _i_—i__i _ i _i_—i—_i _ i _i_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I �\ -- o- I --1---1--1---1--�--r--r--I--1--j--�---I--1--1-t-I--t--r--I--�--t--I-- fi--I--t--I---r-� ----0 �-- o =_ 1 -=--r--I � ---- � � - 1 - T I --I--r-- I �_-r--i --r - -- � r --� �--r-+- - -- --_- --1 37,716 SF pOTP I o---- --J--L-1-1--1--J-L-1--1--J--L+L--1----L-L--1-L-L---1-1--L-L- I I I 1 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I it (�I� 1--1--� --J--L--1---J---1--J--L -J---1--J--L1J--1---- --I--1--I - --1--1 -/� I I I u u 1b 6 3b 4 4.5 b5 6� b7 b8 �J 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \.7 27 28 8. NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 1: TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (SECOND -FOURTH) and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merey to assist in expioringnowtne project might be developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARENfAT,COMB oa.os.zozo " shown Is for II nt-'tive ",poses only and does not n— ,ily reflect municipal 6 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 1 2 3 4 4.5 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 26 8. 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vnevum�i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORM This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is PHASE 1: FIFTHFLOOR PLAN Intended merely m assist in exploring how the project m fight be developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE 1VIA&COMB 04.09.2020 ne shown Is for ILpurposes only and does not n I—,ily reflect ll P1 7 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 -- - o-----a--�- I I I I -T----a-- I I ------�--- I I I I I I I I I -------- I - ---- I I I --- I I ----� o--- -�-- I- - 1 -I-- --- - --- I-- - I I -I --I-- I 1--I I --�- ---I I I --- I -� ! ----0 I I I - -� 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- -T I -4--T- I I I- -T I - - -Q I o-----4--1--� - � - -4-4- I- � -� ��It������- 37,7116 SF OOTP I T + - -� ---I- � -I--T--I--� 4- �-�-, _J_L_1_L__J_L_-_1- _L1_T_T_1_J__1__1-_T_L__1___L_L_' _ p o------+--1--� I I I I I -- I I -- �I I I I - - I I I --I---�----1--- I I I I I I I I I I --J—�T—•--I--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - -- I I --1---1-1-- I I I -1-- I I I I I --~-+- I I I I I �I- ---0 0------ I --�--� I - I I - T- - --T- - -T- I -T I I I -TTT- T I -T-T-T--T I I I i- + I --1--T I J- I T- - --- o-- ---4 1-- I I I I -1L-4-4- I- I I � I - -4- I I I- T I -�f�- I I + ---T-�- I � I -I -T-�- I }--I I -T-�- I - -- - -�---1--1 1 -J-J--1-L--1--1--L-L--1--1-_L 11 II I 1J--1--1---1--J--1--1---L--1--1--I 11 11 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I S I I I I I I I I I I I b7 b8 b9 I I I 464 I I I 11 I 1 �J 3b 4 4.5 �l 8� 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 NORM This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is PHASE 1: FIFTHFLOOR PLAN Intended merely m assist in exploring how the project m fight be developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE 1VIA&COMB 04.09.2020 ne shown Is for ILpurposes only and does not n I—,ily reflect ll P1 7 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 KEYNOTES OSTOREFRONT: CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS O MAP ES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO BE PS ORANGE O 8" SPLIT FACE WITH PRECISION BANDS - "PLACER CREEK" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE NORTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" WINTER MOOD - PPG14-16 PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE O MOTH GRAY - PPG14-29 STOREFRONT CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING SI IMAGE AREA: O 4'-2" X 40'-4" 1 169 SF This conceptual design is based upon a prel 11 11, —1 -If entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is ntendedmerelytoassist in exploringhowthep,ojectmightbedeveloped. Signage shown is for illushatine purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect municipal code compliance, UH F/oore 39 9 FINISH F—IR 3 11 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" PHASE 1: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NIA&C OMB 04.09.2020 "$" MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 FINISH —DIR NORTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 71 9 FARA T_ UH F/oore 39 9 FINISH F—IR 3 11 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" PHASE 1: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NIA&C OMB 04.09.2020 "$" MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 TIP OF PARA— PARAPET EAST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" KEYNOTES O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE OSTOREFRONT:CLEARANODIZEDALUMINUM 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS O MAP ES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO O BE PS ORANGE O 8" SPLIT FACE WITH PRECISION BANDS - O "PLACER CREEK" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE WINTER MOOD - PPG14-16 PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE O MOTH GRAY - PPG14-29 STOREFRONT CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING SIG NAGE AREA: O 4'-2" X 40'-4" 1 169 SF This conceptual design is based upon a prel 11 11, ­­Ifentitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is ntendedmerelytoassist in exploringhowthep,ojectmightbedeveloped. Signage shown Is for IIWshative purposes only and does not ne ,Tily reflect municipal code compliance, PHASE 1: EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 WEST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" WARE 1`/fALCOMB 04.09.2020 1— l ' J l 2 J l 3 J l4 / l 5 J l 6 J l r J l 8 J l 9 J 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 3. 144. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3. 24 25 n26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 U U U U U U U U U 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 3. 14 4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2223 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 U 31 32 33 34 NORTH Thlsconceptua l design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is "u PHASE 2: FIRST FLOOR PLAN Storage. I I I I WARE N/LA _ICOMB 04.09.2020 ne 10 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _T_—I--1--Y-T----, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _:. I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -TY Y-I—I-T1--T-T--1--1--T-T--I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —1T-T-T--I_-1--T-1---I_-1--Y-T---- I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --- --I---- I I --1--�--{---j---I--1--{---F-II--J� I _ I —I — I -_ I - --I- 1 1 111 I I I I I I I I -�F-F-I-I-fii--�--�--I--1--�-�--I _ -----I-- I I 1 I I - --I I I I I -��-�-�--1--1--{---1---1--1--{---r---- I - --I---- I I I _ 1 I --I-- 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I ---- 1 I --- -Fri ---� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I en L e K-17 --1----{-- I I I I --1--1--{ I I I lioeevR M� I --j--1--T-- I I 1�----1--1--{--� I I I I I I I --1--1--i-- I I I I r---- I -- --1-- I --I—_T_T_—I_--I—_T_T_—I_—,—t-TYT-I—I-T�—_Y_T_—I_-7—_T_T_ -1-- -- I -1--1-- I --L- I I I 0 1--L I I -I---I--J--L--�--- I I I I -I_-L--1-1--1--L--1---1--J--J---1--------- I I I I I ,T_T_T_—I_-1—_T_T_—I_-1—_Y_T_—_— I I I I --- I I ---I I I I I I I --I--�-{---r--1--1-�--r--j--1-t-i-��-Il-j-fii--�--r-j--1-�-�--- I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1-}-{---{---1--1--{---{---j--1--{---�---- 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --� I I --1--�--L-1--1--�--L-1--1--a�_Ll1_I-I.1J--L-�--I--�--L-L- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1�L1--1--�--L-1--1--�--L--�----- I I I I I I I I I I ---� --j--�--�--F--1--1--{--�---j--1-f-i-�-I--II-1--�1--�-�--I--1-- --{---II--�--{--�---1--1--{---F- -- --� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----7-'�-rt-1--,--Y-�'--I--,�-Y�rt--7-1-Y-rt--1--,--�-T--,�-T-rt--,-Y-rt-I-,-Y-rt- 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 4 ,7111 SF POOTPRI T 1 I� I I I I � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ---i 1--1--� I I I - �--1---1--� I I I - �--j--1�-�T7-I-I- I I I I I--�-7--j--�--'� I I I I I I I I I I I I --�--'I--� I �-�- I I �--I---j--� I -�--j---j--�- I I �- g I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 777 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 A I I I I I I I `r---r--r-7-r-r-r-r-I—rT7--�r---I---I---I--r---I-----�-�-r---I----,--q--�---I--�--7---I-- I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- ---� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U U U U U U U U U 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 3. 14 4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2223 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 U 31 32 33 34 NORTH Thlsconceptua l design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is "u PHASE 2: FIRST FLOOR PLAN Storage. Intended merelyto assist in expioringho the project might be developed. Signage shIwn is for iI tine purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect municipal PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE N/LA _ICOMB 04.09.2020 ne 10 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 1 Y2 33 4 55 6 7 8 99 10 11 1. 12 12. 13 13. 1414. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \/ --_— --'T-T--I_—y--T-T--_-7 -TrT-I—I_T_—I_—y—_T_T_—I_—y—_T_T_—_—_—_� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 17- Cpl 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I ��Y\� _—I--y—_'�_T_—I--y--'r--1---I--_' 1 I -TrY-I-1-Ty--T-T--I--y--Y-T--I--yT-T-T_—I--y--T-T--I--y--t--Y----_—_� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c Q--- I I --1--1--{---,---1--1--t__—I-- I I I I I I —1-���-II-�1-�-�-I-1-�-�- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —1—f-�--{---I--1--{---{---I--1--{---1---------� I I I I I I 1 I I o----- I I --1--�--�-1--1--�--�-1---- I I I I I I I I I I �_LlL-II-La-L-�-I-J-1--1- I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —��-�-1--1--�--�--I---I--�--J---1---------Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1�Jr V --- --I--,----T--I--y--'r-T--I--,T-Trrt-II-��-Y-rt-I-�-Y-rt- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —yT-T-T--I--y--T-T-T--,--T-T-------�+I I I I I I I I %� M I 1--�--�-�---1--�--�-1--1--JJ_LlL_I—I_La--�-�---I--�--a--1- —I II I I I I I I I I yI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —�-1-�----�--1--�--L--�--1--a--L-�------- I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — I I I I I I I I I I I 4 7111 I D I SF FOOTPRI T I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 -7 -FT -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U y--'r_—I'_—I_—y—_.r_—_— 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1� b2 1 4b 1 1 b5 1 1 7b 1 1 10 I I 11 1. I I I I I I I 12 2. 13 13. 14 4. 15 I 16 I I 17 18 I 19 I 20 I I 21 22 I I I 23 3. 24 I 25 I 1 26 27 1 28 1 1 29 30 1 31 1 1 32 33 34 �l V V �l - - -- o a •� x0mx This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is PHASE 2: TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (SECOND -FOURTH) 4 Storage * Intended shown is codecompllance. merelymassist in expioringnowtne project might be for illushztine purposes only and does not necesdrily developed. Signage reflect municipal PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 WARE N/LA -COMB 04.09.2020 "p 11 NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 2: FIFTH FLOOR PLAN and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merelymassist in expioringnowtne project might be developed. signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE Nf�T,C�MB 04.09.2020 "s shown Is for It' purposes only and does not n I—,ily reflect municipal 12 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 TI 2 3 4 �Q444444g4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 13. 14 4. 15 16 17 16 19 20 QQQ�44 21 22 23 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 Q� 30 31 � 32 QQ� 33 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,--r-r--I—-y I I I I I I -rrr_--r�--r-r----,--r_r--I_-�r-r-r--r- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I --r- I I I ---- --F-1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I o--- I--SII-�--�-I--1-; I I -�---I--� I I I I I I -�r—�-�—I-��--�--�---1--�--�-�--,--1�-�-�--1--1--�-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �--!--1--�---�--------a o--- I 'I--�-a- �--I-�-�--�-I-a I I I I I I I I I I I I _X11-I—I_La--a---�--I--a--�-�--I--��-�-�--1--�--�-rt--;--�--�---!---------Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o-- -'--,-T--r--,--r---r--I-- - -rr-r--I-r-I--r-�---I--y--r-r--I--y--r-r-�---I--,--r-�----,--r---------- I I 0 o-- I --�-{--� -I--1-{----i-- I I I I —f-1—t—I--I—I--I-1--�--�---1--1--t----�-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1�-�-�--I--1--�-�--I--1--i---r--------Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------------- -_r_r_-_-_-_-0— – –r --1 --*--I-- – -- — I-- I r 1 r 7 f rfirt r1 r rt--I-- 7--r lJ o---- --j--�--�--{---I--1--{--�---j--1—f-i—�—I--I-1--�1--�-�--,--1--�- —�—f-L-�---I--� �- �I--j--1--{---F- ------0 4 ,71'1 I SF POOTPRIII� T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o--- --'--�-{-� -1-1-{--�-I-1�-�fi�--II-fii-t--�-1-1-t--�-I-1�-�-�--I-1-�- 'I-j-1-�-�-- ----Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U -y-_.r_rt_ - -j--;- ; ---;- -;--III-�-I - -;- -'I ----'I-� - -----j-;- ---� I I I a� II II b2 b5 b8 1 \'l 4b �l 7b �l 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 13.. 14 4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 `.% 31 32 33 34 NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 2: FIFTH FLOOR PLAN and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merelymassist in expioringnowtne project might be developed. signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE Nf�T,C�MB 04.09.2020 "s shown Is for It' purposes only and does not n I—,ily reflect municipal 12 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 ❑o KEYNOTES OSTOREFRONT: 1 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM -- - - MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING SOUTH ELEVATION -SCALE 1/8" DOORS MAP ES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO O BE PS ORANGE 8" SPLIT FACE WITH PRECISION BANDS - O "PLACER CREEK" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE WINTER MOOD - PPG14-16 O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE MOTH GRAY - PPG14-29 O STOREFRONT CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING O SI IMAGE AREA: 4'-2" X 40'-4" 1 169 SF This conceptual design is based upon a pr,l 11 11, —1—fentitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploringhowthep,ojectmightbedeveloped. Signage shown is for iI `t`tiv, pnrpoS2S only and does not n I—l-ily reflect municipal code compliance, .R HHHUH RML ------------------------------ , �TH IF HIFIF -- - - SOUTH ELEVATION -SCALE 1/8" F -O" PHASE 2: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WAR PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NIALC OMB 04.09.2020 13 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 EAST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" KEYNOTES OSTOREFRONT:CLEARANODIZEDALUMINUM 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS O MAP ES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO BE PS ORANGE O 8" SPLIT FACE WITH PRECISION BANDS - "PLACER CREEK" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE WINTER MOOD - PPG14-16 PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE O MOTH GRAY - PPG14-29 STOREFRONT CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING SI IMAGE AREA: O 4'-2" X 40'-4" 1 169 SF This conceptual design is based upon a prel 11 11, —l-Ifentitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is ntendedmerelytoassist in exploringhowthep,ojectmightbedeveloped. Signage shown is for illushatine purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect municipal code compliance, WEST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" PHASE 2: EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NIALC OMB 04.09.2020 "14" MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW "►D11:t� ► ►I�1 I WTM0 0 n1eY416 ►7�1► If; 11610 STAFF REPORT MARCH 23, 2022 5. STUDY SESSION Attachment 3 5A 5.1 Study Session to Discuss a Request for a New Affordable Housing and Personal Storage Development at 1020 to 1040 Terra Bella Avenue RECOMMENDATION That the Environmental Planning Commission provide input on the project. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's internet website. All property owners and apartments within a 750' radius and other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting. A City Council Study Session will also be held regarding this project, and property owners and interested parties will be notified separately. BACKGROUND Proiect Site and Location The approximately 4.8 -acre project site includes two properties—owned by Alta Housing and Public Storage, respectively—located on the northwest corner of Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue, with additional frontage on Linda Vista Avenue. The site is currently developed with approximately 18 single -story personal storage facility buildings and two single -story buildings: a Public Storage rental office and an unhabitable residential structure, which would be demolished for this project. The project site has a current General Plan designation of General Industrial and is located in the MM (General Industrial) Zoning District. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 2 of 14 Figure 1—Location Map Immediately surrounding development includes: • (north) Highway 101, including an off -ramp to Highway 85; • (south) several industrial offices and research and development offices (one to two stories); • (east) industrial offices and research and development offices (one story); and • (west) mixture of recently entitled multi -family projects with commercial space (five to seven stories), an existing Google office building (four stories), the Scientology site (two stories), and industrial and research and development offices (one story). Terra Bella Visioning The project site and surrounding area were studied as part of the Terra Bella Visioning process, which provided an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key land use and development topics for the Terra Bella Area. The resulting draft Vision Plan was intended to be a guiding document to implement a new vision for the area and the basis for a future precise plan or guidance on Gatekeeper applications. While some objectives of the Draft Vision Plan addressed preferred land uses, intensity of development, Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 3 of 14 and general circulation conditions, a vision plan does not establish development regulations or regulate land use and does not include detailed development feasibility and technical studies. Zoning regulations with this level of detail would need to be drafted through a precise plan for the area. On November 18, 2019, the City Council elected not to adopt the draft Terra Bella Visioning Plan and determined a precise plan providing a comprehensive framework for future redevelopment of the area was prudent. There is no current timeline for preparation of a potential precise plan for the area (see Exhibit 2—Terra Bella Vision Plan, November 18, 2019). Gatekeeper Authorization On August 5, 2020, the City Council authorized staff resources for consideration of a General Plan Land Use Designation change to High -Density Residential (36 to 80 dwelling units per acre) for the housing site, a General Plan Text Amendment to allow greater industrial intensities under the General Industrial designation, and rezoning the entire site to P (Planned Community) District. The proposed amendments would support two new development projects, including two new personal storage buildings on the Public Storage site and 105 affordable family units on the Alta Housing site (see Exhibit 1—Gatekeeper Application Staff Report, August 25, 2020). EPC and Council Review Per standard City procedures, authorized Gatekeeper projects are brought to the EPC for review at a Study Session and for a final recommendation prior to going to the Council for a decision. This Study Session is an opportunity for the EPC to provide feedback on the proposed project, including the General Plan amendment, rezoning, and development proposal. In this case, the project will also be reviewed by Council at a Study Session due to the changes in the development project since the Gatekeeper authorization and a commercial impact fee waiver request proposed by Public Storage. DISCUSSION General Plan and Zoning Amendments General Plan Amendment for 1020 Terra Bella Avenue The proposed General Plan Amendment from General Industrial to High -Density Residential (36 to 80 units per acre) would allow residential development of the 1020 Terra Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 4 of 14 Bella Avenue property for the proposed 100% affordable project. The High -Density Residential Land Use Designation is the highest -density, purely residential land use designation in the General Plan and would accommodate the proposed project with a State Density Bonus request. General Plan Text Amendment for 1040 Terra Bella Avenue Personal storage uses are allowed in the current General Industrial Land Use Designation. However, the General Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation has a maximum FAR of 0.55 for such uses. To accommodate the proposed Public Storage project, the applicant has requested a General Plan Text Amendment to increase the allowed FAR to a maximum of 2.5 FAR. Per the authorized Gatekeeper (highlighted above), the applicant will provide a community benefit as part of the consideration to allow the FAR increase, which includes an exchange of land to create a residential frontage on Terra Bella Avenue and dedication of an additional approximately 0.5 acre of land to Alta Housing (1020 Terra Bella Avenue) to create a larger residential development site, which will facilitate additional units in the residential development. Zoning Map Amendment for 1020 and 1040 Terra Bella Avenue The development site is currently located in the MM (General Industrial) Zoning District, which allows only industrial uses. The MM District would allow the personal storage use (at a lower FAR), but not the residential project. As such, the applicant proposes the properties be rezoned to the P (Planned Community) District to facilitate the proposed development projects. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, P Districts are intended to be applied to areas which, by reason of their proximity to other zoning districts, topography, geographic location, size, shape, or existing development, require special consideration in order to be properly integrated into the community and adjacent developed districts, and to further the planned circulation patterns, residential densities, planned coverage limitations, and preserve open spaces as required by modern land planning and zoning concepts and techniques. Development Projects The Gatekeeper project includes two separate development proposals by Public Storage and Alta Housing, which are being reviewed concurrently. The project, as a whole, would rearrange the current property lines to incorporate an approximately 0.5 -acre dedication of land from Public Storage (1040 Terra Bella Avenue) to Alta Housing (1020 Terra Bella Avenue) to create a larger affordable housing site. The resulting parcels would feature the Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 5 of 14 Alta Housing site at the corner of Terra Bella and San Rafael Avenues, while the majority of the Public Storage site is located behind the Alta site, with access via a driveway on Terra Bella Avenue and a second access from the cul-de-sac side streets (San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues)—see Figure 2. t`. �,:.. :�•. arAi wn GS. fl EL •t _J "" 11)4' BUILDING 1 114' u / ' =7EL G3TORY'. 2n,w2 P44TPRxr.4€.W25P e' '� Y � rravrvnr:«nnseMm i5"YFG �maiaroar a' onCdeFn� 7 a�,nfn, I�,RRG �r �ExttlJ � - �I ✓ � ,�., f __ � f BUILDING i -,-_ 4 DRQ : 120.9525E ' ! t Fp�Tpgllfr.3h 9pq 5% � 0 1Y . nsx ana� s 229'Q mauAa Tw•vEL,.. T, 25•aafx�i�� 7 r"'s-3---�&;ss'�elm�a LV aH w oAr�in°ux,au� �. I iw a� rrn n r ,r,n sx i iw •a r. � a aa� aaA1 r [..u«..ti l'BrRsisz RCa OA� ILEIIELS, AND 2) G -STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING � _ IROP.. PARCEL W_EA.±45.1808F '[i ACfiE$1. I TERRA BELLA AVE Figure 2—Combined Site Plan 1020 Terra Bella Avenue—Affordable Housing Project As part of the Gatekeeper authorization, the affordable housing project was proposed to be seven stories and 105 units, totaling about 157,000 square feet. Based on community feedback and other design progression, Alta Housing reduced the height of the structure to six stories and increased the unit count to 108 affordable units, totaling 150,084 square feet. The project proposes to take advantage of State Density Bonus law with a request for a 32% density bonus, although the project qualifies for up to a 50% -density increase. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 6 of 14 The rezoning request (discussed earlier in this report) would allow the residential use pursuant to specific development standards (e.g., FAR, setbacks, building heights, etc.) defined by the project. Parking and Circulation The project's vehicle access would occur via two driveways: (1) fronting on Terra Bella Avenue, providing access to an at -grade structured parking level, and (2) fronting on Linda Vista Avenue, providing ramp access to a second -story parking level. The project proposes 104 off-street parking spaces, which results in a parking ratio of 0.96 per unit. The proposed parking is lower than State Density Bonus parking standard (136 spaces) and the City's model parking standard (220 spaces). The proposed project will be further evaluated with a parking study to confirm proposed parking will meet anticipated demand, similar to other affordable housing developments proposing reduced parking requirements in the City. e- e e �� �� I■Illilll■■ 1. ■A■■■. ... 111111■1111■r■! ■ ■■23L3G ■1■III■Ill����f ■ ■ ■ ■ .liiiiiiiilii■■�iiiiii iii■■----�� - - ® o ® ® m a a a Figure 3-1020 Terra Bella Affordable Housing Ground -Floor Plan Project Design The architectural design for this component of the Gatekeeper project is modern in appearance. The design utilizes a simple building form with flat roofs and prominent window trims, which is broken up along Terra Bella Avenue (to the south) by a third -floor courtyard providing open space to the proposed tenants. The project provides additional open space by way of an entry plaza proposed at the intersection of Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and pockets of publicly accessible amenities along the Terra Bella Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 7 of 14 Avenue frontage. The Terra Bella Avenue frontage will also provide ground -floor units entries and other directly accessible common amenities and entries, such as the bike storage/fix-it room, and the landscape design will incorporate a mixture of California native plants and climate -adaptive species. These elements help scale and soften the building's appearance, and proposed on- and off-site trees would contribute to a greater sense of enclosure. The proposed building materials include a mixture of board -formed concrete, cementitious-lap siding, AEP standing -seam metal siding, and aluminum windows and accents. These materials are applied to accent different building areas, with particular attention to the primary building corners along Terra Bella Avenue. Rf�"91V � R r Figure 4-1020 Terra Bella Avenue Housing Project Aerial View from Terra Bella Avenue Staff anticipates continuing to work with the applicant to refine the project design through the development review process, including continued community input and feedback arising from EPC, NOFA Committee, City Council, and Development Review Committee meetings. At this time, staff recommends continued refinement of the design to: • Enhance building base: The proposed design includes several positive aspects such as ground -floor porch entries and publicly accessible landscape amenities. To continue to delineate and provide prominence to the building base, staff recommends the following areas for design revisions: Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 8 of 14 More comprehensive color/material application. Staff supports wrapping finish treatments (colors and/or material accents) around all side and rear elevations. Deemphasize garage entries. Staff recommends further refinement of building accents and landscape design to diminish the appearance of prominent garage entries on Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue. Refined public amenities and frontage landscaping. Staff recommends maximizing frontage landscaping zones, native plant species, and large -canopy trees, and continued work to refine the design of proposed publicly accessible frontage amenities to ensure they are attractively designed, functional, and limit impacts to adjacent residential units. Relationship between podium and frontage open space shall be activating and inviting. Distinguish the corner plaza and main entry. Staff recommends revisions to further emphasize the corner entry and plaza, so it is more strongly delineated from adjacent building areas. • Upper -Floor Design: The proposal includes angled accents at the building corners, varied window design, special detailing of the multi -story building area above the central courtyard, and a strong ground -level canopy element at the main building corner. However, other locations see upper floors overhang the building base or otherwise providing prominent views of less articulated upper floors. Staff has not identified any specific design recommendations for these areas but recommends further design review through the DRC process to identify recommendations to ensure the upper -floor design is well -integrated with the building base and provides visual interest given the scale and prominent views of the new building. • Color and Materials Palette: Staff has some concern about how well the current mix of materials work together and recommends further consideration of the proposed color/materials palette to ensure visual interest for upper floors, strong definition of building base, and a well -integrated appearance. 1040 Terra Bella Avenue—Personal Storage Project As part of the authorized Gatekeeper application, Public Storage proposed to construct two 5 -story personal storage buildings totaling 437,135 square feet and indicated the project would be constructed in two phases, with the building directly behind the Alta Housing site to be constructed first. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 9 of 14 The current proposal has been modified from what was shown as part of the Gatekeeper authorization to include one 6 -story building (Phase One) along Linda Vista Avenue, and one 4 -story building (Phase Two) along San Rafael Avenue, behind the Alta Housing project. The project proposes 75 surface parking spaces, in lieu of the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 209 spaces, and with most of the parking spaces tucked behind the proposed buildings and/or inset from public street frontages. The proposed parking reduction is based on Public Storage experience with parking demand at their other locations and will be evaluated for adequacy through a parking study. Cumulatively, the revised project includes less floor area (408,964 square feet) and more parking than the original proposal (see Table 1, below), but the increased height and modified phasing are the notable changes from the original proposal. Table 1: Comparison of Changes Submittal Stories Height FAR Parking Gatekeeper Two 5 -story 72' (five -story) 2.66 FAR 53 spaces Proposal structures Current One 6 -story and 85' (six -story) Proposal one 4 -story 64' (four-story) 2.5 FAR 75 spaces structure The surrounding neighborhood has changed in recent years with new and substantially remodeled office and mixed-use developments occurring around more traditional industrial buildings and uses. The north side of Terra Bella Avenue has or would see some of the most significant changes to this area, including this Gatekeeper project and the entitled/under-construction five- to seven -story mixed-use development by Sares Regis at 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard. Newer two- to three-story office buildings have also been constructed or are currently under review in the vicinity. M" Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 10 of 14 1 4 Figure 5—Neighborhood Height Context The evolving context of the neighborhood has guided staff analysis of the proposed changes to the project proposal. Specifically, staff feels the increased height in the Phase - One building—from five stories (72') in the original plans, to six stories (85') in the current submittal—can be supported as it would be similar to the existing/future scale of nearby development, where five- to seven -story buildings range in height from 70'to 88' in height. However, additional design work is needed to support this increased height and more prominent building view and to ensure the proposed buildings will fit into the evolving mixed-use neighborhood, as discussed in more detail below. Project Design The personal storage buildings provide a modern industrial design and material palette. The simple building form responds to the angled property line along U.S. 101 and the interior layout of storage units. The design proposes strong vertical and horizontal orange trim bands around the building providing some articulation of otherwise flat wall areas and delineation of corner window treatments. Other building materials include clear and spandrel glass, a mixture of concrete/cementitious materials, stucco, and metal panels. On nonhighway-facing sides, projecting wall areas and windows are used to try to break up long building facades. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 11 of 14 Figure 6—View from Linda Vista Avenue The concept includes primary building entries with transparent glazing along each street frontage, and the proposed landscape design includes several new street trees and a mixture of ground covers and shrubs, along with parking lot landscaping and buffer plantings along interior property lines. Adjacent to U.S. 101, the applicant is proposing several trees in a slim landscape strip along the U.S. 101 off -ramp to Highway 85, which could help soften the appearance of the structure as visible from the highway. Overall, staff appreciates the effort made to activate the Public Storage frontages and the addition of trees fronting U.S. 101. However, staff feels the landscape plans need more variety and the site can accommodate additional trees to help this site blend in with the evolving mixed-use character of the area. Similarly, while the building design has improved since the initial formal submittal, staff believes the current design of the Personal Storage buildings still needs substantial work to achieve improved neighborhood compatibility and high-quality design commensurate with the increased visibility of the taller buildings. Staff has identified the following areas of focus for updating the building designs to better fit with the area: • Site/Landscape Design: Staff recommends an increased mix of high -canopy and accent trees as well as attractive fencing and under -story plantings, compatible with adjacent and nearby residential development in the landscape areas along the Linda Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 12 of 14 Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue frontages and buffer landscape areas abutting the freeway and adjacent properties to the south. • Building Character: The site has prominent visibility from the freeway, and, while the Phase Two building will eventually be largely tucked behind the Alta Housing project, the Public Storage buildings also have high visibility from the freeway, adjacent public street frontages, and above shorter commercial buildings to the south. Despite this context, the design still reads as fairly flat, closed off, and industrial, particularly on more south -facing facades oriented towards adjacent/nearby residential areas. To achieve greater compatibility with the neighborhood, staff recommends the following design revisions: — More clear glass throughout the buildings. Staff supports the use of clear glazing at main building corners and ground -floor lobby areas but recommends including a more extensive pattern of transparent windows to serve as an organizing element on each building facade, particularly in areas with off-site visibility, instead of the limited spandrel (opaque) window locations currently shown. — Improved wall movement and detailing. In part due to the site geometry, each freeway -facing (north) elevation has an interesting stepped facade, with spandrel corner windows accented by orange frames. Other elevations— particularly south -facing facades—have less wall movement, using shallow multi -story projecting wall areas clad in varying materials to try to break up long facades. Staff generally supports the overall objective to break up long wall areas but finds the current design still emphasizes the height and bulk of the buildings. Staff recommends further refinement of both the stepped, corner features and other projecting wall accents so they are better proportioned, provide more varied interest across the project, and are more effective in breaking up the large blocky buildings into smaller wall areas that deemphasize, rather than accentuate, the building scale. — Strong building base. To ensure that the building base complements the streetscape design, staff recommends enhanced pedestrian -scaled features, materials, and colors that enrich the pedestrian environment. — Better integrated and varied rooflines. Staff recommends use of varied roof forms to break up long, continuous parapets and provide a more distinct "top" to the buildings. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 13 of 14 Enhanced colors and materials. Staff recommends a more interesting mix or application of materials and/or colors to enhance the building character. The predominantly grey/taupe and beige colors appear dull and too monochromatic, and staff recommends proposed colors and material application be revisited to ensure they accentuate revised wall movements and detailing. Question #1: Does the EPC support the revised building heights in the current proposal, pursuant to staff's design modification recommendations, or have any additional project design recommendations? Development Agreement The personal storage applicant has requested a Development Agreement (DA) with a seven-year entitlement time frame to allow the personal storage buildings to be built over a longer period of time in two development phases. This request will be, ultimately, considered by Council with the entire project after recommendation from the Zoning Administrator. NEXT STEPS EPC input at this Study Session will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at a Council Study Session, tentatively scheduled for April 12, 2022. Following the Council Study Session, the projects will continue through the development review and CEQA process and will return to the EPC for a final recommendation to the City Council. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report March 23, 2022 Page 14 of 14 CONCLUSION Staff requests EPC feedback on the following question and any other project -related comments: 1. Does the EPC support the revised building heights in the current proposal, pursuant to staff's design modification recommendations, or have any additional project design recommendations? Prepared by: Edgar Maravilla Senior Planner EM/4/CDD 808-03-23-22SR Approved by: Stephanie Williams Planning Manager/ Zoning Administrator Exhibits: 1. Gatekeeper Application Staff Report, August 25, 2020 2. Terra Bella Vision Plan Staff Report, November 18, 2019 3. 1020 Terra Bella Avenue Plans (Alta Housing) 4. 1040 Terra Bella Avenue Plans (Public Storage) RECOMMENDATION Exhibit 1 DATE: August 25, 2020 CATEGORY: Public Hearing DEPT.: Community Development TITLE: Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Authorize the assignment of staff resources for consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment, General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, and General Plan text amendment to allow redevelopment of an existing personal storage facility site with new personal storage buildings and 105 affordable housing units located at 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue. BACKGROUND Gatekeeper Process The Permit Streamlining Act (State law) requires a city to process any development application submitted by a property owner/ applicant that complies with City zoning and General Plan regulations. The Permit Streamlining Act does not apply to an application that requires legislative actions such as General Plan, Precise Plan, and/or zoning amendments. In these cases, the City Code gives the City Council the authority to control the processing of these applications based on available resources and consistency with City policies. This Council authorization is commonly referred to as the "Gatekeeper" process. Council can authorize staff to work on the proposal, defer staff work to a later date, or reject the study of a proposal based on the availability of staff resources and the proposal's alignment with other City policies. Gatekeeper Timing In November 2019, Council provided direction to allow the submission of a Gatekeeper application for a joint Public Storage and Alta Housing (formerly Palo Alto Housing) affordable housing and personal storage redevelopment project at 1020-1040 Terra Bella Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue August 25, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Avenue. In early 2020, during the mid -year goal -setting discussion, Council decided to defer consideration of all Gatekeepers to fall 2020, but provided direction to continue the submission of this Gatekeeper application due the project's affordable housing component. The timeframe for all Gatekeepers has since been deferred to fall 2021 in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This item was originally scheduled to be heard by Council earlier this year, but was deferred due to COVID-19 disruptions in public hearing dates and priority considerations for the City. ANALYSIS It should be noted that the Gatekeeper request under consideration has only undergone a cursory review for the purpose of preparing this report. Detailed analysis, including compliance with General Plan goals, policies, site and architectural design, and other City policies, regulations, and guidelines, will only begin in earnest if Council authorizes City resources to review these applications. Authorization of a Gatekeeper request does not presume staff or Council support of the project. Address: 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue Applicant: Public Storage and Alta Housing Site and/or Planning Area: Moffett/ Whisman Existing GP Designation: General Industrial Existing Zoning District: General Industrial (MM) Proposal The applicants are seeking Gatekeeper authorization for staff consideration of a rezoning of the entire site to P (Planned Community), a General Plan designation change for the housing site to High -Density Residential (36 to 80 dwelling units per acre), and General Plan text amendment to allow greater industrial intensities under the General Industrial designation. The proposed amendments would support a new development project which includes the redevelopment of the approximately 4.8 -acre project site with 105 affordable family units and two new personal storage buildings (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). The project site includes two properties located on the northwest corner of Terra Bella Avenue and San Rafael Avenue. The proposal would rearrange the current property Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue August 25, 2020 Page 3 of 5 configuration so that the housing site, which currently fronts primarily on San Rafael Avenue, would be along Terra Bella Avenue, and the storage facility would be behind this adjacent to the freeway. To facilitate this and allow a larger housing site, Public Storage would donate approximately 0.5 acre to Alta Housing, which increases the number of affordable housing units that could be built on the current property owned by Alta Housing from approximately 56 units to 105 units. With the donation of 0.5 acre, Public Storage would redevelop the remainder of their site with two five -story personal storage buildings and new site improvements and landscaping. This would be done in two phases to allow completion of one of the new buildings for occupancy by existing customers and then demolition of the second phase and construction of the second building. To facilitate the phasing of the project, Public Storage would be seeking approval of a Development Agreement as part of the entitlements in order to lengthen the entitlement period beyond the allowed entitlement length of two years. Alta Housing would develop a seven -story, 105 -unit, 100 percent affordable housing community. Alta Housing is also intending to apply for funding through the City's Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process if Council authorizes the Gatekeeper. Review Criteria Is the project in a General Plan Change Area? The project is not in a General Plan Change Area. However, the project is in the Terra Bella Vision Plan area, which was reviewed but not ultimately adopted by the Council in 2019. The land uses for the two sites are generally consistent with that of the Terra Bella Vision Plan but are proposing greater intensity (heights and FARs) to facilitate the affordable housing project. Does the project provide affordable housing on-site? The project would include a 100 percent affordable housing development with 105 affordable units. Is tenant relocation required? The project would not include any residential tenant relocation as there are no residential units on-site. Is the project near public transit or commercial services? The project is close to transit and commercial services, including the MVgo shuttle station near the intersection of Terra Bella Avenue and Shoreline Boulevard and the Bailey Park Shopping Center approximately one-half mile south of the site on Shoreline Boulevard. The site is located in the Mountain View Whisman School District and Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District and is currently served by Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue August 25, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Theuerkauf Elementary School, Crittenden Middle School, and Mountain View High School. • Does the project dedicate park land? The project would not include any park land area. Next Steps Staff recommends that Council authorize the assignment of staff resources for consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment, General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, and General Plan text amendment to allow redevelopment of this site with new personal storage buildings and 105 affordable housing units located at 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue. ALTERNATIVES 1. Defer consideration of the Gatekeeper to a future date. 2. Do not authorize the Gatekeeper request. PUBLIC NOTICING The City Council's agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners within a 750' radius and other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting. Prepared by: Stephanie Williams Planning Manager/Zoning Administrator Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director SW-AS/6/CAM 818-08-25-20CR 200167 Approved by: Kimbra McCarthy City Manager Gatekeeper for 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue August 25, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Attachments: 1. Gatekeeper Request Letter 2. Project Plans Attachment 1 August 8, 2020 Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 RE: Joint Gatekeeper Application - Public Storage Redevelopment of Existing Facility and New Alta Housing Project at 1020 Terra Bella Avenue Dear Ms. Shrivastava: Alta Housing ("AH"), formerly known as Palo Alto Housing (PAH), and Public Storage ("PS") have proposed a one -of -a -kind collaborative venture, that will build much needed affordable housing, while creating a diverse, compatible and vibrant mix of land uses. On November 18, 2019 the City Council unanimously voted to allow the joint Public Storage and Palo Alto Housing proposal to move forward to a Gatekeeper hearing. To that end, please accept this letter as the joint PS/AH Gatekeeper Application for review and consideration of General Plan and zoning modifications to make this project a reality. I. The Development Proposal Alta Housing ("AH") and Public Storage ("PS") own adjacent property on Terra Bella Ave. Attachment 1 identifies the two properties owned by AH and PS in their current configuration. AH and PS have engaged in extensive and cooperative discussions regarding a property contribution to facilitate more robust housing and commercial development. PS will donate roughly 0.50 acres of land to AH, to increase the number of affordable housing units from 56 units to roughly 105 units and to provide a significant community benefit. The PS donation is valued at approximately $9 million. This contribution would increase the number of affordable housing units built by AH from the original 56 units and 101 bedrooms that could have been built on the land solely owned by AH to yield a total of approximately 105 affordable family housing units yielding a bedroom count of approximately 220. In addition, the land identified by PS for contribution contains valuable frontage on Terra Bella. By facilitating residential development along the street -frontage, PS and AH will help foster a pedestrian -friendly environment within the Terra Bella neighborhood. The PS project would be located behind the AH project and adjacent to the freeway, with the AH project creating an attractive buffer between the freeway effects and the future residents of the AH project. Attachment 2 identifies the sites once the proposed land transfer takes place. These benefits cannot be achieved through the current property configuration, only through this unique collaborative venture proposed by AH and PS. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-244-8080 publicstorage.com IL Gatekeeper Request. PS is required to submit a Gatekeeper application for rezoning, and AH, an affordable housing project, must complete a separate NOFA process. As part of Gatekeeper approval, if City Council agrees to assign staff to this project, PS and AH would move forward with the rezoning of the two (2) properties and AH would also proceed concurrently with the NOFA process. PS and AH are seeking Gatekeeper approval that would authorize a General Plan Amendment to allow residential to accommodate the AH project and a higher FAR to accommodate the PS project. PS & AH are also seeking a rezoning of the two properties from MM (General Industrial) to a P district (Planned Community) to allow both projects to move forward. A Zoning Amendment from MM to P will allow the City to not only establish residential and personal storage as permitted uses for the subject properties, but would permit the PS and AH project to incorporate the following: 1. FAR — Increase the allowable FAR from 0.5 under the current MM standards to approximately 2.6 to accommodate increase in intensity for the PS project; 2. Uses — Rezoning the properties to a P Zone could allow both personal storage and residential uses on the reconfigured parcels. The MM Zone currently allows personal storage as a permitted use. 3. Parking — Evaluate the parking requirements for personal storage and affordable housing. 4. Setbacks — Evaluate required building setbacks to permit the higher density being requested. 5. Development Agreement (DA) — As part of this Gatekeeper request PS will be seeking a DA. PS will be building the project in two phases and will seek a DA as part of the entitlements to allow the construction phasing of the project. A. Project Details Assuming the AH/PS proposal is approved and the City enables the land transfer from PS to AH, PS and AH propose to develop their respective properties as follows: Public Storage (PS) PS will transfer 0.5 Acres of land to AH and redevelop the remaining 3.85 -acre personal storage facility, including the construction of two five -story buildings, approximately 69 feet in height, and all new site improvements and landscaping (See Attachment 3). The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of the completed project would be approximately 2.63. The redevelopment would take place in two phases, with the eastern portion, including Building 1, developed as Phase I_ The western portion of the existing property would continue to operate while Phase I is constructed. After Phase I is completed and existing customers are moved into the new building, Phase II would redevelop the western portion of the site by demolishing the existing buildings and constructing Building 2. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com The proposed PS project will have minimal impact on the neighborhood and is anticipated to have the benefits of improved aesthetics and additional blocking and visual and noise buffering of the neighborhood from Highway 101. Alta Housing (AH) With the Public Storage land donation of 0.5 Acres, Alta Housing proposes to develop a seven -story, approximately 105 -unit, family housing community for households with income levels between 30- 80% of the area median income. (See Attachment 4). The project will contain one, two, and three- bedroom units to support households of various sizes. The proposed buildings would be approximately 74 feet in height. On-site amenities will include a community room with a kitchen, a conference room, laundry facilities, and an 11,000 SF outdoor deck area for tenants. 1020 Terra Bella is centrally located with good proximity to transit and amenities, including a grocery store. The site is near the future Shoreline transportation corridor, which will provide enhanced transit, bicycling, and pedestrian facilities between North Bayshore and Downtown Mountain View while fostering a pedestrian -friendly streetscape along Terra Bella. This Gatekeeper request will allow Alta to file the necessary applications—General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Community Permit, and Density Bonus request—to begin the development review process. B. Community Benefits of the Proposal. Some of the community benefits of this PS land contribution to PAH are: • Achieves one of the City's goals to offer a variety of housing types at varying income levels • Nearly doubles the number of affordable housing units from 56 to approximately 105 units. • Contribution reduces cost of all the affordable units by roughly $80,000 +/- per unit. • Creates a 100% affordable, family housing community with one, two- and three-bedroom units. • Improves layout, quality and design of the affordable housing project • PS is prepared to relinquish frontage on Terra Bella and place their project behind the AH project. This proposed layout buffers the AH project from the freeway and creates a more pedestrian friendly environment • PS has one manager residential unit that would be incorporated into the AH project • Increase in number of bedrooms from 101 to approximately 220. • Increase in the number of extremely low and low income individuals housed from less than 150 to over 320. C. Compliance with the Gatekeeper Requirements. Mountain View Municipal Code sections 36.52.15 and 36.52.55 require the gatekeeper application to include the following information. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com Prior Studies Relevant to the Project MVMC §§ 36.52.15 f (1)(a), 36.52.550 (1)(a)). The most recent study completed was the Terra Bella Visioning Plan that began to define a Vision for the Terra Bella area. No further studies have been completed for either the PS or AH sites. Community Benefits and Contributions (MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(b), 36.52.55(g,)(1)(b)). As described in more detail above, the proposal will create significant community benefits by contributing property worth approximately $9 million to facilitate the development of almost 50 new affordable housing units while promoting a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and insulating future residents from the impacts of the adjacent freeway. General Plan and City Council Goals ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15 f (1)(c), 36.52.550 (1)(c)). As illustrated in Attachment 5, the joint project from AH and PS will advance multiple goals articulated by the City in its General Plan and Housing Element, including providing new housing opportunities and a diverse and flexible mix of land uses. Fiscal Impact ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(d), 36.52.55(g)(1)(d)). This project will have limited fiscal impact other than increase in property taxes from the redevelopment of the PS site. Consistency with Amendment Authorization Criteria ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(e), 36.52.55(g)(1)(e)). The project is designed to meet the findings required for all amendments. It is consistent with the General Plan, will promote the public interest and welfare of the City, and will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Community Outreach During the past several months, PS met with representatives of the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood Association to discuss the PS and AH project and in November, 2019 AH provided them with an onsite tour of some of the affordable housing projects operated by Alta Housing. We will also be reaching out to them prior to the August 25, 2020 City Council meeting. III. Conclusion If the City Council grants this Public Storage/Alta Housing Joint Gatekeeper application, both teams are committed to working with the City to implement this plan. This joint collaboration between PS and AH is a unique opportunity that will result in an increase in the number and quality of affordable housing units to be constructed by Alta Housing and allow Public Storage to reinvest in the community and provide a "state of the art" personal storage facility to better serve its customers. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com Public Storage Prior Studies Relevant to the Project MVMC §§ 36.52.15 f (1)(a), 36.52.550 (1)(a)). The most recent study completed was the Terra Bella Visioning Plan that began to define a Vision for the Terra Bella area. No further studies have been completed for either the PS or AH sites. Community Benefits and Contributions (MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(b), 36.52.55(g,)(1)(b)). As described in more detail above, the proposal will create significant community benefits by contributing property worth approximately $9 million to facilitate the development of almost 50 new affordable housing units while promoting a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and insulating future residents from the impacts of the adjacent freeway. General Plan and City Council Goals ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15 f (1)(c), 36.52.550 (1)(c)). As illustrated in Attachment 5, the joint project from AH and PS will advance multiple goals articulated by the City in its General Plan and Housing Element, including providing new housing opportunities and a diverse and flexible mix of land uses. Fiscal Impact ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(d), 36.52.55(g)(1)(d)). This project will have limited fiscal impact other than increase in property taxes from the redevelopment of the PS site. Consistency with Amendment Authorization Criteria ((MVMC §§ 36.52.15(f)(1)(e), 36.52.55(g)(1)(e)). The project is designed to meet the findings required for all amendments. It is consistent with the General Plan, will promote the public interest and welfare of the City, and will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Community Outreach During the past several months, PS met with representatives of the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood Association to discuss the PS and AH project and in November, 2019 AH provided them with an onsite tour of some of the affordable housing projects operated by Alta Housing. We will also be reaching out to them prior to the August 25, 2020 City Council meeting. III. Conclusion If the City Council grants this Public Storage/Alta Housing Joint Gatekeeper application, both teams are committed to working with the City to implement this plan. This joint collaboration between PS and AH is a unique opportunity that will result in an increase in the number and quality of affordable housing units to be constructed by Alta Housing and allow Public Storage to reinvest in the community and provide a "state of the art" personal storage facility to better serve its customers. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com We greatly appreciate your time and consideration of this joint request, and if you have any questions or need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, (2: �� Andres Priedman Senior Vice President, Development Real Estate Group Randy Tsu a President and CEO Alta Housing Enclosures Attachment 1: Aerial of existing properties Attachment 2: Land swap plan Attachment 3: Public Storage proposed site plan, elevations, and renderings Attachment 4: Palo Alto Housing proposed site plan, elevations and renderings Attachment 5: General Plan and Housing Element Policies C.C. Bryan Miranda Diane Dittmar Anna Cole Rose Bacinski Stephanie Williams Diana Pancholi Ellis M. Berns PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1972'" 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Tel: 818-241-8080 publicstorage.com 1020 TERRA BELLA I PRELIMINARY PROJECT CONCEPT MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING Attachment 2 CONTENTS AO ................ COVER SHEET Al................VICINITY MAP A2 ................ SITE PLAN - LEVEL 1 A3 ................ FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 A4 ................ FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 A5 ................ FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4-7 A6 ................ ROOF PLAN A7 ................ BUILDING ELEVATIONS A8 ................ BUILDING ELEVATIONS A9 ................ MATERIALS & COLORS A10 ............. SUSTAINABILITY GOALS All ............. RENDERING Al2............. RENDERING A13 ............. RENDERING A14 ............. RENDERING A15 .............. PROJECT STATISTICS w VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK ---------------------------- /////// :Z :0 m SCHOOL TERRA BELL 4fe mreESiAUR4N �D ..... r.••••............. :D :Z :D :m 0A55iAi1ON SAN PABLO DR ............................ - - 21 3T_+J aE 1020 TERRA BELLA I VICINITY MAP MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17128/20 1 ALTA HOUSING ♦R i Ip ad. 1. SITE CORNER LOOKING NORTH WEST � I 2. FROM TERRA BELLAAVE LOOKING SOUTH WEST 3. FROM TERRA BELLA LOOKING NORTH EAST Al VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK 1 CRRH DCLLH HVCIVUC 0' 20' 40' 80' 1020 TERRA BELLA I SITE PLAN - LEVEL 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17128/20 1 ALTA HOUSING A2 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK I I I I I I I I 0' 15' 30' 60' 1020 TERRA BELLA I FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING A3 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK - - 210' -- -- 1020 - 0' 15' 30' 60' 1020 TERRA BELLA I PODIUM PLAN - LEVEL 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING A4 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK 3BD 3BD 3BD 2BD 1BD 1BD 2BD 2BD 2BD STORAGE STORAGE ITTTT I 2BD 1BD 2BD 3BD PODIUM BELOW n n l n cl ¢ S AIR 1 TRASH JAN. 2BD 2BD 2BD 2BD 3BD L 0' 4' 8' 16' 1020 TERRA BELLA I FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4-7, TYP. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING A5 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK I liil!lIIIIIIIII III 111111111116 �'i..� - � l� - '7 �.�. VIII � �F II -�'i C'7�11111� All 11 111 11 1111 11 111 11 IN 11 ::: ::: 10 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 0' 15' 30' 60' 1020 TERRA BELLA I BUILDING ELEVATIONS MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28/20 1 ALTA HOUSING 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" I� MATERIALS 111 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ❑ BRICK ALT'. EXT PLASTER WITH STEEL TROWEL FINISH ❑3 METALSIDING-STANDINGSEAM ❑4 METAL SIDINGPANEL CONCRETE ❑6 ALUMINUM WINDOW ❑( ALUMINUM STOREFRONT ❑8 HORIZONTAL METAL SUNSHADESOLIDPANEL ❑9 METALAWNING-SOLIDPANEL 10 METAL COLUMN EMETAL GUARDRAILPERFORATED 12 METAL GUARDRAILGLAZED 13 PERFORATED SCREEN HALUMINUM SPANDREL 15 PARAPET CAP 16 PUBLIC ART LOCATION COLORS METRO BRICK "EMPIRE" METRO BRICK "CHARCOAL" METRO BRICK "COMMONS" AEPSPAN "METALLIC CHAMPAGNE" ❑E AEP SPAN ETERNAL"SUNGOLD" AEP SPAN TO MATCH COLOR G METAL ACCENT COLOR ❑H KELLY MOORE'PALO MIST" KELLY MOORE TO MATCH COLOR G A8 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK METRO BRICK "COMMONS" 101 ALT: EXT PLASTER STEEL TROWEL FINISH SIM COLOR METRO BRICK "EMPIRE" 507 ALT: EXT PLASTER STEEL TROWEL FINISH SIM COLOR METRO BRICK "CHARCOAL" 710 ALT: EXT PLASTER STEEL TROWEL FINISH AEP SPAN ETERNAL "SUNGOLD" AEP SPAN FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING FRAMED BY BRICK "METALLIC CHAMPAGNE" KELLY MOORE "YANG MIST' 4576 STANDING SEAM 1020 TERRA BELLA I MATERIALS & COLORS MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17/28120 1 ALTA HOUSING BRICK BASE ALUMINUM WINDOWS A9 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK Jill 11111111W"` . v I°'- _ _ �'�f1lllllllllll h� 111-„, � ` �i�� _ — ■ ■ i ■ —■ � � u�iuiiiiii�� i��iiiiiiu���� ���iiiiiiiii� iuiiiiiiii,, llllllllllllllllll/l/ll/�� — �� 11�I�� �\� �, ' 1111 11\\�'���N� fID . ■ I�� 'I, I ' ' '� u'I IIIIIIIIIIIu�IIIII�lllllllllllllll��llll'flllllllllll l' 11 /� / {,: � i� i. I. �. '3 11/11111 f►l �.� \\\\\\ ,� `..., 11 11►x.'11, �--. r� sa ■' \I' ■' ■I ■� ®� . ,�. � �JI//11/ /ll �!///L'� i 0r” 6, F �.a II s - - + W _ c` r + � �. �I I .��■.■�! lid 40 e PROJECT DATA PLANNING Control (6Reeam cam wlxarenwyiare"Ntl Mewd-u 1 R Pided Provided) FAR: 65a hUSYn'm+ a.sz t�reity Na tui wlaw MapM: a6'ruM Neta T#' mai Fane: T eNAee SnLvdr-Frdi ®SLeet{f[sfaeNlef itl' 1a'•PG' SHLepI:-9i0e�Streetl�n Reseal) iP 5-12 Sxhad � s,sb � Ira.rur 36' 13'-15' SrPLxk•Rea f6 1T ekrunun SiLalLm: ApplicaW¢R {umnml7 d5,1ST IX3. FT. Elle Open Area Apgkel+k Repurement? 13.3133O.6T- ©tree bw.W Kwrorim Na 313369. FY 1%>An1�14 AW65a6 WPa're a C¢re ¢ga ,M_Rey__ it®Sia. FT IY>ade Ciwn Spxa ® W SF per erst Bpm Sp. IT 14QM SGL FT Aveai¢us¢Heogsnsgpm Na 101a S4 IT uaede Open 9wwltffi 9P paruNt 1Nel. enRmion are pmretal 14,R1a B9. Fr. 15-a916tl. si Raaitlmt Srvmge Ia5Awegpprda 1✓M amm9p rune 1im 9F par Una Parking rw Na 1Reno, ape spaces 4 unl Pruiv:l.s:l forme eoRMe ane z-{ fa hq aV IM1rea SnRMe IassPact=s Ice sPAces AFos.ihk spam. SSPApES {r �>w{ 6�ACFS 9mgr'emd EVC$ U ev 1NAe11 as EV—w Too.1 vm EV lAsiimlerycti Pahirrg 13PAt'E _1IMT 11153PACP3 Shoe'ie.m a yea Pare a WALE - 1Q UW1S 11 SPACE& Unit Count 1 Bedraam 17 2 Bedroom 61 3 Bedroom 27 Total: 1679 1020 TERRA BELLA I PROJECT STATISTICS MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 17128/20 1 ALTA HOUSING PROJECT DATA BUILDING Lot Area x.w Building Areas inatneicpaeraa asking inn�eorewome.aaneing 3},333 s4 nemar h},)a3 Y¢Mor aN Nmr 51h Mor A.a3 eN Knr 1e,h1 Yin Mmr 18.89 retY 3Sa.5YY Usable O n Spare u rxludes gmun¢le.vk ¢oqv. 5.63 la 15Aa Residential Units 4 wnd gad 6 hw now u wk ' V NM1 Rwr L ilP aper 66. Blnmgr 3h rhe M¢r rw xhY A15 VAN METER ALTA WILLIAMS HOUSING POLLACK PUBLIC STORAGE MOUNTAIN VIEW 1040 TERRA BELLA ROAD MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SEA19-0015-00 04.09.2020 WARE MALCOMB ARCHITECTURE I PLANNING I INTERIORS BRANDING I CIVIL ENGINEERING It This conceptual design is based upon a prel im inary reviewof entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended m erelyto assist. e.plori.gho the project might be developed. Signage shown is for ill.shztin' purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect T. iipal code compliance, PROJECT DATA: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: SITE AREA: ZONING: MM GROSS: 3.78 AC 164,453 SF MAX. F.A.R.: MAX:COVERAGE: 0.55 BUILDING AREA: BUILDING 1 (5 -STORY) 187,680 SF MAX. HEIGHT: NONE ' BUILDI NG 2( 5 -STORY) 248,555 SF OFFICE 900 SF BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT: PROPOSEO FRONT.' 25 FT' LOFT TOTAL AR EA: 437,135 SF EXIST. BLDG. AREA TO BE DEMO'D. 76,788 SF SIDE: 0 FT ' NET NEW BLDG. AREA 360,347 SF REAR: DFT' BUILDING USE: PERS. STORAGE 436,235 SF LANDSCAPE SETBACKS: �—.. a -'v OFFICE 900 SF FRONT: SIDE: 50%° FAR: GROSS: 2.66 REAR: COVERAGE: GROSS: 53% LANDSCAPE REQ.: AREA REQ.: 10% 16,445 PARKING REQUIRED: PERS. STORAGE 1/2000 SF 217 STALLS AREA PROVIDED: 22,170 OFFICE 1/300 SF 3STALLS %PROVIDED: OFF-STREET PARKING: 13% TOTAL 220 STALLS PARKING PROVIDED: AUTO: 53 STALLS STANDARD: 8.5X18 @0.15/1000 SF COMPACT: N/A REQ. ACCESSIBLE 3STALLS CON PACT %: DRIVE AISLE: N/A 24 FT APNS(EXISTING); 153-015-030 153-015-002 FI RE LANE: 26 OVERHANG: NOTES: ol 2' CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NINLC.0MB 04.09.2020 12L MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 I , �—.. a -'v NORTH ----------------------------------�I ..Buis ss° a ao ajo CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NINLC.0MB 04.09.2020 12L MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 Thisconceptual design is based upon a preliminary reviewof entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merelyto assist in expls-ghowthe project might be developed. Signage shown is for iI nt- tine purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect municipal code compliance, AERIAL VIEW ��r�7� MAL 7� PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE 1y A COMB MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 04.0e.2020 "4L ` s , , w J 4.5 l o / , a , TT ` u J ` a' 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I II I I I I I I I I I I 1 \l b3 4 4.5 V 8b �7 b8 V 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 1: FIRST FLOOR PLAN and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merely m assist in expioringh—the projectmightbe developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WY1l\F, Nf�T,C�MB 04.09.2020 "s shown is for a ntatro, purpose only and does not n--riry reflect mnni'Ipal 5 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - 1 i I I I �- -I- --1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n I T __I-_ - I_ _ _ --i __i II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I -- o- - ---1---1-- I I I 1 r -rt I I --I-- - j -- �.� - ---fi----t---t------I-----� I I o- - -! --i-- I ---- I -- I - 1 - I I -----I-- I I - I I I c�a -----I- I I -----I-- I I I 1 -----I-- I I I -!-� I ----0 I�--f---F---I---�-+-- J _ _�__I_- o- g - - ----1---1--I-- I I I I I I I-rt----1--1--� I I I I I I I I I I ----1--1-t-I--t-----I---1--t-- I I I 1--t-- I rl I -I --0 I n I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N a (IN � _ — _ 1 _ -- I —I 1 ---- � T— - ! - _II------ I 1 T— I �r �� 37,716 SOOTPRIf�T _-- +--T---�--I I — --T --- _ T C— — -- --1 --- T T _-- } — T - _ JI — N a o- ---! --I--� I I --�--L-�--1-1-J-L-1-1--J--�> I I I I I II �-i--I--L-J--1-�-L-�-1-1--L-!- I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I ---� I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a- ----r--i--� I I I --�-�-�-�-I-�-�-�-i-�-TTT-T-T-T-T--T-�-T-�-T-�-T-�- I I I I I I I I I I ---Q I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a �- ----r--I--� i I --�--L ----1--J--1 I I -1--1--J--L1J--1--1-- I I I --1--1--I-- I I ---1--1 I I - - --Q I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I II I I I I I I I I I I 1 \l b3 4 4.5 V 8b �7 b8 V 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 1: FIRST FLOOR PLAN and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merely m assist in expioringh—the projectmightbe developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WY1l\F, Nf�T,C�MB 04.09.2020 "s shown is for a ntatro, purpose only and does not n--riry reflect mnni'Ipal 5 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 12 3 7, 4.5 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. 29 ITT I I I I I I I I 11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1b 6 3b 4 4.5 b5 6� b7 b8 �J 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \.7 27 28 8. NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 1: TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (SECOND -FOURTH) and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merey to assist in expioringnowtne project might be developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARENfAT,COMB oa.os.zozo " shown Is for II nt-'tive ",poses only and does not n— ,ily reflect municipal 6 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o--- --1--1 1--rt-rt-- I - fi - 1 --I--1--1 t 1--t-- - --t--I-- --I--t---- I - �- ---0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1^E� IC I I I I I I I I _L_—_I—_I__L L _I—_ _i_—i__i _ i _i_—i—_i _ i _i_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I �\ -- o- I --1---1--1---1--�--r--r--I--1--j--�---I--1--1-t-I--t--r--I--�--t--I-- fi--I--t--I---r-� ----0 �-- o =_ 1 -=--r--I � ---- � � - 1 - T I --I--r-- I �_-r--i --r - -- � r --� �--r-+- - -- --_- --1 37,716 SF pOTP I o---- --J--L-1-1--1--J-L-1--1--J--L+L--1----L-L--1-L-L---1-1--L-L- I I I 1 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I it (�I� 1--1--� --J--L--1---J---1--J--L -J---1--J--L1J--1---- --I--1--I - --1--1 -/� I I I u u 1b 6 3b 4 4.5 b5 6� b7 b8 �J 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \.7 27 28 8. NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 1: TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (SECOND -FOURTH) and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merey to assist in expioringnowtne project might be developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARENfAT,COMB oa.os.zozo " shown Is for II nt-'tive ",poses only and does not n— ,ily reflect municipal 6 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 1 2 3 4 4.5 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 26 8. 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vnevum�i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORM This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is PHASE 1: FIFTHFLOOR PLAN Intended merely m assist in exploring how the project m fight be developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE 1VIA&COMB 04.09.2020 ne shown Is for ILpurposes only and does not n I—,ily reflect ll P1 7 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 -- - o-----a--�- I I I I -T----a-- I I ------�--- I I I I I I I I I -------- I - ---- I I I --- I I ----� o--- -�-- I- - 1 -I-- --- - --- I-- - I I -I --I-- I 1--I I --�- ---I I I --- I -� ! ----0 I I I - -� 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- -T I -4--T- I I I- -T I - - -Q I o-----4--1--� - � - -4-4- I- � -� ��It������- 37,7116 SF OOTP I T + - -� ---I- � -I--T--I--� 4- �-�-, _J_L_1_L__J_L_-_1- _L1_T_T_1_J__1__1-_T_L__1___L_L_' _ p o------+--1--� I I I I I -- I I -- �I I I I - - I I I --I---�----1--- I I I I I I I I I I --J—�T—•--I--- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - -- I I --1---1-1-- I I I -1-- I I I I I --~-+- I I I I I �I- ---0 0------ I --�--� I - I I - T- - --T- - -T- I -T I I I -TTT- T I -T-T-T--T I I I i- + I --1--T I J- I T- - --- o-- ---4 1-- I I I I -1L-4-4- I- I I � I - -4- I I I- T I -�f�- I I + ---T-�- I � I -I -T-�- I }--I I -T-�- I - -- - -�---1--1 1 -J-J--1-L--1--1--L-L--1--1-_L 11 II I 1J--1--1---1--J--1--1---L--1--1--I 11 11 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I S I I I I I I I I I I I b7 b8 b9 I I I 464 I I I 11 I 1 �J 3b 4 4.5 �l 8� 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 NORM This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is PHASE 1: FIFTHFLOOR PLAN Intended merely m assist in exploring how the project m fight be developed. Signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE 1VIA&COMB 04.09.2020 ne shown Is for ILpurposes only and does not n I—,ily reflect ll P1 7 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 KEYNOTES OSTOREFRONT: CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS O MAP ES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO BE PS ORANGE O 8" SPLIT FACE WITH PRECISION BANDS - "PLACER CREEK" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE NORTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" WINTER MOOD - PPG14-16 PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE O MOTH GRAY - PPG14-29 STOREFRONT CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING SI IMAGE AREA: O 4'-2" X 40'-4" 1 169 SF This conceptual design is based upon a prel 11 11, —1 -If entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is ntendedmerelytoassist in exploringhowthep,ojectmightbedeveloped. Signage shown is for illushatine purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect municipal code compliance, UH F/oore 39 9 FINISH F—IR 3 11 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" PHASE 1: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NIA&C OMB 04.09.2020 "$" MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 FINISH —DIR NORTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 71 9 FARA T_ UH F/oore 39 9 FINISH F—IR 3 11 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" PHASE 1: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NIA&C OMB 04.09.2020 "$" MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 TIP OF PARA— PARAPET EAST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" KEYNOTES O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE OSTOREFRONT:CLEARANODIZEDALUMINUM 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS O MAP ES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO O BE PS ORANGE O 8" SPLIT FACE WITH PRECISION BANDS - O "PLACER CREEK" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE WINTER MOOD - PPG14-16 PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE O MOTH GRAY - PPG14-29 STOREFRONT CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING SIG NAGE AREA: O 4'-2" X 40'-4" 1 169 SF This conceptual design is based upon a prel 11 11, ­­Ifentitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is ntendedmerelytoassist in exploringhowthep,ojectmightbedeveloped. Signage shown Is for IIWshative purposes only and does not ne ,Tily reflect municipal code compliance, PHASE 1: EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 WEST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" WARE 1`/fALCOMB 04.09.2020 1— l ' J l 2 J l 3 J l4 / l 5 J l 6 J l r J l 8 J l 9 J 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 3. 144. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3. 24 25 n26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 U U U U U U U U U 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 3. 14 4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2223 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 U 31 32 33 34 NORTH Thlsconceptua l design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is "u PHASE 2: FIRST FLOOR PLAN Storage. I I I I WARE N/LA _ICOMB 04.09.2020 ne 10 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _T_—I--1--Y-T----, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _:. I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -TY Y-I—I-T1--T-T--1--1--T-T--I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —1T-T-T--I_-1--T-1---I_-1--Y-T---- I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --- --I---- I I --1--�--{---j---I--1--{---F-II--J� I _ I —I — I -_ I - --I- 1 1 111 I I I I I I I I -�F-F-I-I-fii--�--�--I--1--�-�--I _ -----I-- I I 1 I I - --I I I I I -��-�-�--1--1--{---1---1--1--{---r---- I - --I---- I I I _ 1 I --I-- 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I ---- 1 I --- -Fri ---� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I en L e K-17 --1----{-- I I I I --1--1--{ I I I lioeevR M� I --j--1--T-- I I 1�----1--1--{--� I I I I I I I --1--1--i-- I I I I r---- I -- --1-- I --I—_T_T_—I_--I—_T_T_—I_—,—t-TYT-I—I-T�—_Y_T_—I_-7—_T_T_ -1-- -- I -1--1-- I --L- I I I 0 1--L I I -I---I--J--L--�--- I I I I -I_-L--1-1--1--L--1---1--J--J---1--------- I I I I I ,T_T_T_—I_-1—_T_T_—I_-1—_Y_T_—_— I I I I --- I I ---I I I I I I I --I--�-{---r--1--1-�--r--j--1-t-i-��-Il-j-fii--�--r-j--1-�-�--- I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1-}-{---{---1--1--{---{---j--1--{---�---- 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --� I I --1--�--L-1--1--�--L-1--1--a�_Ll1_I-I.1J--L-�--I--�--L-L- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1�L1--1--�--L-1--1--�--L--�----- I I I I I I I I I I ---� --j--�--�--F--1--1--{--�---j--1-f-i-�-I--II-1--�1--�-�--I--1-- --{---II--�--{--�---1--1--{---F- -- --� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----7-'�-rt-1--,--Y-�'--I--,�-Y�rt--7-1-Y-rt--1--,--�-T--,�-T-rt--,-Y-rt-I-,-Y-rt- 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 4 ,7111 SF POOTPRI T 1 I� I I I I � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ---i 1--1--� I I I - �--1---1--� I I I - �--j--1�-�T7-I-I- I I I I I--�-7--j--�--'� I I I I I I I I I I I I --�--'I--� I �-�- I I �--I---j--� I -�--j---j--�- I I �- g I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 777 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 A I I I I I I I `r---r--r-7-r-r-r-r-I—rT7--�r---I---I---I--r---I-----�-�-r---I----,--q--�---I--�--7---I-- I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- ---� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U U U U U U U U U 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 3. 14 4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2223 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 U 31 32 33 34 NORTH Thlsconceptua l design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is "u PHASE 2: FIRST FLOOR PLAN Storage. Intended merelyto assist in expioringho the project might be developed. Signage shIwn is for iI tine purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect municipal PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE N/LA _ICOMB 04.09.2020 ne 10 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 1 Y2 33 4 55 6 7 8 99 10 11 1. 12 12. 13 13. 1414. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \/ --_— --'T-T--I_—y--T-T--_-7 -TrT-I—I_T_—I_—y—_T_T_—I_—y—_T_T_—_—_—_� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 17- Cpl 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I ��Y\� _—I--y—_'�_T_—I--y--'r--1---I--_' 1 I -TrY-I-1-Ty--T-T--I--y--Y-T--I--yT-T-T_—I--y--T-T--I--y--t--Y----_—_� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c Q--- I I --1--1--{---,---1--1--t__—I-- I I I I I I —1-���-II-�1-�-�-I-1-�-�- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —1—f-�--{---I--1--{---{---I--1--{---1---------� I I I I I I 1 I I o----- I I --1--�--�-1--1--�--�-1---- I I I I I I I I I I �_LlL-II-La-L-�-I-J-1--1- I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —��-�-1--1--�--�--I---I--�--J---1---------Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1�Jr V --- --I--,----T--I--y--'r-T--I--,T-Trrt-II-��-Y-rt-I-�-Y-rt- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —yT-T-T--I--y--T-T-T--,--T-T-------�+I I I I I I I I %� M I 1--�--�-�---1--�--�-1--1--JJ_LlL_I—I_La--�-�---I--�--a--1- —I II I I I I I I I I yI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I —�-1-�----�--1--�--L--�--1--a--L-�------- I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — I I I I I I I I I I I 4 7111 I D I SF FOOTPRI T I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 -7 -FT -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U y--'r_—I'_—I_—y—_.r_—_— 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1� b2 1 4b 1 1 b5 1 1 7b 1 1 10 I I 11 1. I I I I I I I 12 2. 13 13. 14 4. 15 I 16 I I 17 18 I 19 I 20 I I 21 22 I I I 23 3. 24 I 25 I 1 26 27 1 28 1 1 29 30 1 31 1 1 32 33 34 �l V V �l - - -- o a •� x0mx This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is PHASE 2: TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (SECOND -FOURTH) 4 Storage * Intended shown is codecompllance. merelymassist in expioringnowtne project might be for illushztine purposes only and does not necesdrily developed. Signage reflect municipal PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 WARE N/LA -COMB 04.09.2020 "p 11 NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 2: FIFTH FLOOR PLAN and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merelymassist in expioringnowtne project might be developed. signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE Nf�T,C�MB 04.09.2020 "s shown Is for It' purposes only and does not n I—,ily reflect municipal 12 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 TI 2 3 4 �Q444444g4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 13. 14 4. 15 16 17 16 19 20 QQQ�44 21 22 23 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 Q� 30 31 � 32 QQ� 33 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,--r-r--I—-y I I I I I I -rrr_--r�--r-r----,--r_r--I_-�r-r-r--r- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I --r- I I I ---- --F-1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I o--- I--SII-�--�-I--1-; I I -�---I--� I I I I I I -�r—�-�—I-��--�--�---1--�--�-�--,--1�-�-�--1--1--�-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �--!--1--�---�--------a o--- I 'I--�-a- �--I-�-�--�-I-a I I I I I I I I I I I I _X11-I—I_La--a---�--I--a--�-�--I--��-�-�--1--�--�-rt--;--�--�---!---------Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o-- -'--,-T--r--,--r---r--I-- - -rr-r--I-r-I--r-�---I--y--r-r--I--y--r-r-�---I--,--r-�----,--r---------- I I 0 o-- I --�-{--� -I--1-{----i-- I I I I —f-1—t—I--I—I--I-1--�--�---1--1--t----�-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1�-�-�--I--1--�-�--I--1--i---r--------Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------------- -_r_r_-_-_-_-0— – –r --1 --*--I-- – -- — I-- I r 1 r 7 f rfirt r1 r rt--I-- 7--r lJ o---- --j--�--�--{---I--1--{--�---j--1—f-i—�—I--I-1--�1--�-�--,--1--�- —�—f-L-�---I--� �- �I--j--1--{---F- ------0 4 ,71'1 I SF POOTPRIII� T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o--- --'--�-{-� -1-1-{--�-I-1�-�fi�--II-fii-t--�-1-1-t--�-I-1�-�-�--I-1-�- 'I-j-1-�-�-- ----Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U -y-_.r_rt_ - -j--;- ; ---;- -;--III-�-I - -;- -'I ----'I-� - -----j-;- ---� I I I a� II II b2 b5 b8 1 \'l 4b �l 7b �l 10 11 1. 12 2. 13 13.. 14 4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3. 24 25 26 27 28 29 `.% 31 32 33 34 NORTH This conceptual design is based uponaprellm lnary reviewot entitlement requirements PHASE 2: FIFTH FLOOR PLAN and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is Intended merelymassist in expioringnowtne project might be developed. signage PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE Nf�T,C�MB 04.09.2020 "s shown Is for It' purposes only and does not n I—,ily reflect municipal 12 code compliance. MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 ❑o KEYNOTES OSTOREFRONT: 1 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM -- - - MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING SOUTH ELEVATION -SCALE 1/8" DOORS MAP ES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO O BE PS ORANGE 8" SPLIT FACE WITH PRECISION BANDS - O "PLACER CREEK" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE WINTER MOOD - PPG14-16 O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE MOTH GRAY - PPG14-29 O STOREFRONT CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING O SI IMAGE AREA: 4'-2" X 40'-4" 1 169 SF This conceptual design is based upon a pr,l 11 11, —1—fentitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is intended merely to assist in exploringhowthep,ojectmightbedeveloped. Signage shown is for iI `t`tiv, pnrpoS2S only and does not n I—l-ily reflect municipal code compliance, .R HHHUH RML ------------------------------ , �TH IF HIFIF -- - - SOUTH ELEVATION -SCALE 1/8" F -O" PHASE 2: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WAR PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NIALC OMB 04.09.2020 13 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA 19-0015-00 EAST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" KEYNOTES OSTOREFRONT:CLEARANODIZEDALUMINUM 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS O MAP ES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO BE PS ORANGE O 8" SPLIT FACE WITH PRECISION BANDS - "PLACER CREEK" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE WINTER MOOD - PPG14-16 PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE O MOTH GRAY - PPG14-29 STOREFRONT CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING SI IMAGE AREA: O 4'-2" X 40'-4" 1 169 SF This conceptual design is based upon a prel 11 11, —l-Ifentitlement requirements and on unverified and possibly incomplete site and/or building information, and is ntendedmerelytoassist in exploringhowthep,ojectmightbedeveloped. Signage shown is for illushatine purposes only and does not necesdrily reflect municipal code compliance, WEST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" PHASE 2: EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS WARE PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE NIALC OMB 04.09.2020 "14" MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - SEA19-0015-00 RECOMMENDATION DATE: November 18, 2019 CATEGORY: Public Hearing DEPT.: Community Development TITLE: Terra Bella Vision Plan Exhibit 2 Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Terra Bella Vision Plan, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 1 to the Council report), including a Master Plan requirement for implementation. BACKGROUND Project Overview The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development, but a number of Gatekeeper applications were submitted for the area. As a result, the Terra Bella Vision Plan process started in April 2018 as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and to develop strategies to guide future development. The Terra Bella Visioning process provided an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key land use and development topics for the Terra Bella Area. The resulting Vision Plan (see Exhibit A to Attachment 1— Vision Plan) is a guiding document to implement a new vision for the area. While some objectives address preferred land uses, intensity of development, and general circulation conditions, the Terra Bella Vision Plan does not establish development regulations or regulate land use, zoning, or properties. It does not include detailed development feasibility and technical studies. Zoning regulations can be implemented through a future Terra Bella Precise Plan or by evaluating individual Gatekeeper applications in the area. The Terra Bella Visioning process has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and two Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and City Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 2 of 13 Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Attachment 2. City Council Meeting—April 2, 2019 Most recently, the City Council held a Study Session on key policy considerations and provided the following direction: Preferred Land Uses: Council supported a Lower -Intensity Land Use Alternative 6 (refer to Attachment 3) with a focus on achieving better transition to single- family residential neighborhoods; preserving small business in the area; and an option for up to five -story residential building heights south of Terra Bella Avenue along Middlefield Road with the ability to expand the adjacent Crittenden Middle School site. Figure 1 show the proposed land use vision based on this direction. Figure 1: Proposed Land Use Vision OLP MIDDLEFIELD WAY fid. r IA AVIAMA w+ a ■ ` 4%�. \4p� �Y4�Irwr i 414tdE •�# jRr # ai ,ZU11% �"�` r � SIAAce iteYi■nuai ***#* M, •; r7x6cr *# Q�t�F!';• � LifrKs ■ i'R■A eilu AYt r#4� %■# 4 M�#Mllel 0941 1w`p"t ■ a '4"40 • � � +nElusspilr - l.auerau r • m r repr 1 aMir" � , •■+ Mr. � • ffps�dt+4 wl IkwrlemisM �' Rrf�Arn�al ■ +► AL S a. IS N D 250 SOD 1.000 Filt Residential lup to 3 StorieSp Residential (up I 5 stoneO Residential fup to 7 stories) Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use wrSh Retail --------- C.- Office Office (up to 3 stories) :• •� • •': Plan Bwrsdaty Office (up to 5 stories) w'wv NeighborhoodTrarxiuons Light Industrial ) OITKe ;up to 2 stones) light Industrial/ Office ;up to a stories) Potential School Dedication NewSImet • • New PedestnanANke Path Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 3 of 13 • Development Strategies: Council supported including key development strategies for achieving the vision for the area. These key strategies address local school needs; jobs -housing linkage; neighborhood transitions; affordable housing; parking and traffic mitigation/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM); small business preservation; and parks and open space. These have been incorporated in the Vision Plan in Chapters 3 and 4, and are also discussed later in this report. • Precise Plan Option: At the April 2019 Council meeting, staff presented a comparison between a Precise Plan and individual Gatekeeper project review. A majority of the City supported creating a Precise Plan in the future to achieve the goals of this Vision Plan. The City Council also supported the idea of requiring a Master Plan for the west of Shoreline Boulevard Plan area. EPC Meeting— October 2, 2019 The EPC reviewed the draft Vision Plan and recommended approval with the following minor modifications listed below and shown as red -line changes in the draft Vision Plan (see Attachment 4): 1. Transition Strategy: Add another diagram under the transition strategy discussion with a shallow angle view to provide better transition between existing single-family residential (SFR) land uses and new development to reduce visual impact from future five -story buildings (see Chapter 3, Page 29). 2. Landscape Screening: Strengthen the wording of landscape screening language to achieve maximum screening between existing SFR and future development (see Chapter 3, Page 29). 3. Community Benefit: Add residential permit parking as an option under community benefits when considering future developments (see Chapter 4, Pages 37 and 38). The EPC also noted that traffic congestion in the area should be emphasized in the Council report. Thirteen (13) community members provided the following comments: • Concerns over impacts of future development on the surrounding SFR neighborhoods. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 4 of 13 • Concerns over traffic congestion in the area and additional traffic from future uses, especially at the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. • Uncertainty over feasibility of retail uses along Shoreline Boulevard citing the existing traffic congestion. • Need for additional setbacks and additional transition strategies to reduce impacts to the existing SFR developments in the area. • Concern over the impacts of the land use Vision Plan on existing industrial land uses which are shown as residential uses in the Vision Plan. This may reduce the marketability of these uses. • Need for lower -intensity development in the area. ANALYSIS The Vision Plan is organized into five chapters. The following is a summary of each chapter. 1. Chapter 1 includes background information about the area, key considerations in the Plan area, and how the Plan relates to other City regulations and plans. 2. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the policy foundation of the Plan, including guiding principles and the community outreach effort. A summary of the community workshops and stakeholder interviews is included in Appendix B. 3. Chapter 3 includes the land use vision and development character for the area, design guidelines for buildings, frontages, open spaces, and transition strategies. 4. Chapter 4 includes development principles for future development and an implementation framework. The Plans major strategies include: Jobs -Housing Linkage, Affordable Housing, Small Business Preservation, Public Open Space, School District Strategy, and TDM. 5. Chapter 5 includes the transportation network vision for the area and street design concepts. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 5 of 13 Vision Plan Key Strategies In previous Study Sessions, the City Council and EPC discussed and supported several key strategies for the Plan area. These strategies are a key component for implementing the vision for the Plan area and are summarized below. 1. Transitions Throughout the visioning process, there has been considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. This strategy has been incorporated in the Plan and includes increased building setbacks; upper -story step -backs; 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes; orienting primary windows away from existing homes; providing landscape buffers; and limiting balconies. The Vision Plan also includes standards with guidelines for transitions along Rock Street and the Stierlin Estates neighborhood (refer to Chapter 3). The EPC recommended the shallow -angle view transition strategy graphic (see Chapter 3, Page 31) to ensure reducing visual impacts from future five -story buildings. Further view analysis showed that two- to three-story residential buildings directly adjacent to the property line will block the view of the five -story buildings behind them, except for when there is a break in the buildings. However, required landscaping should help screen views in this gap. Transition Standard No. 5 on Page 29 requires view studies for new development, which should provide this kind of detailed analysis for projects. 2. Parks and Open Space Strategy During the visioning process, creating new parks and open spaces in the area was identified as a top priority. Community members expressed a strong desire that new open spaces be publicly accessible and include green spaces, not just hardscaped plazas. The Plan vision identifies new, publicly accessible parks and open spaces on both the east and west sides of Shoreline Boulevard to serve the needs of the Plan area. Per the current City park land dedication requirements, the preferred land use development for the Vision Plan area would require 16 acres of park land. Based on the development potential, the Vision Plan identifies a minimum 4 -acre park land dedication on each side of Shoreline Boulevard (refer to Chapter 3). The park land requirement can be met through land dedication; privately owned, publicly accessible open space; sharing of school open space; and park in -lieu fees. The vision also includes additional sharing of open space on the Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 6 of 13 west side of Shoreline Boulevard with a possible future school site extension. Conceptual open space locations are shown in Figure 3. Creating new parks and open space will require a coordinated effort between the City, property owners, and project developers, including land dedication by residential projects, City purchase using Park Land Dedication In -Lieu funds, and creation of public plazas and open space by nonresidential projects. The Vision Plan open space guidelines state that the new nonresidential development should provide on-site, publicly accessible open spaces under private ownership, such as plazas, landscaped areas, and public art installations. Specific locations and sizes would be determined during the project review process. The Plan also prioritizes new park and open space locations near housing, commercial uses, and public paths. a O WCK ST Figure 3: Vision Plan Conceptual Open Space OLD MIDDL€FI€LD WAY Z - g rAAVENIDA O z Z 44— 1 ■ 1 ' 1 r bra Cdr ■ : 4 rra ■ ' R�6 rar n �'oiv iFCQaaaa o • arr °oRN,,w 34 as a, K S "Ak4"D54q 3't s }rg S9N ID69VF S T.RRA BELIA AVE ��a*a � 1 1 ^q�fi 1 aai rc 1 O }1 N ■u■u■ A0 250 500 1,000 Feet ' Plan Boundary r�_1 New Street New Pedestrian/Bike Path Terra Bella Vision Plan • Cm or M--,, VRV s�N nRoo war 0 3F d SAN -G DR S GRRi2a WAV Conceptual Public Open Space' Conceptual Joi nt-Use School Park Site* Existing Parks/Open Space C' - Trails . Exact kcatron will be determined as pard cf masterplan/development review process. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 7 of 13 3. Small Business Preservation In previous discussions, the City Council has supported preserving small businesses in the east of Shoreline Boulevard area to maintain smaller, more affordable spaces for start-ups, small businesses, and nonprofits. The Plan requires new development projects to provide support for small businesses, such as including small, flexible work spaces within new buildings, rent subsidies for small or local businesses, and relocation assistance (refer to Chapter 4). 4. Parking and TDM Guidelines Concerns about spillover parking into existing neighborhoods and parking demand from new development were emphasized by the community throughout the visioning process. All the new developments in the area will have to meet the City's TDM requirements and also meet aggressive parking reduction targets. The Plan further includes a target for no net new trips generation from employment generating uses, i.e., office and research and development uses (refer to Chapter 4). 5. Affordable Housing The Plan envisions the Terra Bella area as including a variety of housing types at varying income levels. The City Council has stated that the Vision Plan should help to create as much affordable housing as possible. The Vision Plan states that any new residential development projects in the area should provide 20 percent affordable units (refer to Chapter 4). This goal is higher than the City's current affordable housing requirements but is consistent with some of our recent Precise Plans, including the East Whisman Precise Plan. 6. School Strateu During the visioning process, various stakeholders, including the school district and community members, expressed interest and the need for addition/ expansion of school facilities to accommodate demand from future growth. Similar to the North Bayshore and East Whisman Precise Plans, the Vision Plan also identifies a local school strategy as a key requirement and potential measure to reach higher development intensities (refer to Chapter 4). New development under any master plan shall propose a local school district strategy to the City, intended to support schools serving the Vision Plan area, including the adjacent Crittenden Middle School Site to the west along Middlefield Road. The strategy may include, but is not limited to, land dedication for new school development; additional funding for new school development; Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) strategies to Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 8 of 13 benefit developer(s) that provide new school facilities; or other innovative strategies supporting schools. A Citywide school strategy was discussed at the City Council Study Session on October 15, 2019. At this meeting, Council supported the proposed School Land Strategy, including City and developer contributions in the form of shared open space, land dedication, and off-site TDR. Staff will return to Council in early 2020 with further analysis and options for appropriate voluntary contributions from office and residential developments in exchange for higher floor area ratio. 7. Jobs -Housing Linkage The City adopted a jobs -housing linkage strategy with the East Whisman Precise Plan. The Precise Plan emphasized the need for a better jobs -housing balance in the City by requiring commercial development to support and facilitate residential development. Job -housing balance has also been identified as a key strategy in the Terra Bella area. The Vision Plan requires a "jobs -housing linkage" program to ensure residential development is balanced with office and R&D growth. The expectation is that all new office and R&D development will help facilitate residential development through jobs -housing linkage strategies, which could include: direct construction of housing, dedication of land suitable for housing, contribution of fees to offset costs for residential development, residential development partnerships, purchase of existing office square footage from residential developers who demolish office buildings, and other creative strategies or partnerships that support or facilitate housing development (refer to Chapter 4). 8. Implementation Alternatives At the April 2019 Study Session, the City Council recognized the need for a Precise Plan to achieve goals of the Vision Plan. The City Council also supported the idea for a Master Plan for the west of Shoreline Boulevard area. Though a Precise Plan for this area is not a priority work item for the City, the need for a more organized development process has been emphasized at various occasions by the City Council. The following are several implementation alternatives: • Option 1: Prepare a Precise Plan and allow no Gatekeepers in the meantime. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 9 of 13 • Option 2: Require a Master Plan for each side of Shoreline Boulevard. No Gatekeeper projects are allowed in the area without a Master Plan. • Option 3: Review Gatekeepers on a case by case basis. • Option 4: Hold off on all Gatekeeper project requests in the area until completion of a Comprehensive General Plan Update. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 10 of 13 Table 1: Implementation Alternatives Description Advantages Disadvantages Time Frame Option 1: Complete a Precise Plan • Comprehensive technical studies; Cost approximately $1.2 million 2 years once Precise Plan prior to allowing any • Detailed policies; authorized new Gatekeeper projects • Clear development standards by City in the area. and requirements for future Council development; • Helps implement open space and other strategies. Option 2: Require a master plan for • Comprehensive technical studies; • East Side Master Plan may 1 year once Master Plan each side of Shoreline • Detailed policies; be more complicated due to authorized Boulevard. • Specific development standards; smaller and numerous by City • Additional community outreach; properties; Council Individual projects will . Might take less time compared to • Also requires Gatekeeper be reviewed against a Precise Plan; authorization. regulations and • East and west sides can develop standards developed in independently; the Master Plan. • Can implement open space and other strategies. Option 3: Review individual • Projects could proceed faster. • No comprehensive study; —1.5 to 2 Gatekeepers Gatekeepers on a case -by- • Not as efficient or effective years per case basis. as other options; project once • Requires more staff time; authorized • May not be able to achieve by City areawide goals as they may Council not be priority in individual developer proposal. Option 4: Delay any new • Comprehensive update to a • Requires more staff time; 3 to 4 years Citywide Gatekeeper project Citywide guiding document; • Longer process; once General authorization until • Extensive community outreach; • Significant cost (TBD) authorized Plan Update Comprehensive General • Additional technical studies. by City Plan Update. Council Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 11 of 13 In response to City Council direction and in the absence of a Precise Plan, staff recommends, and the Vision Plan includes, a Master Plan process as the best solution to achieve the Plans vision without doing a complete Precise Plan. Any development not consistent with existing zoning and the General Plan will require a Gatekeeper authorization and a Master Plan application. A Master Plan process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella Avenue to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new, publicly accessible streets and open spaces while allowing project flexibility. The Vision Plan provides requirements for a Master Plan for the east and west sides of Shoreline Boulevard. The Plan also lists the minimum components and key development strategies (as discussed below) for the Master Plan application. These development strategies are potential measures to reach higher development intensities above current zoning. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Vision Plan for further details. Should the Council prefer a different implementation strategy, the motion should clearly state that. Staff notes that east and west of Shoreline Boulevard have a very different character and parcel configurations as shown in Figure 2 below. Therefore, individual Master Plans for the east and west sides are recommended. It should also be noted that a master plan will also be a Gatekeeper project and will need Council authorization. OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY 3 Figure 2: Plan Area Parcel Map a m z O Z f g LAAVENIDA Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 12 of 13 N0 250 500 1,000 Feet Legend A0-0.5 acres - 2.0-3.5 acres ® OS - 1.0 acres 35-5-0 acres Terra Bella Vision Plan 1.0.2.0 acres 5.0.10-0 acres r� Project Boundary •rWr■ Cm 0r M..x — V[t�w Gatekeeper Timing Parcel Size At the June 18, 2019 meeting, the City Council decided to delay review of the Gatekeeper requests until the third quarter of 2020, when there is a better idea of available staff resources to process the applications. At this meeting, Council decided that timing for Gatekeeper projects in Terra Bella can be decided along with Terra Bella Vision Plan adoption. Considering no addition to staff resources and addition of new work items based on Council Goals, staff does not recommend considering any new Gatekeeper projects, including the Master Plan, until the third quarter of 2020. FISCAL IMPACT—The cost of the Vision Plan is included in the Adopted Budget. Terra Bella Vision Plan November 18, 2019 Page 13 of 13 CONCLUSION The Terra Bella Vision Plan includes key strategies for how the City may consider future development in the area. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend modifications to the Terra Bella Vision Plan. 2. Do not accept the Terra Bella Vision Plan. 3. Provide further instruction to staff. PUBLIC NOTICING The City Council agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders, including the school districts, were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: http: / /www.mountainview. gov/ depts / comdev/ planning/ activeprojects / terrabella.asp Prepared by: Diana Pancholi Senior Planner Martin Alkire Advanced Planning Manager DP -MA/ 5/ CAM/ 807-11-18-19CR/ 18660 Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director Daniel H. Rich City Manager Attachments: 1. Resolution—Terra Bella Vision Plan 2. Previous Meeting Summary 3. City Council Study Session Memo, April 2, 2019 4. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report, October 23, 2019 Attachment 1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW RESOLUTION NO. SERIES 2019 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TERRA BELLA VISION PLAN WHEREAS, on October 23, 2019, the Environmental Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and thereafter forwarded its recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Terra Bella Vision Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2019, having given notice as required by Chapter 36 of the Mountain View City Code, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Terra Bella Vision Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mountain View that the Terra Bella Vision Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been reviewed and approved by the City Council and is hereby adopted. DP/ 2/ RESO 807-11-18-19r Exhibit: A. Terra Bella Vision Plan terra beLLa vision plan C i AP -. Exhibit A City of Mountain Views November 2019 FA 0 Lipi table of contents Plan Context and Location Key Considerations in the Plan Area Relationship to Other Plans Vision Guiding Principles Community Conversations and Engagement Process Vision Plan Frontage Types and Character Transition Areas Parks and Open Space Floor Area Ratio Maximum FAR Jobs -Housing Linkage Small Business Preservation Parking and TDM Master Planning Process Transportation Network Reversible Bus Lane New Internal Access Roads Walking and Bicycling Connections Street design concepts Appendix A: Existing Conditions Appendix B: Community Workshop and Online Survey Results 6 8 9 12 13 15 20 25 28 32 36 37 39 39 40 44 48 48 48 50 52 acknowLedgments City Council • Lisa Matichak, Mayor • Margaret Abe-Koga,Vice Mayor • Christopher R. Clark • Alison Hicks • Ellen Kamei • John McAlister • Lucas Ramirez Former Councilmembers • Ken Rosenberg • Pat Showalter • Lenny Siegel Environmental Planning Commission • Pamela Baird (Chair) • Margaret Capriles • Robert Cox (Vice Chair) • William Cranston • Preeti Hehmeyer • Kammy Lo • Joyce Yin City Managment • Daniel H. Rich, City Manager • Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director • Michael Fuller, Public Works Director • Jesse Takahashi, Finance and Administrative Services Director • Krishan Chopra, City Attorney Former City Management • Randal Tsuda, Former Community Development Director • Jannie Quinn, Former City Attorney Former EPC members • John Scarboro Vision Plan Project Staff • Diana Pancholi, Project Manager, Community Development • Martin Alkire, Advance Planning Manager, Community Development • Stephanie Williams, Current Planning Manager, Community Development • Renee Gunn, Public Works Consultant Team • Raimi +Associates • Nelson\Nygaard • Seifel Consulting Additional Support Provided by: • Mountain View Chamber of Commerce 1� introduction io _ � T Introduction Located in the northern part of Mountain View along Shoreline Boulevard just south of Highway 101, the Terra Bella neighborhood consists mainly of low -intensity office and light industrial uses surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods. During the 2030 General Plan update process, the City, in collaboration with the community, identified a number of change areas in the city fortargeted growth and development. Terra Bella was not identified as a change area and therefore no specific vision was identified for the area during the 2030 General Plan update process. However, after several years of interest from developers and property owners to build housing and higher -intensity office in the area, the City Council directed staff to study existing conditions n the area and launch a process to understand the community's vision for the future for this area. This Vision Plan guides the transition of the Terra Bella area to a neighborhood with a greater mix of land uses, with new homes, spaces for small businesses and non -profits, open spaces, and multiple mobility options. The Vision Plan is based on community input gathered during the summer of 2018 through spring of 2019. It highlights common preferences, as well as topics with diverging input. This Plan includes preferred land uses, intensity, character, and development principles which will provide a foundation to review and evaluate future development projects in the area or recommend further study or analysis. It also identifies mobility, open space, and other key opportunities and strategies. Purpose and Authority The purpose of the Terra Bella Vision Plan is to: • Define a vision and guiding principles forfuture development • Provide direction on the preferred use, intensity, and character of future development • Identify mobility, open space, and other improvements in the area • Provide recommendations for future study and analysis The Vision Plan provides a foundation to review and evaluate future development projects in the area. The Vision Plan does not replace the existing zoning code or augment building safety codes or other non -planning related codes. All applications for new construction, substantial modifications to existing buildings, and changes in land use shall be reviewed for consistency with the Terra Bella Vision Plan. Additionally, any new development not consistent with the current General Plan orzoning designation forthe area will require City Council "gatekeeper authorization" to amend the General Plan orzoning designations. w z Plan Context and Location Z O The Terra Bella Vision Plan area covers approximately 110 acres south of Highway 101 and east of State Route 85. The area is bounded by West Middlefield Road to the LL south and Crittenden Middle School/ Whisman Sports Centerto the west, and is bisected by North Shoreline Boulevard. The area is characterized by a mix of industrial O uses, office buildings, single family homes, and public facilities. The Plan area abuts the North Bayshore Precise Plan area to the north beyond Highway 101. Figure ~ 1-1 shows the Plan area boundary. U 11 Figure i -i. Plan Area Boundary "I - t- 4v io l.tir 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Plan Boundary 1 ! ! 1 k 0 1 1 1 —*day, — Terra Bella Vision Plan CI YY OF MOON IM N VIEW TEMA EALA AVE -"4 Key Considerations in the Plan Area The project team analyzed background information and existing conditions in Terra Bella to provide a general understanding of the Plan area's land use, urban form and character, open space, mobility, and environmental conditions. The detailed data and analysis can be found in Appendix A Existing Conditions. The issues and opportunities identified through this analysis were used to develop the Plan vision, guiding principles, and recommendations. The following is a summary of the key considerations in the Terra Bella area. 1. Parks and open spaces. Though there are public parks located outside of the Terra Bella area, there are no public parks or community gathering spaces within the neighborhood. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is in need of additional open space to meet the City's goal. 2. Traffic and parking. Traffic congestion is a key issue in the area, particularly along North Shoreline Boulevard which funnels vehicles in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore. Appropriate mobility policies and mitigation measures should be applied to new development to reduce the number of new vehicle trips and parking spillover to nearby neighborhoods from new development. 3. Walking and bicycling conditions. Major auto -oriented roadways including US -101, SR -85, Shoreline Boulevard, and Middlefield Road create high stress conditions and substantial barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access in, out and through the area. Additionally, long block lengths in Terra Bella, particularly west of North Shoreline Boulevard, has resulted in poor pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by reducing opportunities for crossings and direct routes. Building pedestrian/bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), protected bikeways and full-time bike lanes, and breaking up large blocks with streets or greenways can improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 4. Mix of uses. Terra Bella consists of predominately office and light industrial uses, with limited residential and retail uses. The result is a commuter -oriented environmentwith limited neighborhood amenities.A diverse mixof uses and activities should be encouraged in Terra Bella while maintainingthe unique character of the area. 5. Development and building character. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of Shoreline Boulevard, includes large suburban office parks. In many cases, buildings do not face directly onto the street and have deep front and side setbacks, with little interaction between private properties and public areas. Active and well-designed building frontages are crucial for creating a more inviting, pedestrian -oriented environment that will attract people to walk, gather, shop, and spend time. 6. Residential adjacency. The Terra Bella area is bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast, including Rock Street and the Stierlin Estates neighborhood. Future development should be designed to respect and benefit the adjacent single-family neighborhoods by providing additional amenities for residents, improving multimodal access, and creating appropriate transitions to existing homes. Z 7. Small business preservation. Terra Bella, particularly the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard, is home to an eclectic mix of small businesses, light industrial Z uses, and non profits. Redevelopment of the area could continue to put upward pressure on property values and rents, leading to displacement of small pbusinesses. The Vision Plan includes several strategies to preserve small businesses in the area. I O 8. Environmental conditions. Contaminated sites in Terra Bella, particularly the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund site west of North Shoreline Boulevard, pose a concern for new development. While cleanup activities are still ongoing, further studies and remediation will likely be required as new development is U considered in this area. 8 PLan Structure The Vision Plan is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 2: Vision and Guiding Principles describes the vision and guiding principles to direct future development and improvements in Terra Bella. Chapter 3: Land Use and Community Design describes the overall land use vision for Terra Bella and includes standards relating to land use, development intensity, height, transitions, frontage type and character, and parks and open space. Chapter 4: Development Principles Framework provides guidance on desired community benefits in the Plan area, including affordable housing, small business preservation, parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and other contributions from property owners and project applicants. Chapter 5: Mobility establishes the overall street network, street design, bicycle and pedestrian networks, and other transportation improvements in the area. Appendix A: Existing Conditions provides a description of the current conditions in the Terra Bella Vision Plan area related to land use, urban form and character, open space, mobility, and environment. Appendix B: Community engagement summaries describe the engagement activities and input provided by the community throughout the process. ReLationship to Other PLans 203o General Plan The General Plan includes policies for Citywide development and general land use. The Vision Plan is guided by the General Plan's goals, policies, and urban design direction. Zoning Ordinance The City of Mountain View's Zoning Ordinance establishes zoning districts, permitted uses, development standards, and procedures to align with the General Plan. These regulations apply to properties and projects in Terra Bella. The land use and development standards and guidelines in this document do not supersede the land use and development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Picvcle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan The Terra Bella Vision Plan builds on the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2013 Pedestrian Master Plan. These transportation plans provide strategies and improvements to encourage active transportation. Relevant projects and improvements are shown in the Mobility Chapter. 1.1 Shoreline Boulevard Transportation Study A 2014 study of the Shoreline Boulevard corridor recommended a package of comprehensive of new treatments for the street. Among these treatments, the study recommended a reversible transit lane extendingfrom Middlefield Road north to Plymouth/Space Park Way in North Bayshore. The lane would be used by northbound buses on weekday mornings and by southbound buses on weekday afternoons. It would feature median and curb -side stops at Terra Bella Avenue and Pear Avenue. In addition to North Bayshore transit service, regularVTA routes and othershuttle services would be eligible to use the lane. Key design features will include dedicated transit signals, physical barriers, pavement markings, and high visibility signage. Additional recommendations include protected intersections, protected bikeways along Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road, and a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over US -101. Mountain ViewAutomated Guideway Transportation Feasibility Study In 2018, the City of Mountain View completed a study that evaluated innovative ways to address the anticipated increase in commutertraffic between Mountain View's Downtown Transit Center and North Bayshore. The study assessed how the introduction of an automated guideway transportation (AGT) system might successfully integrate into other transportation improvement strategies and projects throughoutthe City overtime. Based on the evaluation, the study concluded that an Automated Transit Network (ATN - automated vehicles operating on a network of guideways, including both personal and group rapid transit) and autonomous transit vehicles were best suited for the study area which includes the North Shoreline Boulevard area. North Bayshore Transportation Access Study (2017) The North Bayshore Transportation Access Study recommends serving the North Bayshore area with a fleet of buses and autonomous vehicles (AVs) that travel along RT Jones Road and Charleston Road in the short term. In the long term, the study recommends conducting an analysis of AVs on the Highway 101 alignment and light rail on the RT Jones alignment. Recommended infrastructure improvements include a Charleston Road Bridge crossing at Stevens Creek, new transit centers at the Bayshore/NASA Light Rail station and Moffett Boulevard, and a series of dedicated AV stations throughout the area. w Z H Z O i LL O } H U 10 Ch� the vision io A Cdr' S rin and cimaina Prinenn The Terra Bella area transitions into a complete neighborhood with a wider diversity of uses, open spaces, and amenities. Terra Bella continues to serve as an employment area in Mountain View, home to both large and small businesses, including light industrial and manufacturing, office, retail, and service uses. Existing local small businesses and organizations remain as a valuable part of the neighborhood fabric. Residential units accommodate a range of incomes, ownership types, and life stages. The intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue serves as a multimodal, mixed-use hub for the community. North Shoreline Boulevard is transformed into a complete street and an active and vibrant mixed-use corridor with shops, restaurants, services, and hotels that caterto both office workers and residents. Residents and workers have easy multimodal access to parks and open spaces. Neighborhoods east and west of North Shoreline Boulevard integrate different land uses and buildings to create a pedestrian- and bicycle - friendly, human -scaled, well-designed urban environment. Buildings are located close to the sidewalk to create a distinctive urban street. Buildings with doors and windows oriented to the street support lively and comfortable pedestrian activity. New buildings are designed to respect the scale and character of adjacent residential neighborhoods, such as Rock Street and Stierlin Estates. Terra Bella is a well-connected neighborhood, with multimodal access to major employment and commercial centers, Caltrain, light rail, and regional open space amenities, such as Shoreline Park and Stevens Creek. Transit investments along North Shoreline Boulevard improve service to key destinations, including Downtown and North Bayshore. Large blocks are broken up into human -scale blocks that make it safer, easier, and more comfortable to walk in and around the neighborhood. New pedestrian and bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), low - street facilities, and streetscape improvements promote active transportation throughout the area. Guiding Principles The Terra Bella vision is supported by the following guiding principles. The principles connect the overarching vision with the Plan's land use and mobility plan and development principles. These guiding principles establish a reference point for stakeholders and decision -makers as new development is reviewed. s. Maintain Terra BeLLa as an area for employment Terra Bella maintains a mix of employment generating uses including office, R&D, light industrial, retail, and service uses. Local small businesses and non -profits, alongside larger companies, contribute to an economically -diverse area. 2. Create neighborhoods With balanced and integrated Land uses Terra Bella transitions to a more complete neighborhood with a mix of uses, including office, R&D, light industrial, residential, retail, service, and open space. New retail, services, and parks support housing development and surrounding neighborhoods, and create a vibrant neighborhood with both day and nighttime activity. I Maximize Land use flexibility The Plan provides flexibility to allow individual property owners to develop residential, mixed-use, office, light industrial, or commercial uses, responding to market changes and other factors. 4. Promote housing at variety of income levels and ownership types The Terra Bella area provides a variety of housing types, both market rate and affordable housing, and creates more housing choices in the neighborhood to serve a diverse demographic of new and existing residents. New housing includes a mix of ownership and rental housing. 5. Create walkable blocks with buildings that support the public realm A fine-grained network of pedestrian -oriented streets provides safe, efficient, and attractive walking and biking routes throughout Terra Bella. Human -scaled building design and active frontages help shape and define the public spaces, creating an inviting pedestrian environment, and enhancing neighborhood character. 6. Respect the character of adjacent neighborhoods, such as Rex Manor, Rock Street, and Stierlin Estates New development in Terra Bella is designed to respect surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. New projects provide context -sensitive design transitions in bulk, height, and massing. Appropriate buffers, including setbacks and landscaping, are provided between new development and existing single- family homes. 13 7. Create new public parks and open spaces Terra Bella adds new neighborhood parks, plazas, community facilities, and other public open spaces to provide a place for the community to gather, socialize, and play. 8. Minimize vehicle trips and congestion The Plan prioritizes walking, biking, and transit throughout the area. New transit investments along North Shoreline Boulevard better connect residents and workers to jobs and services in Downtown and North Bayshore. Parking management solutions, such as sharing of spaces between uses, district parking supply, structured parking, and parking demand reduction measures, discourage single -occupancy trips and encourage more efficient use of parking resources. g. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity The Plan focuses on better pedestrian and bicycle connections to destinations throughout the neighborhood. An interconnected street grid, sidewalk enhancements, and new bicycle facilities provide safe, direct, and pleasant walking and biking routes for residents, employees, and visitors. 1o. Preserve space for a number of small, employment -generating uses Terra Bella supports an environment where diverse businesses can flourish and thrive. The area east of North Shoreline Boulevard features small and flexible work spaces to support retention of existing small businesses and light industrial uses. 11. Ensure new development provides community benefits New development in Terra Bella provides public benefits servingthe whole community, such as parks and public space, support for local schools, small business support, public art, community facilities, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and shared parking. 12. Promote environmental sustainability Terra Bella features sustainable and innovative development that includes green building, energy efficiency, water conservation, and stormwater management best practices. 14 Community Conversations and Engagement Process The Terra Bella visioning community engagement process took place from June 2018 to April 2019. Several community engagement tools were used to gather a wide range of community input, including three community workshops, one-on-one meetings, online surveys, stakeholder interviews, and Environmental Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Common community preferences that were emphasized repeatedly by participants at workshops, public meetings, and through online tools are highlighted throughout this plan. Community Workshop 1 - June 2, 2o18 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project, and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. Participants generally supported introducing a more balanced mix of land uses and higher -intensity development in Terra Bella but also voiced concerns in the following areas: 1. Transitions to existing residential neighborhoods. Existing residents expressed concern that new higher -intensity development would create shade and privacy impacts on adjacent single-family homes. 2. Traffic and parking. There was concern that new development would increase traffic and parking spillover in and around existing neighborhoods. 3. Current lack of parks and open space. Community members wanted to ensure the provision of parks and open space in the area to meet the needs of both current and future residents. 4. Potential displacement of existing small businesses. Community members and business owners expressed concern that new development in the area could lead to the displacement of existing small businesses. A summary of the workshop and online survey outcomes are included in Appendix B. Neighborhood Petition Following the first community workshop, the City received a petition signed by 100 residents of the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood expressing community support for future development with proper transitions along existing residential developments. The petition also expressed community interest in preserving existing large trees in the area, the need for parks and open spaces with the future developments, and support for low- to medium -intensity development (office and residential) in the future. Some of the community concerns included potential shade, view, and privacy impacts from higher -density development, as well as traffic congestion and parking spillover into existing neighborhoods. 15 Community Workshop 2 - August 25, 2019 The second workshop was held at the Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included a large group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use vision plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. Most participants supported a land use vision with new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well as additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Viewpoints diverged over preferred heights and densities for future development with some participants favoring higher -intensity development and others preferring a lower -intensity scenario. A summary of the workshop is included in Appendix B. Stakeholder Meetings In the fall of 2018, the Vision Plan team met with over20 stakeholders including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. The purpose of these interviews was to listen to stakeholders with a unique interest in the Plan area and identify issues, opportunities, and ideas on a range of topics. Overall, there was general agreement among stakeholders in the following areas: • Create a balanced mix of uses, including parks, residential development, retail, and light industrial/maker spaces Create shared business spaces, such as General Industrial and Office Z uses, within one building D • Create a more pedestrian and bicycle -friendly district, including safe 0 X routes to nearby schools LL 0 • Create a clear identity and gateway signage for the neighborhood U 16 • Allow denser development, particularly away from existing single-family neighborhoods • Provide an appropriate transition between existing single-family residential neighborhoods and future development. Stakeholders also expressed the following concerns regarding new development in the area: • Transitions between future development and existing single-family residential neighborhoods • Incompatibility between light industrial and residential uses • Upward pressure on rents for business and commercial spaces • Cut -through traffic and parking spillover in and around existing neighborhoods • Potential traffic impacts of closing the SR 85 on-ramp • Impacts of future development on neighborhood school capacity • Neighborhood safety issues. The stakeholder meetings included a roundtable with small businesses and non-profit organizations housed in the Terra Bella planning area. 17 Community Meeting #3 - January 28, 2019 A third community meeting was convened at Crittenden Middle School. The discussion focused on transitions to the single-family residential neighborhoods along the northwestern boundary of the Plan area, near Rock Street. Ten people attended the meeting, including five homeowners from the Rock Street neighborhood. Residents expressed concerns over potential five to seven -story residential development adjacent to their properties and instead suggested allowing taller residential development closer to West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard. A summary of the workshop is included in Appendix B. W Z Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 18 6\0� hl Owe— Nate bauRm ��'� a b V- �S a4w- need 1� �r�c�.r a o rx • WIZ G %11%7/ 0 Am ­Vw w Z z 0 X LL 0 } H U 20 3. Land Use and Community Design This chapter of the Vision Plan illustrates the vision for future land uses and development character in Terra Bella to create a complete neighborhood with a balanced mix of housing, office, services, and open space. It includes direction on use, intensity, physical character, building placement, and transition strategies that will be used to evaluate new development proposals in the area. Land Use Vision The land use vision articulates the vision forfuture development in Terra Bella - including physical use, intensity, public spaces, and circulation, as illustrated in Figure 3-1 and further described below. TOPICS FOR FURTHER STUDY Areas of concern that require further study included: • Building heights and intensity particularly along Middlefield Road and adjacent to Crittenden Middle School • Potential expansion of Crittenden Middle School • Building height and intensity of light industrial uses on the east side of Terra Bella • Land use compatibility and interface between light industrial properties and residential uses on the east side of Terra Bella • Shade and view impacts of new development on adjacent single- family homes • Specific locations of new parks and open spaces • Specific locations of new streets and pathways Figure 3-1. Land Use Vision Plan G OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY > mo YJ v I J W v : O LA AVENiDA 31 R4yr, 2 ST r z 4rtqROCKSi w ww � �'sr ■ i .+r i ■ { w,, � ■ r ■ P Residential 4 1wwM.� ++ wwlw 10,. �■w ww! ��i • rFq _� dentia) w 1�9 • A RR aw , �Fr'\ ♦iw 1 o,5 AGF 0 ,4r n10 `• Mixed use'ww+ ) w,! / �,0 ! with effice Residential www w #*♦` Retail ✓' Light industriaV •ww M� 41, Office ww 4CF *40 8 TERRA 6fLLA AVE ww 'rl�c{wwR Ofitce p Maxed use Light Light �✓'Ivgv,r Rb w4� RF . m with �� J Industrials ' Industrial! ~ ` + xyH www ry� W Retail Office Office ti 9y Q •w � �����.>f Imo- -wr���rr��r r'�r�rr r+�r��■ � �FNFav kct� �� wwwww Mize 'II Residen[ial Residential ' Residential ! ww R Residential ' ■ yep ww x w MARCos COR 3 ww,.i SAN ARDOWAY a SAN PARLO DR S9N E✓JI$ q 4 ti O q ¢ SAN CARRIZOwAY p s C N A0 25D 500 1,000 Feet Terra Bella Vision Plan CAY01MOUN'I'AIY VIJAV Residential (up to 3 stories) Residential {up to 5 stories} Residential (up to 7 stories) Mixed Use with Retail Office (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) Ped/bike tunnel I �r Plan Bou ndary ■■•^~ Neighborhood Transitions mmmi New Street ■ — — - New Pedestrian/Bike Path 21 21 Light Industrial / Office (up to 2 stories) Light Industrial I Office (up to 4 stories) Potential School \\ Dedication Ped/bike tunnel I �r Plan Bou ndary ■■•^~ Neighborhood Transitions mmmi New Street ■ — — - New Pedestrian/Bike Path 21 21 w Z Z D O X LL O F_ U 22 Terra Bella East of Shoreline Key elements of the land use vision for Terra Bella to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard include the following: • Light industrial preservation area maintains lower-cost spaces for start- ups, light industrial and flex spaces, and local businesses • New publicly -accessible neighborhood parks and open spaces totally approximately 4 acres • New residential uses • A transition area along the southern edge emphasizing deeper setbacks, landscape buffers, and lower -scaled buildings facing the adjacentsingle- family neighborhoods • The addition of new mixed-use and neighborhood -serving retail uses along North Shoreline Boulevard • New connections, including a pedestrian and bike pathway along the southern boundary connecting North Shoreline Blvd to San Leandro Avenue and Stevens Creek Trail via a potential pedestrian and bike tunnel under 1-85 Terra Bella West of Shoreline Key elements of the land use vision for Terra Bella to the west of North Shoreline Boulevard include the following: • A concentration of moderate to high-intensity office uses along Highway 101. New residential uses closerto West Middlefield Road. • A new publicly -accessible neighborhood park or open space approximately 4 acres in size • A potential school dedication site adjacent to Crittenden Middle School approximately 1.2 acres in size • Heights and intensities that transition from greatest near Highway 101 and North Shoreline Boulevard, and are reduced towards single-family neighborhoods • A transition area along the north-western edge emphasizing deeper setbacks, landscape buffers and lower -scaled buildings facing the adjacent single-family neighborhoods • The addition of new mixed-use and neighborhood -serving retail uses along North Shoreline Boulevard • A new street connecting West Middlefield Road to Terra Bella Avenue at San Pierre Way and breaking up this large block structure. • New internal pedestrian pathways providing more direct and convenient access to and between residential and office developments Master Planning A master planning process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly -accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing projects flexibility and with a review process focused on key development objectives. This requirement is outlined in the Master Planning Process section in Chapter 4. Development Types Table 3-1 describes each of the development types shown on Figure 3-1, including the preferred mix of land uses, height, and Maximum FAR. Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Requirements for Floor Area Ratio, Maximum FAR, and the Master Planning Process are outlined in Chapter 4. Table 3-1. Development Types DeveLopment Height Maximum scription DeType FAR* Up to 3 stories 1.0 Lower -Intensity Residential supports a mix of townhomes, EV ! Residential rowhouses, and walk-up apartment building types �.r with massing located away from existing single-family homes. Buildings have generous private open space, with 3 r opportunities for public open spaces. j' ill Moderate -Intensity Upto5stories 2.25 Moderate -Intensity Residential supports mid -rise multi - Residential story residential buildings. Buildings have smaller setbacks, greater massing that is generally located towards the front of the site with activeround floor uses. g Higher -Intensity Up to7stories 3.25 Higher -Intensity Residential supports multi -story residential Residential buildings. Projects have generous private open space, with opportunities for public open spaces. New buildings would have minimal setbacks and human -scale, pedestrian - oriented frontages. l r - p � Mixed -Use with Up to7stories 2.35 Mixed -Use with Retail is intended to encourage a Retail (up to 0.75 combination of ground floor services or retail with office ! FAR can be or residential uses above the ground floor. New buildings office or have minimal setbacks and active, pedestrian -oriented ., �� •� commercial) frontages. Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Maximum FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a projector master plan area. Seethe FloorArea Ratio section in Chapter for more information. �3 Development Height Maximum Description Image Type FAR* Lower-Intensity Up to3stories 0.75 Lower-Intensity Office supports office, R&D, and light Office industrial uses up to 3 4 stories in height. Parking would generally be accommodated in structures. Higher-Intensity Up to5stories 1.0 Higher-Intensity Office supports office, R&D, and light Office industrial uses up to 5 G stories in height. Buildings have active ground floors and human-scale, pedestrian-oriented lid. frontages. Parking would generally be accommodated in structures. Lower-Intensity Up to2stories 0.55 Lower-Intensity Light Industrial / Office supports light Light Industrial / industrial, small office, and start-up spaces up to 2 stories Office in height. Parking would generally be accommodated in surface lots. Higher-Intensity Up to4stories 2.0 Higher-Intensity Light industrial / Office supports lightyj Light Industrial / industrial and office spaces up to 4 stories in height. Office tT *Bose FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Maximum FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a projector master plan area. Seethe F►oorArea Ratio section in Chapter4 24 for more information. Frontage Types and Character Well-designed pedestrian oriented frontages will help create engaging streets and sidewalks, a cohesive look and feel to the area, and a comfortable and attractive environment for residents, employees, and visitors. This Plan envisions new street -facing buildings with pedestrian -oriented frontages throughout the area, with a focus on better pedestrian scale and orientation. Frontages consist of the street fagade of the building, any projecting elements, and the hardscape, landscape, walls and fences in the frontyard. Frontages define the relationship of the building to public areas with appropriate transitions from the public street to the semi -private and private areas of front yards and street -facing ground floor spaces. To implement this urban design vision for Terra Bella, this section introduces the following guidelines that apply to all new projects in the area: 1. Building setbacks. Commercial, mixed-use, and residential development should occur near the front edge of the property line unless outdoor dining or a recessed entry is proposed. Buildings should have shallow setbacks, generally 10 feet from the sidewalk. For corner buildings, the public street side setback should be the same as the front setback. 2. Massing. Building massing breaks should be used to reduce the visual appearance of large-scale buildings and articulate the building as a series of smaller "building blocks" with a range of depth, width, and height. Facades longer than 100 feet should be subdivided with at least one major massing break. Building facades should contain minor massing breaks approximately every 50 feet. DESIRED FRONTAGE TYPES 3. Articulation. Facades should use the following horizontal and vertical Frontages types should be selected based on building use and articulation strategies: location. Appropriate office and R&D frontage types include lobby • Horizontal articulation. Massing breaks, projections, architectural entry, forecourt, and landscaped setback and office yard. Appropriate details, and variations in materials and color should be incorporated to residential frontage types include stoop, patio and porch, lobby entry, Z break up the horizontal length of facades. and forecourt. Appropriate retail and mixed-use frontage types include a • Vertical articulation. Building stepbacks, projections, articulation shopfront, arcade or gallery, and dooryard and porch. p N in wall planes, architectural details, and variations in materials and > color should be used to break up the vertical height of buildings and 5 distinguish between upper and ground floors. Variations in height, m massing, roofline, and vertical articulation overall are encouraged. UJ UJ H 25 4. Transition from public to private space. Street setback areas should clearly delineate the transition between the ground -floor of a building and the street. This may be accomplished through the use of well -landscaped areas, outdoor seating and dining areas, pedestrian access to front entries (e.g. stoops, porches, terraces), art, and gathering spaces allowing for social interaction. These areas should be designed with amenities or improvements to engage or otherwise create a comfortable environment for people. 5. Building entries. Building entries reinforce building character, increase visual interest, break up massing, and provide inviting entrances into buildings and residential units. Primary building entrances should face the primary street frontage or be oriented toward public open space, such as a landscaped square, plaza, or similar space. The primary entrance to each street or ground -level tenant space along a public street should be provided from that street. 6. Active frontages. Active, pedestrian -oriented street frontages are encouraged on the ground floor of buildings that face public spaces such as streets, greenways, and public parks. Engaging ground -floor uses include but are not limited to neighborhood commercial businesses, residential, and office amenity spaces, such as exercise, food service, and lobbies, and direct unit/secondary entrances to streets. 7. Ground -floor treatments. The ground floor of facades facing a street or public space should include distinctly different design elements than upper floors, using architectural and landscape features of utility and interest, particularly at pedestrian eye -height, and distinguished by elements such as a greater floor -to -ceiling height, greater articulation, different materials, finer design details and ornamentation, unique colors, enhanced w entrances, and/or architectural variation. Blank walls, including facades Zwithout doors, windows, landscaping treatments, or other pedestrian interest, should be minimized. Z D 0 1 LL 0 U 26 Example of neighborhood commercial shopfront frontage Residential ground floor that activates the pedestrian realm with porches and other architectural interest Example of neighborhood commercial shopfront frontage 8. High-quality materials. New developments should utilize high-quality, durable material and finishes to provide texture and enhance the visual interest. 9. Transparency and privacy. Buildings should maintain a high degree of transparency to maximize the visual connection to the street by using clear and unobstructed windows, doors, and other openings. Street -level glazing should be clear. Design techniques may be used to create an appropriate degree of privacy for ground floor residences and office spaces. 10. Parking. Parking should be located behind or under buildings, rather than along the street frontage. Parking should not create a "gap -tooth" street frontage where parking lots disturb the continuity of the active street frontage. 27 Transition Areas New development provides appropriate transitions in height and scale to existing neighborhoods. To achieve this, the Vision Plan includes a transition zone along the northwestern and southeastern boundaries of the Plan area. This transition zone includes a step down in height to provide compatibility with existing single-family neighborhoods. In addition, new development in these zones incorporates additional transition strategies. Examples of transition strategies described and illustrated below include: • Increased building setbacks • Upper -story step -backs • 45 -Degree Daylight Plane for buildingvolumes • Orienting primary windows away from existing homes • Providing landscape buffers • Limiting balconies overlooking existing homes • Conducting additional studies, such as shade analyses to reduce impact to neighboring homes. Example of transition in height and scale z 28 Transition Standards 1. Office neighborhood transitions. New office development in the Rock Street Neighborhood Transition Area shall meet the building height and setback standards described below and shown in Figure 3-4. • New buildings shall be located within the 45 -Degree Daylight Plane from the property line adjacent to single-family homes (see Figure 3-4). • All buildings greater than 15 ft in height shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • No building greater than 35 feet in height shall be located within 90 feet of the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • Building setbacks from property lines adjacent to single-family homes shall include a pedestrian path or driveway and a planting strip for medium to large size trees. 2. Residential neighborhood transition area. New residential development in the Rock Street and Stierlin Estates Neighborhood Transition Areas shall meet the building height and setback standards described below and shown in Figure 3-5. • Any part of a new building shall be located within the 45 -degree Daylight Plane from the property line adjacent to single-family homes (see Figure 3-5). • All buildings frontages facing single-family home parcels shall step back a minimum 10 feet above the second floor. • All buildings greater than 15 ft in height shall setback a minimum of 40 feet from the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • No building greater than 35 ft in height shall be located within 90 feet of the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • Building setbacks from property lines adjacent to single-family homes shall include a pedestrian path or driveway and a planting strip for medium to large size trees. 3. Balconies. Balconies in new developments shall use architectural design, screening, and building orientation to reduce privacy impacts on existing residential parcels. To the extent possible, balconies should be limited opposite existing single-family homes. 4. Landscaping and screening. New development shall use physical buffers and design treatments to the maximum extent feasible to reduce impacts on adjacent residential properties. Buffers may include larger setbacks, fencing, and landscaping and tree screening. Trees should be at least 6 feet in height at time of planting and should be spaced approximately 15-20 feet on center (depending on the species selected) to create a continuous and effective foliage barrier at maturity, along with medium-sized shrubs and live ground cover. Plant palettes shall enhance local identity, encourage biodiversity, and minimize environmental impacts by emphasizing the use of locally native and drought -resistant plant species and avoiding invasive plants as listed in the Cal -IPC inventory. (General Plan Policies INC 5.5, 16,19). 5. View studies. New development shall conduct shade and view analysis to study impacts on neighboring homes. 29 Figure 3-4. Office Neighborhood Transition Diagram M kul Figure 3-5. Residential Neighborhood Transition Diagram A: 2-3 Story Townhouse B: 2-3 Story Townhouse C: Stepping Corridor Bldg 41 30-45 ft avg min* 40' R 30-45 ft avg min. 40' min 90 ft 132' max height 35 ft min 90 ft 160' max heiaht 35 ft R min 90 ft 31 Parks and Open Space To serve the social and recreational needs of the Plan area, new publicly - accessible parks and open spaces on both the east and west side of Shoreline Drive will be provided. Conceptual open space locations are shown in Figure 3-6. Based on development potential, the minimum park dedication required should result in a combined total of 4 acres of parkland on the east side of Terra Bella and 4 acres on the west side of Terra Bella, with an additional 1.2 acre dedication for a school site (west of Shoreline). The exact location of parks will be reviewed as part of the master planing process and project review. New public open spaces should be designed for active and passive recreation, and may include neighborhood parks, plazas, linear greenways, and recreational facilities. As part of this Plan, a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is envisioned along Moonbeam Drive from North Shoreline, with a potential tunnel at San Leandro Street running under 1-85 that will provide access to Stevens Creek Trail. In addition, the proposed pedestrian bridge across Highway 101 could connect Terra Bella residents to the regional open space network, including Shoreline Regional Park, and planned open space amenities in North Bayshore. Achievingthis vision will require a coordinated effort between the City, property owners, and project developers, including land dedication by residential projects, City purchase using parkland dedication in -lieu funds, and creation of public plazas and open space by non-residential projects. New development in areas where a park is envisioned should dedicate public parkland. New non- residential development should provide on-site publicly -accessible open spaces under private ownership, such as plazas, landscaped areas, and public art installations. Specific locations and sizes should be determined during project approval. Locations near housing, commercial uses, and public paths should be prioritized. The City will continue to maintain cooperative arrangements with w the school district to use open space and facilities at Crittenden Middle School Zand nearby schools for public parks, playgrounds, and recreation programs. Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 32 Example of park design and amenities Examples of park and open space design Park and Open Space Standards 1. Terra Bella public parks. Non-residential and residential projects shall dedicate land for a public park. Modifications to park location within a project master plan area may be allowed based on project design review. 2. Privately -owned, publicly -accessible open spaces. New privately -owned, publicly -accessible open spaces shall be provided by non-residential projects. These open spaces are not identified on Figure 3-6. At the discretion of the City Council, this requirement may be waived in locations that are not on majorvisible corridors or accessible to residential areas. If waived, projects shall provide additional public benefits. Publicly -accessible open space areas should meet the following standards: a minimum 30' width in both dimensions and a minimum total of 3,000 square feet. The total amount of publicly -accessible open space should be scaled appropriately to the size of the project. This space should be accessible directly from public paths and sidewalks at the ground level, and not through gates and stairs. Publicly -accessible paths and greenways should not be used to comply with this requirement if they are provided pursuant to public mobility requirements, unless additional width and amenities are provided, subject to design review. Projects are encouraged to locate publicly -accessible open spaces adjacent to other sites to allow for expansion of public spaces over time. 3. Park and open space landscaping. Plant palettes for parks, open spaces, and newly developed properties shall enhance local identity, encourage biodiversity, and minimize environmental impacts by emphasizing the use of locally native and drought -resistant plant species and avoiding invasive plants as listed in the Cal -IPC inventory. 33 Figure 3-6. Conceptual Open Space Diagram ROCKS t DREWgvF % a m DnANE q�£ OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY LA AVENIDA x r 2 ■ 'KSr �! ■ of i ■ I to ■.M■��f e % `mss ■..a• a`•aaa r07 ■ TER9q. 4f %4C4 y h a* *4b ft sta 41, eiCe aay * C 4 TERRA BELLA AVE ! as co ' ' r , as O * W tLU ♦ate J !!!- •a4a I �ri l% M?a COg CIq � +yr■ • �gW ■ SAN ARp4 WqY v SAN PABLO DR 2 b w N A0 250 50D 1,000 Feet Terra Bella Vision Plan CITY OF MOUNTAIN Vii!1 O I r „5 SAN CARRIZO WAY ■■■■■� Plan Boundary Conceptual Public Open Space* New Streeto" Conceptual Joint -Use School Park Site* ■ ■ New Pedestrian/Bike Path Existing Parks/Open Space Trails Fxocr locafion will be determined as part of masW pionl development review proeess. 34 4 . deveLopment rinciples & implementation framew rk _r- fJ.���._ _ �-.- .-.- � .._V ��•,d�//F i. �./" .wF.��. n .... �F. f iCI �f.OY .w.. _-- ._, -�:!� .e. '� �,�'. .... 4. Development Principles and Implementation Framework Achieving the vision and other principles established by the Vision Plan will require important contributions from property owners and project developers to address key local and regional concerns, such as traffic congestion, park creation, and small business preservation. Future development in Terra Bella is expected to help address these concerns by implementing the following development principles and policies. Floor Area Ratio 1. Floor area ratio (FAR)." Base" FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district that meets minimum Vision Plan and Citywide requirements." Maximum" FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a project or master plan area including all FAR bonuses. "Maximum" FARs are established within each development type in the Vision Plan area (see Table 3-1). Floor Area Ratio is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided below. 2. Gross floor area exemptions. Building spaces for small businesses or educational, cultural, or other non-profit uses and neighborhood commercial uses may be excluded from gross floor area. The maximum floor area exemption shall not exceed 5% of the project's gross floor area, except when an existing structure is being preserved for use by a small business. An appropriate legal agreement shall be recorded on the property to identify the approved gross floor area exemption and use of the space for qualified businesses or organizations. 3. Dedications and easements. The area of new dedications and easements for publicly accessible streets, paths, or other transportation purposes shall be included in a site's lot area for the purposes of calculating FAR. 4. Parking -FAR calculations. Above -grade parking is not included in calculations of Maximum FAR for non-residential. Above -grade parking shall be included in calculations of Maximum FAR for residential or hotel uses. 5. Multiple areas. If a project site or master plan boundary includes more than one development type, the project's total gross floor area shall be the sum of allowed gross floor area in each constituent part. The floor area may be applied across the project as a whole if the project substantially complies with the purpose and intent of the Vision Plan. Z Z 0 1 LL 0 T 36 Maximum FAR The Vision Plan proposes maximum FAR guidelines for different land use categories (see Table 3-1) for development not consistent with the existing Zoning and the General Plan. The maximum FAR is suggested based on development studies in recent City Precise Plans and also the land use vision for the area. The maximum FAR program ensures that new development provides benefits and limits impacts to the community in exchange for additional project floor area. Individual projects may request additional FAR, above the Base FAR, for which they must provide community benefits to implement key Projects and policy goals established by the City Council. These projects must submit a master plan as defined later in this chapter. 1. School district strategy. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall submit a Local School District Strategy to the school districts and the City, intended to support new local schools serving the Vision Plan area. The School Districts and the developershall meet and confer in good faith to develop the School District Strategy to support new local schools. The School District Strategy shall be memorialized as a legally binding agreement. The strategy may include, but is not limited to, land dedication for new school development; additional funding for new school development; TDR strategies to benefit developer(s) that provide new school facilities; or other innovative strategies supporting schools. Community benefits contribution. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall contribute to community benefit projects. The maximum FAR amount for a given project shall depend on the contribution to the community benefit, and compliance with other Maximum FAR requirements. Community benefit value. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall propose community benefits contributions with minimum value proportional to the project's building square footage in excess of the Base FAR, as determined by the City Council. Community benefit projects. In lieu of monetary payment of community benefit contributions, projects may propose to provide a community benefit or district improvement project. These on- or off-site improvement projects may include additional affordable housing units, new dedicated public park space, shared parking facilities, district transportation or utility improvements, retention and/or expansion of existing small business, buildingarea for neighborhood commercial uses (such as a grocery store) or non -profits, a residential parking permit program, dedication of land for schools, or other projects proposed by applicants. Table 4-1 provides a list of example projects. Specific public benefit or district improvement projects shall be determined during review of the proposed project, and approved by the City Council. Community benefit may not apply towards the Local School District Strategy and Jobs Housing Linkage program. 3. Affordable housing. All residential projects shall provide at least 20% affordable units. All projects shall comply with the City-wide Below -Market -Rate (BMR) Housing Program(ArticleXIVofthe ZoningCodeand the BM RAdministrative Guidelines) forqualifying households, determination of rents and sale prices, alternative mitigations, timing, and administration. Development of affordable housing units on or off-site within Terra Bella, over and above the amount required under existing City and Precise Plan regulations is highly encouraged. 37 4. Green building. • Non-residential projects: Achieve LEED Platinum or equivalent. • Residential projects: Achieve 120 points on the Green Point Rated system or equivalent and submeter, or use other appropriate technology that can track individual energy use, for each residential unit. Table 4-1. Community Benefits/District Improvement Projects List Affordable Housing Development of affordable housing units on or off-site within Terra Bella, over and above the amount required under existing City regulations. District Transportation Improvements Off-site pedestrian, bicycle, or other roadway improvements. District Utility Improvements Off-site infrastructure and utility improvements above and beyond those required to serve the development (including water, sewer, and recycled water systems). Support for small local businesses Supporting or subsidizing small, local businesses including (but not limited to): • Providing new dedicated flexible space for small businesses located within new buildings; • Dedicating an existing building for small business use in perpetuity at below market rates through an appropriate instrument; • Providing relocation assistance to help small businesses in Terra Bella displaced by new development to locate elsewhere in Terra Bella or the City. Shared public parking facilities Constructing or otherwise providing publicly accessible parking facilities to serve district -wide parking needs. Floor area for neighborhood Providing dedicated building area for qualifying neighborhood commercial uses or community facilities. commercial uses or non -profits Dedication of land for schools Dedicating land to one of the local school districts (Mountain View Whisman School District, MVWSD, or Mountain View -Los Altos Union High School District, MV-LAUSD) Residential permit parking program Establishing and funding a residential permit parking. program Other Other benefits or district improvement projects proposed by applicants and approved by City Council W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 38 Jobs -Housing Linkage The City's recent planning efforts in East Whisman have strongly emphasized the need for a betterjobs-housing balance in the City by requiring commercia I development to support and facilitate residential development. The Plan requires a "jobs -housing linkage" program to ensure residential development is balanced with office and R&D growth in Terra Bella. The expectation is that all new office and R&D development will help facilitate residential development through jobs -housing linkage strategies which could include: direct construction of housing, dedication of land suitable for housing, contribution of fees to offset costs for residential development, residential development partnerships, purchase of existing office square footage from residential developers who demolish office buildings, and other creative strategies or partnerships that support or facilitate housing development. 1. Plan requirement. Office, R&D, and industrial development applicants shall submit a Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan. The proposed strategies to facilitate residential development shall be roughly proportional to the net new floor area proposed. This may be less if affordable units are provided in excess of the City's inclusionary requirements, or if other housing -related goals are met. 2. Timing.A phasing or housing delivery plan shall be included in the Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan. Proposed strategies, includingthe construction of units, should be implemented before non-residential building occupancy, unless otherwise determined by the City Council. Strict timing requirements may be waived if additional certainty is provided (such as a deed restriction or land dedication to an affordable housing developer). Projects may not use the Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan to satisfy the requirements of the Community Benefits contribution. 3. Partnerships. Subject to requirements established by the Jobs -Housing Linkage Program Administrative Guidelines, office projects may partner with residential projects to satisfy the Jobs -Housing Linkage Program requirement. SmaLL Business Preservation Helping existing businesses survive and grow is a vital strategy to preserve the unique, small business character of Terra Bella and create an economically diverse area. The vision for Terra Bella is to expand and intensity office uses, particularly to the west of North Shoreline Boulevard, while maintaining smaller, more affordable spaces for start-ups, small businesses, and non -profits to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard. New development projects should provide support for small businesses, such as small, flexible work spaces located within new buildings, rent subsidies for small or local businesses, and relocation assistance. 39 Parking and TDM Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the practice of influencing travel behaviorwith the goal of reducingdemand forsingle occupantvehicle use. In the context of Terra Bella, TDM can help reduce peak demand trips that contribute the most to existing vehicle congestion, reduce parking demand, and reduce vehicle miles traveled to help meet environmental goals such as greenhouse gas reduction. Parking and TDM are strongly interrelated since parking cost and availability are key factors that influence travel decisions. Given the relationship between parking availability and driving, making Terra Bella's parking policies efficient will help reduce impacts from new development on congestion. Parking While the Terra Bella Vision Plan builds on the strengths of the area's planned BRT transit access, network of complete streets, and mixed land uses, there will be parking demand from new development. The following principles will help the ensure that parking is efficiently used and supports community values such as safe walking and biking. Off -Street Parking The off-street parking requirements for Terra Bella are shown in Table 4-2. Parking maximums are an effective way to limit additional trips. Peak drive - alone trips cannot exceed parking availability. Developments in Terra Bella should be required to share parking resources with wadjacent developments where suitable. The Mountain View ordinance includes K a provision for adjacent land uses to pool their parking resources through "shared parking". Shared parking is beneficial in many ways - it reduces the Z total amount of parking needed, which reduces the amount of land needed for iparking, allows more flexibility in project design, and often saves developers U. money while making housing more affordable. U 40 Table 4-2. Off -Street Parking Standards Land Use • . Standards Office/Research and Maximum 2.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross Development building floor area Retail, restaurants, other Minimum 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross uses permitted by zoning building floor area designation Multi -Family Residential - Maximum 1 space per unit Studios and 1 -bedroom Multi -Family Residential - Maximum 2 spaces per unit 2 -bedroom and up Warehouse/Data Center Maximum 0.8 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building floor area Other Uses Minimum as defined in the Zoning Ordinance or through the Provisional Use Permit process The two predominant land uses proposed for Terra Bella are office and residential development. These uses pair very well for shared parking as offices have peak parking demand during the day but minimal demand at night, while residential developments have the exact opposite. The parking supply for shared parking can often be 30% lower than for individually provided parking, though the exact reduction depends on the composition of the adjacent land uses. While minimum parking requirements are still recommended for retail and restaurant uses, developers providing strong parking management, parking sharing, and TDM programs may request exemptions from the minimum requirement. Unbundled porhing Parking may be offered as unbundled: the cost of parking is sold or rented separately from housing or commercial units. With unbundled parking, occupants only pay for the parking spaces they actually need. Details of the unbundled parking program will be reviewed as part of the development review process. io_ _,PY ,' :' �✓ � } r ,✓.p . � cr. The intent of shared parking and unbundled parking is not to provide too little parking for the planned land uses, but rather to avoid providing too much. However, if residents in adjacent neighborhoods experience excessive demand foron-streetparking, the City of Mountain View has a residential parking permit program that can be employed to ensure that people visiting or living at Terra Bella do not park in adjacent neighborhoods. Designated Porhing for Carpools and Vonpools In office, R&D, and industrial developments, designated parking for carpool/ vanpool vehicles should be located near building entrances. These spaces should be included in the maximum allowable parking. Residentiol permit parking (photo credit: Brodie Thomas/Livewire z a z O N J W m UJ W H 41 New multi -family residential and office and R&D developments should provide parking for carsharing services as shown in Table 4-3. Carshare spaces should be in a highly -visible location and accessible to both building users and the general public. Carshare spaces do not count towards the parking maximum. Table 4-3. Required Spaces for Carshare Services L..--. Land Use Carshare Vehicle Requirements --_,--A Office/Research and Development For buildings greater than 40,000 square feet, minimum of three parkingspaces per buildingsite for carshare. Multi -family Residential 0-49 dwelling units - 0 car -sharing spaces 1 per 2,000 sf or a minimum of 4 spaces, 50-250 dwelling units -1 car -sharing space 251 or more dwelling units - 2 car sharing spaces, plus 1 for every additional 200 dwelling units Bicycle and Mobility Device Porhing New development should provide bicycle facilities in accordance with Table 4-4 below. Short-term bike racks should be conveniently located in highly -visible, well -lit locations near building entrances. Long-term secure bicycle parking should be provided in convenient, covered locations such as near placard parking spaces within the garage on the level closest to the ground floor. Designated space for shared mobility devices should be provided with appropriate marking in a convenient, well -lit, publicly -accessible, and highly -visible location near building entrances. Table 4-4. Required Bicycle Parking Facilities Land Us (a Short -Term BicycLe Parkin A' I 01.�! howers Office/Research and Development 1 per 20,000 sf or a minimum of 4 1 per 2,000 sf or a minimum of 4 spaces, 1 unisex for the first 80,000 sq. ft and 1 spaces, whichever is greater whichever is greater additional unisex for each additional 40,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Commercial Uses 4 per5,000sf ora minimum of2spaces, 1 per 5,000 sf or a minimum of 2 spaces, None required whichever is greater whichever is greater Multi -Family Residential 1 per 10 units 1 per unit None required 42 Transportation Demand Management The Vision Plan establishes an ambitious target for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Terra Bella. To meet this target, the Vision Plan prioritizes walking, biking, and transit use. Large blocks will be subdivided into a finer -grained network of pedestrian -oriented streets. Streets within the Plan Area will be "Complete Streets," safely accommodating bicycles through lanes or buffered cycle tracks, pedestrians through wide sidewalks and enhanced crossings, and buses and shuttles through improved shelters. All new development projects will meet the City's requirements for TDM, develop and maintain a TDM Plan, and join the Transportation Management Association (TMA). In addition, any new non-residential employment generating (Office and R&D uses) development in Terra Bella will remain net neutral (not increase) with no net new trips as compared to today's baseline. Each project should implement a robust monitoring program (including site-specific trips) to provide information on how the Plan is performing and help inform on-going City decisions on capital improvements, TDM requirements, developments, and more. The TDM measures shown below represent strategies that are positioned to work with the transit and multi -modal investments planned forthe area. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list. There are a variety of subsidies that can be provided to incentivize other modes besides driving, especially drive alone trips. The simplest is a parking cash -out, typically used in employee TDM programs, where employees are given money each time they commute to theirjob site and do not use parking. Employers often give transit passes for Caltrain (Go Pass) or VTA (Eco Pass) or a set amount of money per month to pay for transit. With both types of passes the price is negotiated annually with an institution such as an employer or property developer/manager at a steeply discounted rate compared to an individual transit pass. For residential sites, a non -driving subsidy can be in the form of a VTA Eco Pass or a monthly non -driving stipend per unit. The stipend can be used on any combination of transit (e.g. Clipper Card, VTA Eco Pass), car share (e.g. Zipcar, Getaround), or ride -sharing platforms (e.g. Uber/Lyft). Free or subsidized transit passes can increase residents' awareness of nearby transit options, and can reduce the financial barrier by making it a more cost -comparable option between the cost of public transportation and the cost of parking. Especially for residents of affordable units, this strategy can reduce household transportation costs, improve transit use, equity, mobility options, and further reduce the need for owning a car. Providing a flexible stipend rather than a specific transit pass maximizes residents' transportation options by providing residents' access to multiple services ratherthan just one. Commute trips are typicallythe longest dailytravel distance, the most consistenttrip throughoutthe week, and offer unique opportunities to reduce drive alone trips. Work sites often have multiple employees starting at similar times and converging on the same area, both of these trends increase with the size of the employment site. Employmentsites of more than 50 employees should develop a TDM Program. ATDM program can consist of multiple elements such as: TDM coordinator, parking cash out, subsidized transit pass, employee shuttle, carpool matching, vanpool subsidy, active transportation benefit, etc. The most effective programs reveal to motorists the actual cost of providing parking, either through parking fees, or by giving non -motorists the cash value of the free parking provided to motorists. For example, commercial property owners and theirtenants can be required to charge for parking at $1 an hour, up to $10 a day, or parking could be free, but employees who do not drive are given $10 a day in tax-free commuter benefits or taxable cash. A more detailed study will need to be developed to establish a goal and monitoring program such as developing a trip cap and/or transportation mode -split goal. 43 z 44 Master Planning Process A master planning process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly -accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing projects flexibility and with a review process focused on key development objectives. This section outlines the conditions and requirements forthe master planning process. 1. Required master plans. A master plan is required prior to Major Development Review permit or General Plan or zoning modification applications in Terra Bella, including new buildings and major additions, in accordance with the following: b. Terra Bella East of Shoreline. Projects east of Shoreline Boulevard shall submit a master plan for the east side of Terra Bella. The master plan shall include the following: • New public parks and open spaces, totally approximately 4 acres shall be provided across the area with at least 1 acre provided as a continuous space. The plan should include location, size, and design for each park and/or open space in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. • New publicly -accessible private open spaces, including location, size, and design. • Surrounding development, both proposed and existing, including location, mix, intensity, and square footage of new development. • The amount and type of affordable housing provided, the unit size mix, and the income targets. • Neighborhood transition strategies for the transition area along the southern boundary adjacent to single-family homes. c. Terra Bella West of Shoreline. Projects west of Shoreline Boulevard requiring a Major Development Review permit or general Plan or zoning modification permit shall submit a master plan for the entire west side of Terra Bella. The master plan shall include the following: • New public parks and open spaces, providing a combined total of 4 acres over the Terra Bella West area with at least 1 acre provided as a continuous space. The plan should include location, size, and design for each park and/or open space in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. • New publicly -accessible private open spaces, including location, size, and design. • Surrounding development, both proposed and existing, including location, mix, intensity, and square footage of new development. • The amount and type of affordable housing provided, the unit size mix, and the income targets. • Neighborhood transition strategies for the transition area along the northwestern boundary adjacent to single-family homes. • Potential school site dedication of 1.2 acres adjacent to Crittenden Middle School. 2. Project master plan preparation. in addition to the above, master plans shall include the following minimum components: • Signed development applications from all property owners within the proposed master plan. • Materials such as maps, surrounding and proposed uses, proposed building locations, circulation plan, total square footage, open space, and other materials that demonstrate compliance with the purpose and intent of the Vision Plan. • Parking strategy, including but not limited to, shared parking or district parking faciIities. • Urban design strategy, including a conceptual architecture plan, including how the location, intensity, and uses of planned and future buildings function and relate to each other, the project site, and surrounding area. • A block circulation plan shall be submitted. The block circulation plan should be consistent with the Future Transportation Network map (Figure 5-1) and Vision Plan land use map (Figure 3-1). The block circulation plan shall include the following: street design recommendations and cross-sections; each connection specified as public or private (e.g. dedication vs. easement); future connections to vacant sites and planned/proposed parks; and an implementation and phasing strategy for the connections. • Phasing and implementation strategy, including the timing and plans for any public improvements. The master plan shall identify an initial and final phase, with optional intermediate phases. The initial and intermediate phases need not include all open spaces, school dedication, district parking or other amenities and public benefittargets, butshall show howthe phase complieswith incremental increases in these targets and minimum development standards. The final phase shall show actions and fundingsources to achieve the desired amount and mix of land uses, and othercomplete neighborhood concepts identified in the Vision Plan. • Other components deemed necessary by the City. 3. District parking. If the project applicant proposes to accommodate required parking off site, the master plan shall include the parking structure (or below grade parking) location, number of parking stalls, number of parking stalls required for the new development, and the non -automobile connections between the project site and district structure. 4. Review process. Once the master plan application is deemed complete by the City, the Master Plan shall be reviewed by the Environmental Planning Commission, who will provide a recommendation to the City Council. 5. Planned Community (PC) permit process. The City Council shall determine, at the time of Master Plan approval, the City's subsequent development review process for PC Permit applicants associated with an approved Master Plan. Planned Community (PC) Permit applications associated with an approved Master Plan may be eligible for an expedited review process. 45 This page is intentionally left blank. 46 5 m mobility il O MW 5. Mobility The transportation vision for Terra Bella is to provide access to and within the Terra Bella neighborhood for residents and employees with a multimodal transportation network that prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Transportation Network The future multimodal transportation network for Terra Bella is shown in Figure 5-1 and contains new internal streets, reversible bus lanes on Shoreline Boulevard, and proposed active transportation improvements, including full-time bike lanes, protected bikeways, and across -barrier connections. Reversible Bus Lane A reversible bus lane (RBL) is planned for Shoreline Boulevard with stops on Terra Bella Avenue. The lane will be situated in the center of North Shoreline Boulevard, protected by physical barriers, and will accommodate northbound buses on weekday mornings and southbound buses on weekday evenings. Transit service along the corridor will also have reduced stop frequency, and high frequency of bus service. The full design and implementation of this transit priority lane will determine how these elements are applied to North Shoreline Boulevard. Having a stop within the center of the neighborhood will provide a direct connection to employment centers in North Bayshore as well as to downtown Mountain View, VTA light rail, and Caltrain. New Internal Access Roads The block bounded by West Middlefield Road, Terra Bella Avenue, and North Shoreline Boulevard is significantly longer than would typically be recommended for walkable development. Adding a new street connecting Terra Bella Avenue to West Middlefield Road would improve access for all modes, but especially for people walking and bicycling. The new street would primarily provide access, and should be designed for low speeds, safe accommodation for all modes, and sufficient on -street loading for the proposed land uses. w Z H Z O i LL O } H U 48 Figure 5-1 Future Transportation Network OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAy D ,° • �. OR£W Aqt �Q 14 4 � SAN "ARCas Cfp i SAry tins 46Z v L .. N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet -!— Terra Bella Vision Plan C1IYOFMUL% � VlF!'. 0.0.00■ Building Footprints : Plan Boundary ■0000■■ Existing/Proposed Transit Existing/Proposed Bike Facilities °°G- VTA routes stops Class I Path MVgo — Protected Bikeway (Class IV) �^ Future RBL route/stops ••••• Class 11 Bike Lane — Class III RnOte Street Network mm1l1 New Street P Protected intersections P New signalized intersection :k, Walking and Bicycling Connections Planned bicycle lanes and shared bicycle and pedestrian paths will improve access for people walking and biking within the neighborhood as well as traveling to nearby destinations. In addition, emerging technologies such as electric skateboards and scooters are rapidly gaining popularity and are likely to play a larger role in future transportation. Mobility devices such as electric skateboards and scooters typically operate in the same space as people use to ride bikes and walk. Under California state law, however, motorized scooters are not permitted to be operated along sidewalks. Providing better connections and more space for people to walk and ride bicycles can also provide space to accommodate emerging mobility options in ways that reduce potential conflicts, encourage compliance with state and local laws, and enhance personal mobility. Connection to Stevens Creek Trail There are three options to add a connection between the Terra Bella neighborhood and the Stevens Creek Trail. These options include: • At grade under 101/85 interchange • Atunnel under 85 at San Leandro Street (the most direct, and likely most expensive option) • At grade under 85 on-ramp at Moffett Boulevard. Connectivity across North Shoreline Boulevard North Shoreline Boulevard is a barrier for people walking and biking in the Terra Bella neighborhood. It is characterized by large distances between crossings, long crossing distances, and relatively high vehicle speeds. The street's design is conducive to vehicles traveling faster than the 35 -mph speed limit, and is unwelcoming to vulnerable road users. To reconnect the two halves of the neighborhood, pedestrian crossing improvements are necessary. The intersections at North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and at North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, are optimized forvehicle throughput. The crossings are characterized by long crossing distances and wlarge turn radii that enable high cornering speeds. Z The Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study (2014) recommended that the North a Z Shoreline/West Middlefield and North Shoreline/Terra Bella intersections be D redesigned as protected intersections. Planned protected intersections will U. provide the following benefits: O Y H U 50 i Closs IV cycle track • Shorter crossing distances for pedestrians • Lower vehicle cornering speeds • Protected waiting space for cyclists making left turns Connection to Permanente creek Trail Permanente Creek Trail is located just outside of the project boundary, but nonetheless is an important pedestrian and bicycle connection to the North Bayshore. A connection between pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within the Terra Bella Plan area and the Permanente Creek Trail would help create a more complete active transportation network. The connection could be achieved via two strategies, both of which are envisioned for the area: 1.) the proposed Class IV protected bikeway on West Middlefield Road, which would provide a direct connection to the beginning of the trail, and 2.) the proposed paseo between Rock Street and Terra Bella Avenue. This would require improved bicycle infrastructure on Rock Street leading into the Permanent Creek Trail. 51 Street Design Concepts General Street Design Recommendations This section provides general street design recommendations for Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. It is followed by specific design concepts for each street. 1. Travel lane widths. With the exception of Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road, travel lanes shall be 10 feet where possible. 2. Traffic calming measures. A range of traffic calming measures could be implemented to slow traffic and improve safety on Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. Several options include speed cushions and curb extensions. Speed cushions are small raised humps that require vehicles to slow down. Curb extensions ("bulbouts") reduce the radius of the curb at street corners, which reduces vehicle turningspeeds and the pedestrian crossing distance. 3. Loading space. While most parking for future development would be provided off-street, on -street space for short term parking and loading will continue to become more important as increasing numbers of people use ride -hailing apps such as Uber and Lyft. Where possible, space should be preserved for on -street loading, as shown in the street design alternatives that follow. At the same time, proposed protected bicycle facilities will protect people biking from loading or parking activity that today might occur in bike lanes. 4. Green infrastructure. Integration of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) design into streets and public spaces should be considered to provide w an attractive landscape feature while also capturing and treating runoff z to meet water quality requirement. GSI measures shall be placed into zretrofitted streets when required by the Municipal Regional Permit, and, if feasible, in alignment with the City's GSI Plan and the Countywide GSI X Handbook. LL O } H U 52 Figure 5-2. Protected Intersection Curb extension Rapid street improvements North Shoreline Boulevard The Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study (2014) envisions the street as a multimodal corridor with dedicated transit lanes as well as protected bikeways, protected intersections, and a pedestrian/bike bridge across US -101 between Shoreline/Terra Bella and Shoreline/La Avenida. These recommendations remain appropriate, and the improvements to transit, walking, and bicycling, will be crucial to accommodate anticipated trip growth without increasing vehicle trips. As mentioned previously, North Shoreline Boulevard is a barrier to pedestrians and cyclists. Figure5-2 illustrates a protected intersection that includes bulbouts to slow turning vehicles, and to provide safe spaces for pedestrians and cyclists to wait. This design reduces the potential for conflict between bicycles going straight and vehicles to rning right by slowing and to rningvehicles so that drivers are in a position with good visibility of oncoming cyclists in the bike lane. The design, while intended to better protect people walking and bicycling, should take into account all vehicles using the intersection, particularly emergency service vehicles and where necessary buses and trucks. Speed cushion az J IL z O a g J W m LU W H 53 w Z H Z O X LL O } H U 54 Terra Bella Avenue As the main road providing access to the Terra Bella neighborhood from West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue should accommodate access for all transportation modes, as well as support commercial loading and deliveries. Since most properties will likely continue to provide parking onsite, there will be limited need for on -street parking. Flexible curbside areas could accommodate both loading and pick-up/drop-off of passengers. Terra Bella Avenue between West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard has a curb -to -curb distance varying between 48 - 50 feet. East of North Shoreline Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue is slightly narrower at 46 - 48 feet. This is enough space to accommodate a two-way protected bikeway on the north side of Terra Bella Avenue. This option would extend a high-quality network from the protected bikeways on North Shoreline Boulevard into the Terra Bella neighborhood. A two-way protected cycletrackwould requirespecial design consideration at intersections and driveways, including measuresto slow turningvehicles, ensure adequate visibility, and potentially add dedicated bicycle signal phasing at signalized crossings. More conventional buffered bike lanes are also possible, though there is insufficient width fora parking -protected design and buffered bike lanes do not eliminate the potential forconflict between active modes of transportation and curbsidevehicle activity. Examples of cycle tracks Figure 5-3 Terra BeLLa Avenue Two -Way Protected CycLe Track Alternative Ow- sp R. "i F.., Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Figure 5-4 Terra Bella Avenue Buffered Bike Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Ar w Z H Z D O X LL O } H U 56 Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue provide access from Terra Bella Avenue within the Terra Bella neighborhood, and would support a mix of dense office and residential developments. As such they should provide a balance of access, safety, and placemaking. The cross-sections vary from 38 - 40 feet curb -to -curb. There are two possible alternative: 1. A parking -protected bike on one side of the street and another conventional bike lane on the other side, with parking or loading on one side of the street. 2. Shared lanes with traffic calming measures if loading is required on both sides of the street. Example of shared lanes with traffic calming Example of protected bike lanes. Photo credit: Joe Linton/Streetsblog LA Figure 5-5 Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue, Bike Lane Alternative MAN Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Figure 5-6 Linda Vista Avenue and San RafaeL Avenue, Shared Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord 57 San Leandro Street San Leandro Street provides internal connectivity and access, and varies from 32 - 34 feet. Given the limited width, a low -speed street with shared lanes and on -street parking or loading is recommended. Figure 5-7 San Leandro Street, Shared Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 58 App ��existing conditions !y Existing Conditions This section presents a summary of the existing land use, urban form, and mobility conditions in the Terra Bella area. Existing Land Use and Zoning Existing land use in the Plan area includes a mix of low -intensity office buildings, industrial uses, retail services, single-family homes, and institutional facilities. Figure A-1 shows the existing land use by parcel in the Plan area and the vicinity and Table A-1 below provides a breakdown of acreage and percentages for each existing land use. Predominant land uses are office/research and development (66%), followed by services (10%), which includes a Credit Union, a storage facility, and other services. There are two church facilities (7%) on the site and the Summit Denali charter school (1%). Among the industrial land uses (6%) is a Recology City of Mountain View facility site. Larger office complexes are found west of North Shoreline Boulevard, while the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard is home to light industrial, small businesses, and several non -profits. There is a small percentage of single-family residential (3%) in the Plan area, all to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard. The Plan area is, however, surrounded by single and multi -family housing to the northwest and southeast. In many cases, office or industrial properties directly abut single-family homes with little to no transition. w Z H Z O X LL O } H U Table A -i. Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percentage Office/R&D 62 66% Services 10 10% Church 6 7% Industrial 6 6% Institution/Recreation 3 4% Single -Family 3 3% Vacant 2 2% Retail 1 1% Grade School Grand TotaL 0.6 93.6 1% 100% Figure A -s. Existing Land Use OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY��y�i1A#H411��I�11R � C 1! Mal W V to AVENIDA AOO(ST i •+ ♦ i �1 # •16r*r , J1 4CF ♦ • ti TERRA BEL AVE ••a It *41 44,1*_Jm ORs Ac 2 SAN APDOwm SAH PABt OhA n.SAf4u,54 �r o 0 got: to N ift✓•illf N 0 250 500 1,0100 Feet Terra Bella Vision Plan Legend Office/ R&D - School - Church - Industrial - Medical - InstitutionfRecreational - Retail - Services - Hotel/Motel ® Multi -Family Single -Family Vacant Project Boundary o x SAN CMA12")1%.aY Existing Land Use .p W Z Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 62 The General Plan designation for the entire Terra Bella area is General Industrial. General Industrial is intended for the production, storage, and wholesale of goods and services to create abroad industrial base. The allowed land uses are industrial uses, including manufacturing and storage, research and development, administrative offices and ancillary commercial uses. Zoning designations for the Plan area are Limited Industrial (ML) east of North Shoreline Boulevard and General Industrial (MM) west of North Shoreline Boulevard, consistent with the General Plan General Industrial designation (see Table A-2). Approximately a third of all industrial zoned land in the City is located in Terra Bella. Despite its industrial designation, only a small percentage (6%) of existing uses in the area are industrial. Figure A-2 shows the zoning designations forthe area. Table A-2. Zoning Figure A-2. Zoning 0 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY m 0 W J W D � z ` as i Laa / i z • a a♦ �ws�*�"aa a♦!r'FrF aaa rel as fa fa fa fa waaw wa ►a - TERRA BELLA AVE as o Q �Q aaa J - {{ • m { LA ♦ W - { z - � w` as m aE a' a p Y aair- a = Y as Vl:i�tlfft#.■f#■#R##f#�!i##fes##!##��#f#####�## � a�■ 's+W ARAO WAY -y o SAN P,ABLO DR - i � q SAN CA1RRUZO WAY N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Legend Single -Family R1 WE General Industrial MM Multiple Family R3 F_ Agriculture A AW Terra Bella Vision Plan Mobile Home RMH F_ Planned Community/Precise Plan P Limited Industrial ML Public Facility PF r## Project Boundary Cl]'Y OF MOUNTAIN �i71l4+' �# � � ■ CCD] J Zoning 63 w Z H Z O X LL O } H U 64 Urban Design and Character The existing urban character and development pattern in Terra Bella can be characterized into two distinct subareas -the area east of North Shoreline Boulevard and the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard. West of Shoreline The site west of North Shoreline Boulevard consists of larger parcels (greater than 2 acres) with large suburban office development (see Figure A-3). The area includes two blocks and all parcels are accessed from Terra Bella Avenue, North Shoreline Boulevard, and West Middlefield Road. The west side of North Shoreline Boulevard is one long, continuous block (see Figure A-4). This presents an opportunityto break up this super -block and create more walkable, pedestrian -friendly block sizes in this area. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard, is characterized by large building footprints that reflect the commercial and industrial nature of the uses. In many cases, buildings have large front and side setbacks without a clear relation to either street or other buildings. In several cases the buildings have blank or inactive facades. Compared to the area east of North Shoreline Boulevard, the area has wider sidewalks with higher quality landscaping. The existing land uses, frontage character, and long block lengths arejust a few of the factors that make this area less conducive to walking. Examples of development west of North Shoreline Boulevard 14 A - 4:4- ll qFFvwmm - mak 6k Existing Condtions �M klmv:?� 9 jpF Ito 6k Existing Condtions �M klmv:?� 9 jpF W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O z 66 East of Shoreline East of North Shoreline Boulevard, the urban form follows a grid with perpendicular cross -streets creating distinct blocks. The parcel size is smaller, typically less than two acres, resulting in smaller -scale development and buildings in the area (see Figure A-3). Small parcels, less than an acre is size, are often more difficult to redevelop and require aggregation. The east side of North Shoreline Boulevard also has smaller blocks (about 600 feet) that allow for increased opportunities for crossings and provide more direct routes for pedestrians (see Figure A-4). A large percentage of land is devoted to surface parking, landscaping, outdoor storage, or other uses both on the east and west side of North Shoreline Boulevard. The area has narrow sidewalks with irregular landscaping. The area includes a diverse mix of uses, with vacant or underutilized parcels that provide an opportunity for infill redevelopment. Examples of development east of North Shoreline Boulevard Existing Condtions 11 Mg°,!fir � +II 1I VIII pI .. - - - •. II l�I��I I.il�li: iJ �• fe_•A. ,i,P °^���1Nl�t��ld���l� .. -tai Figure A-3. Parcel Size OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY Q � a n � ? c ■ r R ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ p IL.. D*EWAVF i 2 SA" "'R(OS" SAklUOSA4 N 0 250 500 Terra Bella Vision Plan 0001111111111, — CITY pT Nk)V-MCA] N V I E«' 1,000 Fee 0 J }' m 2 - J � W LA AVENIDA O 3 2 !M Siam 4% oaf #4 TERRA SELLA AVE +# # N ,LL x' R� -'f'����---- Riefflf tlfflslf!!f s!lfalifflf�1 f.. w1 yg„ Saly ARi10 War a 5,11, PABL 0I)iR r � a ra SAH CARRI$O WAV t Legend 0-0.5acres 2.0-3.5 acres 0.5-1.Oacres 3.5-5.0 acres 1.0-2.0 acres 5.0-10.0 acres Project Boundary Parcel Size Figure A-4. Block Lengths OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY i G RUCK ST Sp °'sFwal,p I7 s Rp � �^ G '04"64VIt ap' ass• �d LA AVEMIDA Q a�Q LD m NCD o C x 675' 700' 700 SAN z w i G15 RVE � �, rn L 'f n o Opp s 630' 680' N N 310' a TERRA BE L LA AVE O 670' 685' 470' J m J a � � b Q a�Q LD m NCD o C x 675' 700' 700 SAN z w i G15 RVE � N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Legend c 400 feet 400-800 feet Terra Bella Vision Plan 800-1500 feet > 1500 feet i� SANARDO WAY CT SAN RMLO DR S A SAN i4RRIZ0 WAY Block Lengths .S J w 'f n N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Legend c 400 feet 400-800 feet Terra Bella Vision Plan 800-1500 feet > 1500 feet i� SANARDO WAY CT SAN RMLO DR S A SAN i4RRIZ0 WAY Block Lengths .S J Building Height and Intensity Most of the buildings in Terra Bella are single story with a few 2 -story structures, less than the General Plan height guideline of 3 stories. The only 4 -story building in the Plan area is the recent recently constructed office building on the northeast corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. Figure A-5 shows a 3-dimensional view of existing uses and building heights. Building intensity is measured in floor area ratio (FAR), the ratio of a building or project's floor area to its land area. FAR is typically used to measure the intensity of commercial, office, and industrial uses. The maximum permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for parcels in the Plan area is 0.35. The majority of the parcels are developed between 0.20 and 0.30 FAR, belowthe maximum permissible limit. The parcels on the eastside of North Shoreline Boulevard have a lower FAR, and are thus underdeveloped as compared to the parcels west of North Shoreline Boulevard which are closer to the FAR limit with large building footprints. Figure A-5. Existing Building Heights and Land Use Existing Use Legend W > Office/ R&❑ Retail QSchool H Services D Church Hotel/Motel XIndustrial Multi -Family LL O Medical Single -Family Y ~ Institution/Recreational U Vacant 70 Existing Condtions Parks and Open Space There are currently no parks or open space within the Terra Bella Plan area. Figure A-6 maps the parks and open spaces in and around Terra Bella. The open spaces around Terra Bella are limited to the Stevens Creek Trail that runs east of the Terra Bella Plan area, Permanente Creek trail, the proposed open space in North Bayshore, and a few smaller -scale parks within a half -mile from Terra Bella. Stevens Creek and Permanent Creek trails both function not only as open space but also as corridors for active transportation and wildlife habitat. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is part of the larger Stierlin Planning area which is in need of an additional 7.73 acres of open space to meet the City's goal of 3.0 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. The Crittenden Middle School and the Whisman Sport Center are located just west of the Plan area and provide nearby sports facilities. There is currently a joint use agreement between the City of Mountain View and the Mountain View Whisman Schools District that allows joint use of all the City's school park spaces for recreation outside of school hours. Crittendon Middle School (photo credit: dovidtroyer.com) 72 Figure A-6. Parks and Open Space rrr � u�'wRLEsrenlRo � r LEGNDRlV 57 r r r o r OLD MIDDLE hEip WRY i l r L4 AVEArIDA I ! r 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 't°4,y M1M1L �T�� - - - - ,r LL 4gL,e 47 1 L 1 t i� E`ilt�sT i ~,----------------------- A __- _ A0 900 1,800 3,600 Fee[ �I I ITI E I� Legend one Mlle Buffer Terra Bella Vision Plan L__, Half Mile Buffer Parks/ Open Space Trails CM1rYOr NI uralu'1EW 4 North Bayshore Proposed Open Space IL,- i project Boundary Parks and Open Space 73 Retail Centers The Terra Bella Plan area currently has a limited amount of retail properties - the Taco Bell located at Terra Bella Avenue and North Shoreline Boulevard and two gas stations at the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road. However, the area is served by the Bailey Park retail center approximately a third of a mile south of Terra Bella and will be served by the potential North Bayshore retail center to the north of Highway 101. Bailey Park Plaza currently includes a Safeway grocery store, some restaurants, and basic neighborhood commercial services. Nearby retail centers are shown in Figure A-7. 74 Figure A-7. Retail Centers One Mite Buffer Terra Bella Vision Plan i___,I F1alfMileBuffer 0 Retail Center CrlY OF MOUNTNN VPI Downtown C) North Bayshore Proposed Retail Center 4--. Project Boundary Retail Centers 75 ` OHARLFSTON RI) ? rr •LEGHORN ■ r m r r N f OL9 M Proposedi1Recail WLOWAY t 1 r .. LA AVEFWIDA S � t t I 1•! 11 1 Mvnta Loma r♦ ti_rr 1 Plaza tF 11 1 1 1 e 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 -----------1 1 11 1 JrRcHfL 1 OaR � � 1 1 1 r a . t � 1 Pa I r r ^ f � Park r r r r r rr e'1hilrn i S]. Ji3tay�.✓ V i eMPr ii4YY[1tr.1�R' ------------------------ N 0 900 11800 3.600 Feet iI I kI I iI Legend One Mite Buffer Terra Bella Vision Plan i___,I F1alfMileBuffer 0 Retail Center CrlY OF MOUNTNN VPI Downtown C) North Bayshore Proposed Retail Center 4--. Project Boundary Retail Centers 75 Environmental Cleanup The Plan area includes the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund, as shown in Figure A-8. The super fund site includes the former Teledyne Semiconductor (Teledyne) property located at 1300 Terra Bella Avenue and the former Spectra -Physics Lasers (Spectra -Physics) property located at 1250 West Middlefield Road. Investigations beginning in the 1980's documented the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (mainly trichloroethene (TCE) and its associated degradation products such as cis1,2-dichloroethene) into soil and groundwater at the properties within the Spectra -Physics site. Furthermore, contaminated groundwater that migrated north from another contaminated site, Teledyne Semiconductor (just north of Highway 101), merged with the contaminated plume of the Spectra -Physics site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) oversees cleanup activities in the superfund site. Various cleanup efforts have been ongoingsince the 1980's. New development within the Spectra -Physics site may need to invest in remediation, vapor barriers, or other clean-up strategies. While the past/ongoing groundwater remedy has substantially reduced contaminant concentrations, cleanup will likely continue for many years to come W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 76 Figure A-8. Sites with Listed Contaminants RPCKSU m �HFAVF N A, OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY Spp vC- � *7 + r* i ►* i i ■ ■f* r ■ R ■ �� r + ..MOM* *#, r /D44. 44p� %-:1 K TER k ?D +►� m J f �+ W i RW 7 !'� Z kA F ti +� J . ■i �' k@4 �� BC ■C ,1,4N s ++i v�+■■■rr■■wr■■■■wwwwrwrrrrr■■■�■�rr■■■■rw■s■■■■■ ak SAN�USpVF 250 500 Terra Bella Vision Plan Cr°r OF MOUKTAN VIF%ti 1,000 Feet ON SAH ARDD WAY � SAN PABIC' DR Ww r L g � r� N U S,M1 CARRIZA %VA, Legend Contaminated Sites Project Boundary Sites with Listed Contaminants Source: €nvironmental Protection Age ncy[https.IJwww.epogovlsuperfundj 77 Mobility Roadways Terra Bella is located along North Shoreline Boulevard adjacent to the intersection of Highways 101 and 85, which provides regional motor vehicle access to the area, as well as connectivity to both City and regional destinations. In addition, West Middlefield Road runs along the southern boundary of much of the area, and Terra Bella Avenue provides an important east/west spine within the neighborhood. Of these roadways, North Shoreline Boulevard connects Terra Bella to both Downtown Mountain View and the North Bayshore employment area. It is the only north -south roadway through the Plan area, is served by several transit stops, provides north -south bike connections suitable for confident bicyclists, and connects directly to and crosses the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101). Although the area has close freeway access, traffic congestion during the commute hours can make it very difficult to access. The most recent data on traffic volumes and congestion suggest that intersections in the Plan area do not experience significant congestion despite high volumes on North Shoreline Boulevard (though the intersections just outside the Plan area at North Shoreline Boulevard and La Avenida Street and North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road do). Table A-3 provides data on traffic volumes in the area. w Z H Z O X LL O } H U 78 Table A-3. Traffic VoLumes in Study Area Source: 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard Office Building Project Final Transportation Impact Assessment, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015 Note: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was estimated based on the PM peak traffic volume Traffic VoLumes Time Street Cross -street Period North Middlefield PM Peak Shoreline Rdst 1,110 756 758 1,588 Blvd North Middlefield Est. ADT Shoreline Rdst 11,100 7,560 7,580 15,880 Blvd North PM Peak Shoreline Terra Bella Ave 102 95 1,056 1,453 Blvd North Est. ADT Shoreline Terra Bella Ave 1,020 950 10,560 14,530 Blvd Source: 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard Office Building Project Final Transportation Impact Assessment, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015 Note: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was estimated based on the PM peak traffic volume Active Transportation Network The Plan area is served by a complete sidewalk network within and extending far outside of the area in all directions. All of the streets within the Plan area have sidewalks on both sides of the street, as do nearly all of the streets in the surrounding area. Sidewalks appear to be well maintained and in good condition. All major intersections have crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Bicycle access and bicycle level of traffic stress in the Terra Bella area is mixed. Both North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road are wide, heavily - trafficked roadways, with four lanes of traffic and turn lanes. The current Class II bike lanes on North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road are narrow with minimal separation from auto traffic, and are thus deemed moderate -stress facilities. However, North Shoreline Boulevard is slated for conversion to a Class IV protected bikeway. This upgrade will significantly reducethe intersection stress of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, and will improve connectivity to Terra Bella Avenue. U.S. Route 101 presents a major challenge for multimodal travel from Terra Bella to the North Bayshore employment area. The existing overpass provides minimal accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians, and the high vehicle speeds and challenging crossings largely deter travel on bike or by foot. A dedicated pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Highway 101 on the west side of North Shoreline Boulevard is currently in design. When it is constructed, it will significantly improve safety, attract bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and improve bike/ped connectivity between Terra Bella and North Bayshore. See Figure A-9 for existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure locations. 79 Figure A -g. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Infrastructure OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY 7 w � � +u 0 0 7 saR�cyr h 2 'Sr !o LAAMYIpq • R t� R,r*mss+fir •S ■ ri �1 IRI �lr 9� �r�aa � ` a %* TURASELLAAVE u �R b6FWAVE *R' L ♦ m Z % V: W. ■ 4 sF 4 a � • ■ v SApp'k4RCq.T CrR k' 40 + IL ■ii��Aifiif■��1f ■1r���.a�if ����ii�l��ii �rt� 8 F S<iN ()'SA 5AN ARRJ WAY L44 AAB La C k 4 B F— v q SAN CAFbW0 oAv C tr 7 N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet �ITITI ! h �'""•"': Building Footprints i i i i i iC flan Boundary Existing/Proposed Bike Facilities Terra Bella Vision Pian ••••• Class I Path Cirrni Lien�.�� t��•.•.-•• Protected Bikeway [Class IV] •••-• Class II Bike Lane i '••••• Class III Route • Transit Connections The Terra Bella neighborhood is served by three transit providers operating routes within the Plan area - Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MVgo), and Mountain View Community Shuttle. Combined, these operators run seven fixed -route services that travel near or through the Plan area. Of these services, five are within a half mile of the Plan area: • VTA Route 40 - Foothill to Mountain View • VTA Route 185 - Gilroy Transit Center - Mountain View • MVgo East Bayshore (Orange) Shuttle • MVgo West Bayshore (Green) Shuttle • Mountain View Community Shuttle The West and the East Bayshore Mountain View Go (MVgo) shuttle connects the Plan area to the Caltrain and the VTA Light Rail station in Downtown Mountain View. MVgo provides free shuttle service to reduce trafficvolumes forthe benefit of the community. While targeted for commuters accessing employment areas in North Bayshore and East Whisman, it is available for use by all members of the public. Transit route locations are illustrated in Figure A-10. Planned transit improvements along North Shoreline Boulevard (such as the planned dedicated reversible transit lane) and West Middlefield Road will improve transit access to both Caltrain and VTA by making bus service faster and more reliable especially during peak hours. This will enhance the development opportunities in Terra Bella. In addition, the City is studying automated guideway transportation (AGT) options for North Shoreline Boulevard to address anticipated commuter traffic between Downtown and North Bayshore. z a z O a g J W m LU W H 81 Figure A -so. Bus Routes Operating Within or Near the Study Area LA AVENIDA © a 4oRi� ROCK ST Rcq� S,9 � a � o� SRN 114ARCDS CCR h � SAN ZU1S,gt G A L1 t] N 0 240 480 950 Feet Legend Building Footprints ` ProjectBoundary Terra Bella Vision Plan •d- VTAroutes/stops Mountain View Go -4� Future 8RT lineistops CITY (,I Nkxa uT,%[x Yi w `Note: this mop shows transit routes and stops os ofApri12018. SAN PABLO DR Ln SAN CARRIZD WAY Transit J C7 S, A L1 t] N 0 240 480 950 Feet Legend Building Footprints ` ProjectBoundary Terra Bella Vision Plan •d- VTAroutes/stops Mountain View Go -4� Future 8RT lineistops CITY (,I Nkxa uT,%[x Yi w `Note: this mop shows transit routes and stops os ofApri12018. SAN PABLO DR Ln SAN CARRIZD WAY Transit Key Considerations The following is a brief summary of the key considerations in the Terra Bella area. 1. Parks and open spaces. Though there are public parks located outside of the Terra Bella area, there are no public parks or community space within the neighborhood. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is in need of additional open space to meet the City's goal. 2. Traffic and parking. Traffic congestion is a key issue in the area, particularly along North Shoreline Boulevard funneling in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore. While many community members expressed interest in seeing more housing and non-residential development in Terra Bella, there was concern that new development could lead to more traffic congestion and parking spillover in adjacent residential neighborhoods. I Walking and bicycling conditions. Major auto -oriented roadways including US -101, SR -85, Shoreline Boulevard, and Middlefield Road create high stress conditions and substantial barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access in, out and through the area. Additionally, long block lengths in Terra Bella, particularly west of North Shoreline Boulevard, has resulted in poor pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by reducing opportunities for crossings and direct routes. Building pedestrian/bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), protected bikeways and full-time bike lanes, and breaking up large blocks with streets or greenways can improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 4. Mix of uses. Terra Bella consists of predominately office and light industrial uses, with limited residential and retail uses. The result is a commuter -oriented environment with limited neighborhood amenities and little to no evening or nighttime activity. The community expressed interest in encouraging a diverse mix of uses and activities in Terra Bella while maintaining the unique and quiet character of the area. rj. Development and building character. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard, is characterized by large suburban office parks. In many cases, buildings do not face directly onto the street and have deep front and side setbacks, with little interaction between private properties and the public realm. Active and well-designed building frontages are crucial for creating a more inviting, pedestrian -oriented environment that will attract people to walk, gather, shop, and spend time. 6. Residential adjacency. The Terra Bella area is bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast, including Rock Street and Stierlin Estates. Future development should be designed to respect and benefit the adjacent single-family neighborhoods by providing additional amenities for residents, improving multimodal access, and creating appropriate transitions to existing homes. 7. Small business preservation. Terra Bella, particularly the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard, is home to an eclectic mix of small businesses, light industrial uses, and non -profits. Redevelopment of the area could continue to put upward pressure on property values and rents, leading to displacement. S. Environmental conditions. Contaminated sites in Terra Bella, particularly the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund site west of North Shoreline Boulevard, pose a concern for new development. While cleanup activities are still ongoing, further studies and remediation will likely be required, especially if new housing and non-residential development is considered in this area. 83 FA 0 LiFA 0 s� Ah A 4W T:f: Ah 0 Ah FA 0 Lipi Attachment 2 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small -group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects / terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses— especially mixed-use, residential, and retail —to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists. 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1of8 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well as additional mixed- use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 2of8 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use Alternatives and, specifically, neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around Reduced -Intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to include reduced development intensity and additional transition strategies in the area bordering the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood, and the area is identified in the blue dashed box in Figure 3 below. At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower - intensity land use alternative was being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to increase the residential density along West Middlefield Road, currently identified as medium -intensity Residential Land Use (up to five stories), to higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven 3of8 stories). The area for the suggested modification is shown in the green thick dashed box in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Community Outreach Meeting, January 28, 2019—Input on Land Use Alternative 0 OLD MIDDLEFFfLD WAY m Z f LA AVENrQA yc 2 S . 2 ROEr ST '' 1000 y _ _' ■ Residential ■ ■ de L S4N RgyRcas 4R Ah W�q� 3d 3 � � e F ............. Toy a fiesidentlalY e. Mixe6 use �>f/e'Of ':' ��• Office to 4stories) p With Retail Llghtlndustrl If Residential (up to 5 stories) N otese Ls O TERAA BELLA AVE ===I New Street � 9t'rEt — Light lndustriaV LightlntlustrlaV 4WL - I i Residennas omce - DW - / ✓�f�i�, Light Industrial / Offi[e IEesidential MJK W I^ '( � Residential ``B O - Residential Residential E4N PR90 wax g SArc Paato➢R _____� o f vvy�` ,� SAN GRflIZ9 W4Y N 0 250 SOfl 1,000 Feet Residential to 3stories) p Office to 4stories) p `:::■:' Plan Boundary suu.i Y Residential (up to 5 stories) office (up to 6 stories) %. ^Avv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories} Ught Industrial!Office ===I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to 2 stories) �. New Pedestrian/Bike Path Unne M111411111tu. : Mixed use with Retail / ✓�f�i�, Light Industrial / Offi[e (up to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space* Actual location will he determined as projects come forward Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is provided as Attachment 4 to this report —Stakeholder Meetings Summary. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles, and Other Policies The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning Plan area in October and November 2018. 4of8 In summary, the Councilmembers were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding principles for the Plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use Alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the Analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern Plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as jobs -housing balance and school strategies. Environmental Planning Commission Meeting —February 20, 2019 On February 20, 2019, the EPC held a Study Session to provide policy direction on the preferred land use alternative (see Attachment 2 — EPC Study Session Report). The meeting was focused on land use alternative selection for the Plan area. Seven members of the public spoke at the EPC meeting, including residents, property owners, and business representatives. Comments included: • Maintain the General Plan 2030 vision. • Strong need for sensitive neighborhood transition strategies to preserve the existing neighborhood character. 5of8 • Support lower building heights adjacent to current single-family zoned properties. • Concern with the amount of change proposed in the area. • Concerns with additional traffic issues from the proposed land uses adding to the current traffic issues along Shoreline Boulevard. • Concerns with additional office land uses contributing to greater jobs -housing imbalance. The EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: 1. Mixed -Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the Plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 2—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single - story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern Plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two- story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher - intensity residential (up to seven stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to three stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6of8 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to six stories to up to three stories (3 to 3 vote). 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to two stories immediately adjacent to existing R1 -zoned property along the southeastern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (up to five stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to three stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to seven stories to up to five stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 7of8 �FW4yF �kfgyF 7 Figure 2: Areas of EPC Discussion Based on Alternative 5 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY a m z rr 0 iuRfry�sr � 2 Z W SJ ♦ • f ■ 4 3 Residential 3 "kp `.�§....: •' •.. ■ TFgg4 Residemial B 4 of 1 ■•1••• *i,' Mlwlth Office ; Residential RQ •,. Muoed use Residential F�Aq ••. Z with a� "�o � •. Mired use- Retail 10 .• Z �MNtCaSgR =t4". ,Z •': ■ �N�N�S AVF 0 3 a JA AViNIDA nor Lghtindustrial/ Office '.• �. FE RRA RFLLA AVE Lightlndustrial! Eight Industria, Office Office residential N ReWgtial sr,ry ARX WA+ SAN PABLO nn � � F 1. GRa¢0 W, N�.....� 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to3stor'les} Office (up to4stories) ---'-� Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) 4� Office (up to 6 stories) vwvv Neighborhood Transitions Light Industrial/Office ���I New Street Residential (upto7stories) �%IN/1 (up to2stories) Terra Bella Vision Plan ---- New Pedestrian/Bike Path C11 I ')I Nh<�,1rNV1 J��/� Mixed Use with Retail / Light Industrial /Office (up to a stories) 4"h, Conceptual Public Open Space ' Actual location will be determined as projects come forward EPC expressed concerns about how the land use alternatives impact the jobs -housing balance, schools, and traffic in the area EPC also emphasized on providing context - sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. DP/5/CDD 807-10-23-19GP 8of8 DATE: April 2, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner Martin Alkire, Principal Planner Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director VIA: Daniel H. Rich, City Manager TITLE: Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives PURPOSE Attachment 3 The purpose of this Study Session is to present revised land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan and summarize input from the February 20 Environmental Planning Commission meeting. Staff is seeking City Council input and policy direction on a preferred land use and next steps for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan. BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan process started in April 2018 and has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Attachment 1 (Summary of Prior Meetings). This work was authorized by the City Council as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and develop strategies to guide future development in the area. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. Therefore, no specific vision was identified for the area during the 2030 General Plan update process. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 19 Figure 1: Vision Plan Area EPC and Council Meetings "s AM PA9LC OP 0 The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on potential land use alternatives and other policy direction on October 17, 2018 and November 13, 2018, respectively. In summary, the City Council was supportive of the addition of residential land uses in the Plan area, and envisions a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Several members of the public spoke at both the EPC and City Council meetings, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, the need for policies that create sensitive transitions adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in the area, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The City Council responses to all the questions from the November 2018 Study Session are summarized in the table below, including EPC comments where noted. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 19 P Vision and Guiding Council supported the proposed vision and Principles guiding principles for the plan area. 2 Land Use Alternatives Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative with certain changes discussed in the Analysis section of this report. 3 Neighborhood Transition Council supported proposed transition Strategies strategies and suggested additional transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Council supported the community benefit Strategy strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. 6 Other Strategies Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring other strategies such as jobs -housing balance and school strategies. The City Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative 4 (refer to Figure 2—EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative) and further directed staff to study several changes to Alternative 4. The Council also directed staff to study an additional alternative with reduced residential densities at key locations. These changes are discussed in the Analysis section of the report. Council further directed staff to hold an additional focused outreach meeting to gather input from residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Northwestern Plan boundary; a summary of this meeting is discussed below. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 19 Figure 2: EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative o - OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY ? �3 m $ iLAAWNIDA i 11 It Z • •y �f • 1: ■ Residential '1"0 6 �• ■ ■ O�cA `�•.....: •••� •••. 707 ■ ♦ •. • Church •• ■ 4* *4'yq Re5ldential •*4' .• �, LY••.• 1N1 NP , �' 7FCokn••.1 3 M Y o•4� aN M4 4R $qN fU15A"/E O N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet AdIML Terra Bella Vision Plan Curr ur 1+tO0NIAl.v V" SAN AFOO WAY s O .' snre aaata oA � ('Lvt�, Residential(upto3stories) Office(upto4stories) Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (upto 6 stories) 1 • �•.� ryptel M. 1 1 RCsidemiad light induseria� Othce ••• Hotel (upto 7 stories) e TERRA BELLS AVE Office MMeduw 1 _ Lght Industrial/ m ssAth 1 Residential Qtfice Wall 1 i Z Mf ed llse� 1 `+ Residential Re9dential RcWG O Office — — —s— Residential SAN AFOO WAY s O .' snre aaata oA � ('Lvt�, Residential(upto3stories) Office(upto4stories) Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (upto 6 stories) Residential (upto 7 stories) Church Mixed Use with Retail Light lndustdal / Office (up to 2 stories) Hotel (upto 7 stories) Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) SAN rAARDO WAY Plan Boundary ■■■wwv Neighborhood Transitions mmm1 New Street • — — • New PedestrianBike Path Conceptual Public Open Space As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use Alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around Reduced -Intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to include reduced development intensity and additional transition strategies in the area bordering the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood, and the area is identified in the blue dashed box in Figure 3 below. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 5 of 19 At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity land use alternative was being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower - Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to increase the residential density along West Middlefield Road, currently identified as medium -intensity Residential Land Use (up to five stories), to higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories). The area for the suggested modification is shown in the green thick dashed box in Figure 3 below. r ASM Figure 3: Community Outreach Meeting, January 28, 2019 — Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY • _.111P - I � flesitlential ® ,41 ''•• O �► `F<oRo � COs rtq �iNtL�A� m o z - J � O LAAVENIDA N z aesidentlaf! •� Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui S C i Office {up to 6 stories) Llgh lndusttiaV ••!•! snonRoo war ' Mixed use DFfiee ' flesidelrcfal saa R,& QR ••!! Aetai! i Lgl tl dustrlal,' !!! !1! 411 Office TERRA SELiA AVE !� office ® - Light Indust -1/ Llghrindus,_V � m �Rlixed use flesldential ` OtSee - UFFre With M,Istff{� flesldenCyl R.esitlential !!� Residential Residential N 0 250 500 1,006 Feet •� Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui S C i Office {up to 6 stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions snonRoo war ff------__- saa R,& QR ��r�tl New Street � 6 F Cur or Mauivraln vi... Mixed Use with Retail� 6 � SAN [ARRIZO WAY Conceptual Public Open Space N 0 250 500 1,006 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui A Residential (up to 5 stories) i Office {up to 6 stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions Residential {upto7stories) i��� Light industrial (up to2sturies) ��r�tl New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan New Pedestrian/l Path Cur or Mauivraln vi... Mixed Use with Retail� Light Industrial / Office (up to 4 storles) Conceptual Public Open Space 'Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 6 of 19 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting—February 20, 2019 On February 20, 2019, the EPC held a Study Session to provide policy direction on the preferred land use alternative (see Attachment 2—EPC Study Session Report). The meeting was focused on land use alternative selection for the plan area. Seven members of the public spoke at the EPC meeting, including residents, property owners, and business representatives. In addition, staff also received e-mails, letters, and other correspondence since November 2018 (these are included in Attachment 3 —Additional Public Comment). In summary, comments included: • Maintain the General Plan 2030 vision. • Strong concerns related to a proposed six- to seven -story building height and areas of greater intensity adjacent to existing one- to two-story residential neighborhoods. • Strong need for sensitive neighborhood transition strategies to preserve the existing neighborhood character. • Support lower building heights adjacent to current single-family zoned properties and landscaping as a buffer. • Concern with the amount of change proposed in the area. • Concerns with additional traffic issues from the proposed land uses adding to the current traffic issues along Shoreline Boulevard. • Concerns with additional office land uses contributing to greater job -housing imbalance. EPC input is summarized in the Analysis section. ATVAT YET% Since the November 13, 2018 City Council Study Session, the project team has refined the land use alternatives based on Council direction, the February 2019 EPC Study Session, and public input. The major refinements include the following: 1. Created additional mixed-use areas along Shoreline Boulevard to create an area that allows a mix of retail, services, and active land uses. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 7 of 19 2. Incorporated neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary west of Shoreline Boulevard to reduce potential impacts of new development on existing single-family home areas. 3. Extended the Industrial/ Office Land Use along San Rafael Avenue up to Terra Bella Avenue to create a more continuous industrial zone. 4. Increased the intensity of Industrial/ Office Land Use between Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and south of U.S. 101 to accommodate higher -intensity office use close to U.S. 101, which acts as a natural barrier. 5. Shifted the bike/ pedestrian path closer to the Southern Plan Area boundary east of Shoreline Boulevard to create a better access along the single-family homes. These topics are enumerated 1 through 5 on Figure 4 below to more easily reference the geographic location to which the Council directed changes (refer to Figure 4 —Revised Land Uses — Alternative 5). The City Council asked staff to update the alternative based on the above input (Alternative 5 below) and a second with lower overall residential densities (Alternative 6 below). Revised Land Uses —Alternative 5 Land Use Alternative 5, shown in Figure 4 below, incorporates all the City Council direction from the November 2018 Study Session meeting discussed above. These changes result in additional potential housing units and nonresidential square footage (due to the current church site being suitable for housing in the future). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 8 of 19 Figure 4: Revised Land Uses—Alternative 5 OLD MIDQLEFIELD WAY } m dF LAAVENeDA _ 1 Z r L' aocssr Ns. ♦ ♦♦L ♦ P• a aResidenoal p e ♦;i* ...w♦'.. •♦.'♦, Ior 4 ■ ■ r rFg � Retiderrtiai �. ■ , 9� F♦. ti♦•♦♦' `,` %-Ith— Qrfice Residential ,✓/�.f ♦♦♦♦♦' (y a♦ q \ Retail Lightindustrial/ / ♦♦ /oD�f!.♦♦ �`�'aar �,�, i - otRc TERRAR€!!nave ♦♦ /f7 .♦• Office ♦ j, J Li9h[Industrial! Light lnd.m.1/ �♦ oRrwAVE F RQ ♦'♦♦ as Mued use Residential office p� $sA' ♦♦ Z oath Residential • ti 3 •♦♦ enixedus,Z Retail n Residential °oAVEA � ,� aye c� .♦ w�tlt w ■� yr ♦♦♦♦RMall = Residential Residential �M^Rcas 3` ♦♦♦ ■ hlll� K7 GR �„ �■ - .. to . _ ■ SnH .1HL r�;3ay SAM PABLO RR "� �ry r�lS AVE 1 SAN � H.0 WAP 5 N �uuu 1 0 250 500 1.000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to6stories) vwvv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) ��'-, Light Industrial/Office -- l New Street (up to 2 stories) New Pedestrian/Bike Path C. uH Cv os MorniR view Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retail Light Industrial /Office (up to 4 stories) Oil Conceptual Public Open Space Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Revised Land Use —Alternative 6 (Lower Density) At the November 18 Study Session, Council also asked for a lower -density alternative. Alternative 6, as shown in Figure 5 below, was developed based on City Council input by further refining the revised land use alternative discussed above and studying an alternative with lower residential densities. The highest residential density areas allowing up to seven stories are reduced to up to five stories throughout the plan area, and the medium -density residential land uses areas allowing up to five stories are reduced to up to three stories west of Shoreline Boulevard. A portion of the higher - intensity office use (up to five stories) north of Terra Bella Avenue and south of U.S. 101 was changed to lower -intensity office (up to three stories). Alternative 6 reduces the projected housing units significantly from 2,500 to 1,700, whereas the nonresidential Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 9 of 19 square footage has increased from 1.6 million square feet to 1.7 million square feet (due to some residential being changed to light industrial). Comparison of Alternatives 5 and 6 Charts 1 and 2 below compare several key factors between existing conditions, the original EPC -recommended option, and the two land use alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use and Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Figure 5: Revised Land Uses —Alternative 6 (Lower -Residential Density) 0 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY 1 z I� d LAAV■afoA z RXR st a � • ■'. • a It y■ ■ ♦ ♦ A. ■ ■ �rP ■ � A ■ RPSidentlai `N�1...■T�•`+ ?E,gagB� Residential fi rFt�q ----r---- '.. •.moi +� �+ � OrRrn ' ResMentral fj // �,��� H � , �TjQO.�` � e� ��,I ' Light lnduudaV �• Office %f •�� b TERRA SELLA AVE ��• ogEH,A R F 1� F�QRO•••,, light lndustrlaV •• - tight lndushiaU • Residential • �yRq '- Ofike b _ •.• 2 with MlxeduRetail Residential 6 Residential Npa ® 5 i with ••� Rett D Residential Residential•` �414111eCIe y �� SAN AR6p WAy m tAk[Ill54VE d g SAN PAnl00R Uz ff $ r 54N CARRI$P WAY N 0 250 500 1,01M, Fr or Residential (up to 3 stories) �s.•ru� Office (up to 3 stories) Plan Boundary iuu•i N i { Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) w+.wP Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) - Light Industrial/Office m== i New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to 2 stories) . New Pedestrian/Bike Path Mixed Use with Retail X111.1 Light Industrial /Office (up to 4 stories) Ak Conceptual Public Open Space . Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Comparison of Alternatives 5 and 6 Charts 1 and 2 below compare several key factors between existing conditions, the original EPC -recommended option, and the two land use alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use and Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 10 of 19 Chart 1: Land Use Options and Mix of Land Uses Residential Housing 3(3%) 35(38%) 35(38%) 35(38%) Area 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF Office Area 62(66%) 28(29%) 25(27%) 25(27%) Light Industrial/ Office 19(20%) 15(16%) 18(19%) 18(19%) Area Mixed Use / Retail Area 1 (1%) 5(5%) 11(12%) 11(12%) Hotel Area 0% 3(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Park/ Open Space Area 0(0%) 5.1(5%) 4.6(5%) 4.6(5%) Institutional/ Church 7(8%) 2.5(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) *Figures in Chart 1 represent number of acres and composition of land use based on acreage. Chart 2: Land Use Options Comparison —20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 3,200 to 3,600 9 Residents* 2,000 to 2,600 1,500 to 1,700 1.4 msf Housing Units 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF (-73 ksf retail) Employees** Jobs — Housing Mix —20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 3,200 to 3,600 9 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 1,500 to 1,700 1.4 msf 1.6 msf 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) (-56 ksf retail) (-73 ksf retail) (-73 ksf retail) -4,200 *Assumes 2.1 residents per unit **Assumes 3 employees per 1,000 square feet 4,700 -5,400 -5,200 0 e 0 Better to worse Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 11 of 19 EPC Input At its February 2019 Study Session, the EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: 1. Mixed Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 6—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single - story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two- story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3-3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher - intensity residential (up to 7 stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to 3 stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to 6 stories to up to 3 stories (3 to 3 vote). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 12 of 19 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to 2 stories immediately adjacent to existing R1 -zoned property along the southeastern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote) . 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (up to 5 stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to 3 stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to 7 stories to up to 5 stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 13 of 19 Figure 6: Areas of EPC Discussion Based on Alternative 5 Transition Strategies At the EPC Study Session on February 20, 2019, there was considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. In November 2018, staff presented a series of potential strategies to provide appropriate transition buffers for future development in the Plan area, including: increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs, 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes, orientating primary windows away from existing homes, providing landscape buffers, and limiting balconies. Below are some illustrative examples of what these transition strategies could look like along the edges of the Terra Bella Plan Area near single-family homes. The following illustrations show a OLD MIDDLEFI EL6 WAY 0 � �3 0 0 LA AVENIVq 2 ROCK ST . ♦ •• z r•• • • is ■ ♦ K■ ■ • J 4 i f . , , 3 w Residential Q 6 :. ...... .•.. .`...■.'`••.••'•♦ X07 ,7 � � a TtRq „� Resldemial %/� Jh ti••••• ��"a �`I Mduw •••••• Office Res. i wlth .�A i Retail LightlndustdaV •• iv • Ps 49,0••'.erl� i 40'e ,/ office ••. o�PR••• ru, ,' / T"", - FER"RELUAVE ••• onF wgvF �4� . `. •!. J Lightheugtrial! - Lightlndustrial/ G. � ., 2 + • m Residenihal Off*.ce CHfice Mired uxe �:' Np _. i ••• '�1�k .t 1• ` Z with �esidenRal (] Miae'h Reran RRRIghtial eve^✓� m 2 �' 4 e - ••. �� •• heta'el 10 O 8 f$Idenhai Resijintial •. x lJJ �'M WC sc �• �`...�..tiill��Lt! titV* F SnN Aa��S•rAP 5AN P68L0 DR �NtU,s4t'a o 5 � 2 b) S1N CARi,.a WAY g 4 250 500 1,111111 11111t Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to4stories} Plan Boundary A iiesidential(upto5stories) Office (Up to6stories} wvw Neighborhood Transitions Residential (upto7stories) Light Industrial /Office ���I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan to 2stories) ■��■ New Pedestrian/Bike Path cnvoa n7ouufn,N Vii •:. /(up Mined Use with Retail J//1/� Light Industrial /Office (up to4stories) dft Conceptual Public Open Space" " Actual location will be determined as projects tome farward Transition Strategies At the EPC Study Session on February 20, 2019, there was considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. In November 2018, staff presented a series of potential strategies to provide appropriate transition buffers for future development in the Plan area, including: increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs, 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes, orientating primary windows away from existing homes, providing landscape buffers, and limiting balconies. Below are some illustrative examples of what these transition strategies could look like along the edges of the Terra Bella Plan Area near single-family homes. The following illustrations show a Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 14 of 19 combination of several transition strategies that could be considered in a variety of circumstances and are not necessarily specific to just Terra Bella. Example No. 1: Landscaping along the edges creates a buffer and screens views into neighboring homes. An alley or street is accommodated in the minimum setback area between new development and existing single-family homes. Townhomes are two stories at street/ alley level, stepping up to three stories. Maximum height is established (as shown on the Vision Plan diagram), and follows a 45 -degree daylight plane. Figure 7: Landscape Buffer Strategy 1 Single-family home Alley -loaded townhomes Example No. 2: Landscaping along the edges creates a buffer and screens views into neighboring homes. A new street, and an expanded setback area, provides a setback between new development and existing single-family homes. Three (3) story townhomes are turned sideways so that primary windows are not facing the backyard of single-family homes. Maximum height is established (as shown on the Vision Plan diagram), and follows a 45 -degree daylight plane. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 15 of 19 Figure 8: Landscape Buffer Strategy 2 Single-family home Townhomes rotated for privacy In addition, the Vision Plan could stipulate that any new development proposals include additional analyses to reduce the impacts on neighboring single-family homes, which could include view and shadow studies. Other Impacts EPC was concerned about how the land use alternatives impact the jobs -housing balance, schools, and traffic in the area. The Vision Plan intends to gather community input on key topics such as land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement big -picture General Plan direction and Council goals. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. Such detailed development standards and regulatory framework would require additional studies through a Precise Plan process. In reviewing this information, the Council should consider which alternative best represents its vision for Terra Bella Avenue and any particular policy areas that should be addressed. Staff also notes that elements within each alternative can be mixed and matched. Council Question No. 1: Which Land Use Vision Alternative does the Council prefer for Terra Bella Avenue? Council Question No. 2: Are there particular policy areas or direction that Council would like the Plan to emphasize or address? Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 16 of 19 Future Precise Plan During the last round of public meetings, some Environmental Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers as well as community members discussed interest in developing a Terra Bella Precise Plan once the Visioning Plan was adopted. The following is a comparison of the pros and cons of the City embarking on a new Terra Bella Precise Plan or just using an adopted Terra Bella Visioning Plan. Option 1: Terra Bella Precise Plan Pros: • A comprehensive and detailed standards and guidelines, such as floor area ratio, building setbacks, and TDM requirements, etc., would provide greater clarity and expectations for developers, the community, and decision makers. • More detailed analysis, including environmental review and technical studies on topics such as development feasibility; transportation, utility, and air quality impacts; and school and public infrastructure needs would provide more information to help evaluate new development proposals. • More efficient and consistent environmental review of development projects based on one Precise Plan EIR. Cons: • Would require significant additional staff time and funding. • The Precise Plan could take approximately 18 to 24 months, which could result in delays of pending projects or missed opportunities if market conditions change. Although preparation of a Precise Plan can take up to 24 months, the City Council could consider allowing Gatekeeper projects once the Public draft of the precise plan is available (time frame -12 months) to reduce the delay in project review time, as shown in the following graphic. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 17 of 19 Summer '19 Summer '21 I I I I I I I I Visioning I I 18 Months (Programmatic EIR) Precise Plan I 1 I I I I I I Draft PP - 12months I I I I 1 Gatekeeper 1 1 I � � 18 months with a Neg. Dec 1 1 I I I I I 1 I Total 2.5 years > Option 2: Terra Bella Vision Plan Pros: Winter/' Spring'2e • Review Time: Allows Gatekeeper project to move forward sooner instead of waiting for a Precise Plan process, which could result in some desired land uses, such as new housing, to be built. Cons: • Each project would be reviewed ou a case-by-case basis without detailed and established development standards or guidelines. This would involve negotiations on a project -by -project basis over key topics, such as building setbacks, which could result in an inefficient process and inconsistent City requirements. • Project CEQA Review: Each Gatekeeper project would need individual CEQA review which would create greater inefficiencies and require more staff review. • Resources: Individual Gatekeeper projects would require more staffing resources. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 18 of 19 Council Question No. 3: Does the City Council wish to add creating a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a possible priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as the next step following the Vision Plan Adoption? When staff brings back the final Vision Plan for adoption, after Council has determined its priority projects, the question of when or whether to accept Gatekeepers can be addressed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback on the preferred land use alternative for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Area and direction on the following questions posed in the Study Session memo: 1. Which land use vision alternative does the City Council prefer for Terra Bella? 2. Are there particular policy areas or direction that Council would like the Plan to emphasize or address? 3. Does the City Council wish to add creating a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a possible priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as the next step following the Vision Plan Adoption? NEXT STEPS Following this Council Study Session, the project team will continue preparing the Draft Vision Plan. The public draft of the Vision Plan is anticipated in spring 2019. Final adoption of the Plan is anticipated before the summer 2019 Council break. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 19 of 19 PUBLIC NOTICING The City Council agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations: Rex Manor Neighborhood Association and North Whisman Neighborhood Association. Social media was used to notify the public and the school districts were notified. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SE. DP-MA-AS/5/CAM 807-04-02-19SS 190191 Attachments: 1. Summary of Prior Meetings 2. EPC Study Session Report —February 20, 2019 3. Additional Public Comment Attachment 1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses —especially mixed-use, residential, and retail — to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. asR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. PJ 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is provided as Attachment 4 to this report —Stakeholder Meetings Summary. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles and Other Policies The EPC and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning plan area in October and November 2018. In summary, the Council members were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke 3 at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding rind les for the plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e. near Mor an Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Council members supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as Job -housing balance and school strategies. al Attachment 2 6.1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 20, 2019 6. STUDY SESSION 6.1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives RECOMMENDATION That the Environmental Planning Commission to review and provide input to the City Council on land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning Plan Area. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations— Rex Manor Neighborhood and North Whisman Neighborhood Associations. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: https: / /www.mountainview. gov / depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terra_ bella.asp BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan process started in April 2018 and has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and EPC and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Exhibit 1 (Summary of Prior Meetings). This work was authorized by the City Council as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and develop strategies to guide future development in the area. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. Therefore, no specific vision was identified for the area during the last General Plan update process. Visioning Process Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 9 Figure 1: Vision Plan Area Visioning processes provide an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key topics like land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement big picture General Plan direction and Council goals. The resulting Vision Plan is a guiding document that can inform future creation of a Precise Plan to accomplish the identified vision for the area. While some specific objectives may be articulated for preferred land uses, intensity of development and general circulation conditions, a Vision Plan does not establish specific regulations, or regulate land use, zoning or properties. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. This can be achieved through a Precise Plan development. Prior Public Meetings The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on the land uses and other policy direction on October 17 and November 13, 2018, respectively. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 9 In summary, the City Council was supportive of the addition of residential land uses in the Plan area, and envisions a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Several members of the public spoke at both the EPC and City Council meetings, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, the need for policies that create sensitive transitions adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in the area; the need for additional housing in the area; and preserving existing small businesses. The City Council responses to all the questions at the meeting are summarized in the table below, including EPC comments, where noted. 1 Vision and Guiding Council supported the proposed vision and Principles guiding principles for the plan area. 2 Land Use Alternatives Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. 3 Neighborhood Transition Council supported proposed transition Strategies strategies and suggested additional transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Council supported the community benefit Strategy strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. 6 Other Strategies Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring other strategies such as jobs - housing balance and school strategies. The City Council further directed staff to study a few changes to the EPC Preferred Land Use alternatives and study an additional alternative with reduced residential densities at key locations. These changes are discussed in the Analysis section of Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 4 of 9 this report. Council also directed staff to do an additional focused outreach meeting to gather input from residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Northwestern Plan Area boundary; a summary of this meeting is discussed below. Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around reduced - intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to implement similar development intensity and buffers in the plan area at this location that is proposed at the northwestern border adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood. The suggested changes are shown below in Figure 2: Figure 2: Community Outreach 3 —Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MI DDLEF I ELD WAY y m Ll aVF4lap S 4 erx,s, • 4 / is fy4q '? ' f4siaera4l • ' • IMrce I4ssdem4l 7 WMA•• om' ,� :` � lgnunaussaaV / •••• 'r DN tIQ ' • rru orrwc exCwxvE G ' iF7ORd �.; ' aesbernlnl1. Lglrc IMruP ruV �: u9Ft Inau56iaV •% ar Cm irpad� J �'� Reslderrt4l MIc Broil Pesden[NI � i s4swexs4i `4 T) ' ••••, �r ",,■}■, rp LK! �"P sw axoow.r g �xne�oo � 3 8 � S soh rswsrm w.v N Residential (up to 3storiesl Office fop [o4storiesl :.....0 Plan Boundary ~I Peddentlal(upto5stodes) Office (up to 6 stories.) vww Neighborhood Transitions P-1dendal(up to 7 stories) Light Industrial/Office New Street Cup to 2 stories) ol, rrr:Mrwrslx rlers Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retail �� light Industrial/Office New Pedestrian1ilte Path (ops to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space. • Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 5 of 9 At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity development alternative as suggested through public input was already being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to move the higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories) from medium -intensity Residential Land Use along the Middlefield Road frontage. Additional Public Comment E-mails, letters, and other correspondence received since the last Study Session are included in Exhibit 2 —Public Comment. The comments include strong concerns related to a proposed six- to seven -story building height and areas of greater intensity adjacent to existing one- to two-story residential neighborhoods. Traffic issues in the area were again raised as another major concern. Increased lower -density development buffer and landscaping were noted as a few suggestions. ANALYSIS Since the last public meeting, the project team has refined the Land Use alternatives based on Council direction and public input. The major refinements include the following: 1. Creating additional mixed-use areas along Shoreline Boulevard to create an area that allows a more diverse mix of retail, services, and active land uses. 2. Incorporated neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary west of Shoreline Boulevard to reduce potential impacts of new development on existing single-family home areas. 3. Extended the Industrial/ Office Land Use along San Rafael Avenue up to Terra Bella Avenue to create a more continuous industrial zone. 4. Increased the intensity of Industrial/ Office Land Use between Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and south of U.S. 101 to accommodate higher -intensity office use close to U.S. 101, which acts as a natural barrier. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 6 of 9 5. Shifted the bike/pedestrian path closer to the Southern Plan Area boundary east of Shoreline Boulevard to create a better access along the single-family homes. Revised Land Use Alternative 5 Land Use Alternative 5, shown below, incorporates all the City Council direction from the last Study Session meeting listed above. These changes result in additional potential housing units and nonresidential square footage. Figure 3: Revised Land Use Alternative 5 OLD MIDDLEFIEED WAY � m e P W a ,00 OW tAAVENfDA umRryG f h p� z aacK sr • ♦'1' el . a Residenpai � quP e'�♦`....+�• '♦♦+♦+•♦ SOF . + �g4BA //f �♦♦ tip♦ 4� ��'r'e LF M7d usr,/%//�".• • ♦,, tle office Residendal / ♦♦• je,♦♦' ♦ Retail Light Indus HA/ "/ ♦♦ �. •• "`��, �� I � Office �♦♦ Ob�E^A,♦1♦ fid ,� TERRA RELLAAVE ♦♦ /fir 1♦ Office �4R .♦ J Lightlndustrial! - Ligh[lndustriaV >• -��W4VE o=M1 O i, m Mrn.eduse Reslde'nTal D(hCe Office z �♦ 'gay ♦♦ Z with Residential RP"�oy e 4 ♦.♦ Mz..d.1, Retail Residential .W '�� ♦♦ with "4eE 2 .♦♦♦Iteyll = Resid_tial Residential IQ d 5"'t'Mnsco � ♦♦. ■ iFirl�Piiti orlr9Pi'�R1la}S �7 RrLr �� S'tR■ SAH APoa :vnr F A-PM1BLu o.� k/ Ury tU154VE � o. UA rAU.0 WA, s 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) A Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (Up to6stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) Light Industrial/Office r. ri ra New Street I (up to 2 stories) �. New Pedestrian/Bike Path L:n of Mo Nrnmnu V..Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retailrj.��`ri Light Industrial/Office (up to4stories) �•„ Conceptual Public Open Space J�+ ' Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative 6 This alternative was developed by further refining the Revised Land Use Alternative discussed above. The highest residential density (up to seven -story Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 7 of 9 densities are reduced to medium -residential intensities (up to five stories) throughout the plan area, and the Medium -Density Residential Land Uses are reduced to lower -density residential (up to three stories) to the west of Shoreline Boulevard. A portion of the higher intensity office use (up to five stories) north of Terra Bella Avenue and South of 101 was changed to lower intensity office (up to three stories). With this lower intensity option the projected housing units are reduced to half, whereas the non-residential square footage has only slightly reduced. Figure 4: Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative 6 a OLD MIODLEFI ELD WAY � �Z m 3 a / a LA AVENIOA Z gOQIT �OgGAry t . ♦♦� • oft ■ � w ■ P r �. ReAdennal \� ,`♦♦r aaar�"rr"■r1♦♦111 ■ TfRd e Residential S Oyu. 6f ' ��''r�////%♦♦ ♦♦1 ♦` � � Mfice � Resadential ��� 1111♦ {y♦11 a ,� tight Indus 0,1; / ♦O .t/, ♦1 est �1 � � Office - ♦♦ (F'ei♦1♦ Orrice _ TEgRA SELLA AVE ♦. FSA ♦♦♦,� L-ghtlndusrw/ 4gEkiavE Light lntlustrial/ Rp 1 1 m Smidentlai z Orrice � as S°�ay ♦♦♦♦♦ j �Residential � +� MoH ems: 1♦1 MiY .ry,^-+.. Residential • 4� NE4VE ® § f i ♦♦♦ R O Residential ■¢ �2 ♦1 T _.._ gesidential Na sAN N°Agcasoe � ♦♦♦,�■ islR"fiffYlA rr�.G r.r ♦• n gWz vN Al. -14 sAN vnato oq � °p '�N1itISAVE j R yp s� g 2 SAN GPEI20 WAY O N �u■u� ` 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 3 stories) Plan Boundary /■' iu■ui Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) wvw Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to7stories)%/,/LightI dustrial/office ���I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan �% (up t.-2 stories) New Pedestrian/Bike Path t:rtt or Moorttnm vrEw Mixed Use with Retail / Light Industrial /Office (up to4stories) Alilkj, Conceptual Public Open Space* "Actuallocation will bedetermined as projects come forward Alternatives Comparison A comparison chart has been prepared with estimates of several key factors to provide a comparison between existing conditions, the EPC recommended option, Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 8 of 9 and the two Land Use Alternatives discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use; Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Chart 1: Vision Option Land Use Mix Residential Housing Area 3(3%) 35(38%) 35(38%) 35(38%) Office Area 62(66%) 28(29%) 25(27%) 25 (27%) Light Industrial / Office Area 19(20%) 15(16%) 18(19%) 18(19%) Mixed Use/ Retail Area 1 (1%) 5(5%) 11(12%) 11(12%) Hotel Area 0 3(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Park / Open Space Area 0(0%) 5.1(5%) 4.6(5%) 4.6(5%) Institutional / Church 7(8%) 2.5(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Chart 2: Land Use Vision Options Comparison WResidents* 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 Housing Units 1.6 msf 1.8 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF (^73 ksf retail) Employees" -4,700 Jobs - Housing Mix *Assumes 2.1 residents per unit **Assumes 3 employees per 1,000 square feet "20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 9 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 1.4 msf 1.6 msf 1.8 msf (-3 ksf retail) (-56 ksf retail) (^73 ksf retail) 4,200 -4,700 "5,400 O 0 0 2,700 to 3,200 1,300 to 1,500 1.7 msf ("73 ksf retail) -5,200 e oeo Better to worse Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 9 of 9 In reviewing this information, the EPC should consider which alternative best represents their vision for Terra Bella Avenue. Elements within each alternative discussed can be mixed and matched. EPC Question No. 1: Which Land Use Vision Alternative does the EPC prefer for Terra Bella? CONCLUSION Staff recommends the EPC provide input to the City Council on Preferred Land Use Vision Alternatives. NEXT STEPS The City Council will review the EPC input and comments at their March 05, 2019 Study Session. After that, the project team will continue preparing the Draft Vision Plan. Staff will return to the Council in May 2019 with the public draft of the Vision Plan and discussion on next steps and gatekeeper project review process. Final adoption of the Plan is anticipated by summer 2019. Prepared by: Approved by: Diana Pancholi Martin Alkire Senior Planner Principal Planner DP/ 3/ CDD/ 807-02-20-19SR Exhibits: 1. Summary of Prior Meetings 2. Public Comment Exhibit 1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses —especially mixed-use, residential, and retail — to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. asR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. PJ 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is available on the project web page. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles and Other Policies The EPC and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning plan area in October and November 2018. In summary, the Council members were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with 3 greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding rind les for the plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e. near Mor an Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and re uirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Council members supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as Job -housing balance and school strategies. al Exhibit 2 Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Diana, We live on Morgan Street, near the Terra Bella visioning plan area, and like many of our neighbors we are a dual -income working family with kids and have not had the free time to attend the workshop sessions that have been held. I wanted to send commentary ahead of the next round of reviews, after reviewing the latest proposals. We've notice that plans are calling for immediate transition from single -family -home zoning to 7 -story residential immediately adjacent to our neighborhood, which we've learned is not something that's been done in any other project like this. While we are not opposed to the conversion of light commercial zoning over to multi -story residential, this abrupt transition seems rather extreme and will significantly impact the character of our neighborhood. Three-story residential seems like a more reasonable limit that will still add a considerable amount of housing in a needed area. We recently remodeled our home to add a second story, and had a few learnings from that process which I wanted to make sure we shared with you. First, we were a borderline case with the EPA with regards to subfloor ventilation requirements due to our proximity to the groundwater plumes; the Terra Bella area is right on top of these and so there may be restrictions on residential building. Second, we learned through soil studies that the water table is already very high in our area, and the ground is at risk of liquefaction in an earthquake. For a two-story home, this required significant additions to our foundations in order to mitigate the risks, and limited our ability to dig. For dense multi -story construction, I can only imagine how much more would need to be done, and wonder if it is even possible to build dense residential of —7 stories (including what I'd expect to be underground parking for buildings of that size) with the local geology being what it is. It would be good to get these questions answered with a detailed study before too many conclusions are drawn regarding the size and height of buildings in the Terra Bella area. As frequent users of the Shoreline athletic facilities, we've also noticed the extreme traffic during the evening commute. As part of the development plans, I'd love to see both widening of the Shoreline Boulevard highway crossing, as well as addition of public transit from Terra Bella to the Shoreline office parks, in order to help ensure easy movement of traffic in and out of that area. The Terra Bella area will be highly desirable for tech workers to live there, and the current set of overpasses over 101 are really undersized for the amount of people that need to get in and out of that area every work day. Thanks for considering this input and we look forward to hearing more about the development plans. If the City has an e-mail interest list forming for the visioning plan, I'd be happy to be added. Thanks, Patrick Neschleba Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:46 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning - Input from Impacted Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We have recently been made aware of the plan for the redevelopment of the Terra Bella, Middlefield, Shoreline area. We have also become aware that only those areas whose residents speak up the loudest are being accommodated. Those of us who trusted the City to plan according to what is fair and right for the entire neighborhood are being ignored. Clearly our trust in the City has been misplaced. So here are our voices: WE VEHEMENTLY PROTEST THIS PLAN! 6 TO 7 STORY BUILDINGS TOWERING OVER OUR 1 STORY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! Linda and Michael Thomas Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:16 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Debbi Beauchesne; Chris Beauchesne; Sue Stabell; Sue Stabell-Work.Desk Subject: Terra Bella Vision - Morgan/Spring St. Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Diana, Thank you for taking the time to speak to us last night about the Terra Bella Vision Plan. It was good to hear about the plan first-hand from you. My Morgan Court neighbors and I felt we missed a good opportunity to add our input at last year's Vision Plan workshops, but we plan to be more vocal in the future. Anyway, in reviewing some of the information about the plan, I wanted to share some of my own thoughts with you. Hopefully better late than never... I counted about twenty Stierlin Estates 1 -story single-family residences, along San Pablo Drive area, bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. It sounded like that neighborhood was well represented at the previous Vision Plan Workshops. Unfortunately, my Morgan/Spring St neighborhood, was virtually unrepresented, partly because we have nothing resembling a homeowners association. We too have about twenty 1 -story single-family residences directly bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. I would hope that we would get equal consideration, just as the more organized Stierlin Estates homeowners did, when it comes to being mindful of the transition zones between our older 1 -story residences and the new construction. I personally feel that with the Terra Bella zone adjacent to so much residential, that 5-7 story buildings seem excessively high for most of the area. As I'm sure you've already been hearing from the Stierlin Estates residents, we in the Morgan/Spring St area also would like to see a thoughtful transition from our 1 -story homes to taller buildings. I'm thinking nothing more than 2-3 stories high adjacent to our residential properties would be acceptable, combined with a generous buffer space and perhaps a landscape screen or other consideration. Noise from our new neighbors should seriously be taken into consideration also. With that said, when I look at the proposal options, my thought would be to consider having the tallest buildings right along noisy/high traffic Shoreline Blvd, and perhaps along the freeways (they would make great sound walls!), all the while keeping them fairly far away from the existing single-family residences in the neighborhood. Taller buildings on Shoreline might make for a nice gateway into central Google, which could complement (or even copy) the beautiful new4-story Google building at the corner of Terra Bella &Shoreline. (Did I mention it's only 4 -stories?). I really think it would be best for us neighborhood residents to have the tallest buildings a minimum 1-2 blocks away from all the existing 1 -story residential. Thanks for listening and we look forward to hearing about future meetings on the topic. Please keep us posted with any developments and City Council dates on the matter. Sincerely, Eric Stabell Sent from my iPhone Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:06 PM To: City.Council Cc: , City Manager, Pancholi, Diana; Tim Schrotenboer Subject: Terra Bella Visioning To Mayor Siegel, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Councilmembers, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Terra Bella area yesterday evening at the council meeting. It was clear that the council and staff have spent many hours working toward a plan for this area that considers the needs of the larger community as it grows and changes, as well as taking the time to consider the existing residents in the area, for which I personally am very grateful. I wanted to take a minute of your time to request again that this plan be moved forward through the Precise Plan process. As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the Precise Plan process was what we were told would be used when we attended the first vision planning meeting this past June, and I believe it is the only responsible way to allow development in this area that is outside of the current zoning and general plan allowances. I understand that this area is not one of those identified as a change area within the General Plan; however, it has become clear that this is an area of interest for developers. I credit the council for recognizing that when multiple projects started coming in for this area, a broader, more holistic approach was needed, and starting the visioning process. As the developer interest in this area has continued, and even increased, I ask that council continue to build on the work that staff has already started, and incorporate the environmental studies that accompany a Precise Plan, including traffic impact reports, to help inform the density thresholds that make sense for this area as a whole. While all of the vision is good, and I have been encouraged by the plan as it has morphed and changed over the past months, we don't yet have a clear picture of what the impacts of the type and scale of the envisioned development would have on the area. Beyond not having that clear picture, an additional concern with moving forward without a Precise Plan is that we end up with infrastructure that is not unified. As projects come through the gatekeeper process, the frontage improvements, building setbacks, utility sizes, etc. are all considered for that project individually. A precise plan allows for not only the vision of the what the area could be, but the studies to show that the vision will function well once constructed, and the requirements to actually construct it that way. This is helpful to both neighboring residents and to developers, as they know exactly what will be required when a project is constructed. Another major concern is the community benefits item, and how that is incorporated into the area. As a number of council members mentioned, having a "floating' park may mean that the park gets pushed onto a piece of land that doesn't make sense for the area, or worse yet, not included at all. I am concerned about how the community benefit approach will be put into practice without the "teeth" of the requirements that generally come from a Precise Plan. A Precise Plan can also include phasing, which would ensure that the community benefits are constructed in tandem with the developments, and not pushed to the end. As a public sector employee myself, I am acutely aware that staff resources must be considered here. My request is to recognize that this area is a priority for development, and to direct the resources to develop it properly through the creation of a Precise Plan. Alternatively (and this is not my personal preferred alternative), only allow projects to move forward that meet with the current General Plan and zoning for the area. Each project that comes in under the gatekeeper process requires a certain amount of staff resources. If the amount of staff time and resources spent on each gatekeeper project could be combined and focused up -front on a Precise Plan, we would end up with an area more likely to benefit all community members. Thank you again for your time, your service to our community, and your attention to this area. Sincerely, Attachment 3 Pancholi, Diana From: Eric Stabell Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 7:00 AM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Matichak, Lisa; Abe-Koga, Margaret; Hicks, Alison; Kamei, Ellen; Clark, Chris; Ramirez, Lucas; McAlister, John Subject: Terra Bella Vision EPC Meeting Feedback Attachments: EPC 2019-02-20 Item 6.1 Staff Report Addendum.pdf, EPC Study Session Memo 2019-03-05.pdf, Terra Bella Addendum Figure 6 -Alt 5.png To: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner From: Eric Stabell, Mountain View Homeowner Re: EPC Meeting - Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Hello Diana, I'd like to give you some feedback from us homeowners in the neighborhoods surrounding Terra Bella regarding the recent Environmental Planning Commission meeting on Terra Bella Visioning. This includes many folks from both Stierlin Estates and the Morgan Street area. I was just reviewing your March 5 Study Session Memo "Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan - Land Use Alternatives", after you released the Addendum "Item 9.1 with Revised pages 11-13". It looks like corrections were made to the paragraph numbers, so they now match the numbers shown in Figure 6 /Alternative 5 Vision Map. For anyone else reading this, I want to first quote your PURPOSE statement that the Study Session Memo starts out with... "The purpose of this Study Session is to present revised land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan and summarize input from the February 20 Environmental Planning Commission meeting. Staff is seeking City Council input and policy direction on a preferred land use and next steps for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan." We want to state that, as a homeowners directly adjacent to the Terra Bella area, we felt that the EPC suggested many excellent visioning improvements for transitions to existing residential, but unfortunately many of the straw votes were deadlocked in a 3 to 3 tie. If they had all passed the EPC vote, I believe all the homeowners surrounding Terra Bella would have been very relieved and pleased to see the vision turn into something much more reasonable for the neighborhood. Myself and my neighbors would greatly appreciate if Planning Staff and the City Council could together consider implementing every one of the EPC suggestions into a new improved Vision Plan. Below is the list of the EPC's great suggestions, as copied directly from the Addendum of the March 5 Study Session Memo. I have underlined all the EPC suggestions that my neighbors and I are most in favor of. The accompanying Addendum Vision Figure 6/Alternative 5 map is included at the end. EPC Input At its February 2019 Study Session, the EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: Mixed Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 6—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3-3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher intensity residential (up to 7 stories) to lower -intensity residential (Lip to 3 stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to 6 stories to up to 3 stories (3 to 3 vote). 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to 2 stories immediately adjacent to existing RI -zoned property along the southeastern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (uug to 5 stories) to lower -intensity residential (0 to 3 stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to 7 stories to Lip to 5 stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). Figure : Ares of EPC Discussion P OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY � ao ,0 w 00 00 W a ADCK sr �4S, ■ � i■ 1 �° '1** # Residential /+'' ' +4► 0 4 P Vjr 46 Mix -ad me with flffira R@s&ratial go ■atv n. *44 Rel i LightInclu! D C]€fice •t1•}� �Ffice F r 4P Q < Lige Ir #40A4oced Resi*nual *#4*# W with r#c co h1ix�puc "R�ek('i�l *■ Sara ARoc Wa,•r £qy r��A4F N Cl ? Soo 1,00c) reet Residential (up to 3 stories) Of Residential iupto 5 stories) Of Residential (up to 7 stories) 0' Lid Terra Bella Vision Plan cul r-'trr m Min rm LAIN VIFW Mixed Use with Retail I' "' , Li( (U II Thank You, Eric Stabell Homeowner - 0 PROMETHEUS March 27, 2019 Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan - City Council Study Session on April 2, 2019 Dear Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers: We are excited about the City's Vision for Terra Bella and see this area as a terrific opportunity to achieve the City's goals for a more intensive mix of commercial and residential land uses. Prometheus Real Estate Group owns 918-940 San Rafael Avenue, totaling approximately two acres (formerly El Camino Paving site) highlighted on the attached map. Our hope is to be able to add housing units to this area and offset the amount of jobs that already exist or that will be added nearby. We support the City's vision to create safer paths of travel and promote connectivity in this area for all modes of transportation. However, we do not think that the current plan alternatives offer the best way to accomplish this due to the following reasons: 1. Alterative Path Locations - During the Community Workshops for the plan, the public supported shared travel lanes or buffered bike lanes along Terra Bella, San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues (two slides from the Workshops are attached) - adding any additional paths would be duplicative for Terra Bella. 2. Compromised Site Plans - Vision alternatives provide for a bike and pedestrian path within private property, which compromises the site plan opportunities for narrow parcels. 3. Bike Path Safety - Bike paths through city blocks rather than around blocks create additional safety hazards for bikers and pedestrians because of reduced public visibility and added street crossings. 4. Increased Public Access - Public access across private property, as currently planned, brings public access adjacent to the backyards of the existing single family homes of Sterling Estates. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the plan discussion, and we look forward to the results. Sincerely, vl"�-J Jon Moss Executive Vice President, Partner Prometheus Real Estate Group CC: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner, City of Mountain View Adam McMichael, Development Manager, Prometheus Real Estate Group 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 150 - San Mateo, CA 94403 1650.931.3400 0 PROMETHEUS Prometheus Project Map 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 150 — San Mateo, CA 94403 1650.931.3400 , .n vi,n."..r, %,, Alm vm .............p,.... r...... SAN PAI 3 O= O O = O q7 O�� J�� z SAI` C, h `¢ 960 Feet Future Tra Legend Building Footprints r i Project Boundary I n Existing/Proposed Transit Existing/Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Facilities -0-VTA routes/stops Class I Path Mountain View Go Class II Bike Lane Future BRT line/stops •••••• Class III Route •••"° Class IV Protected Bike Lane Terra Bella Avenue - Proposed • Buffered bike lanes (Class II bikeway) • On -street parking �II and/or flexible curbside zone for �II� loading and pick- up/drop-off of7.1 9 , _ passengers .ei ra Bella Vision Plan I Mountain View San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues — Proposed • Shared travel lane (Class III bikeway) • On -street parking and/or flexible curbside area on BOTH sides of the street for loading Ir and pick-up/drop-off of "09mm passengers Terra Bella Vision Plan I Mountain View EMBARCADERO REAL T Y S E R V I C E S March 27, 2019 Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan — Addition of Bike/ Pedestrian Path Dear Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers: ECI Four San Rafael LLC owns the office building located at 909 San Rafael Ave. We are concerned because the location of the future bicycle/pedestrian path as depicted on the Draft Vision Plans looks like it encroaches on our private property resulting in the reduction of our lot size and property value. Also, due to public accessibility, it would create both security and maintenance issues for us. While we support the City's Vision to create safer paths of travel and promote connectivity in the Terra Bella Area, we think the City should provide bike paths within the existing public right of ways such as Middlefield Road, Terra Bella Ave and Linda Vista Ave, rather than through private property. We will not support any such public pathways which would encroach on our property. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our feedback to the Vision Plan and we look forward to more discussions. Sincerely, OWNER: ECI Four San Rafael LLC By: EMBARCADERO REALTY SERVICES LP, Its Managing Agent By. �QtV1 1L� M wr47tqh-'1 Name: Shanna Murtagh Title: Regional Operations Manager 2479 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 135, Palo Alto, CA 94303 • (650) 494-6113 embarcaderocapita Ipartners.com Pancholi, Diana From: Albert Jeans Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:07 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella housing capacity Attachments: Residential Analysis.doc Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Diana, With the extra time caused by the delay in the City Council Study Session, I've been working on trying to understand how much building is possible in the Terra Bella area. With the help of a CAD program, I'm able to show that using typical apartment buildings, even 5 story buildings covering the residential zones designated in the options would have a hard time housing even the scaled back population in Option 6. There simply isn't enough room with the open space requirements and existing long term owners. These buildings include I level of podium parking since underground parking is not feasible in the area. I believe the number of residents needs to be significantly scaled back if the Vision Plan is to come anywhere close to reality. I'm attaching a report of my findings. Sincerely, Albert Jeans Estimating the Residential Capacity of the Terra Bella Area by Albert Jeans March 20, 2019 Up until now, we've been dealing with the Terra Bella area in a somewhat abstract sense: a colored map with projected numbers of residents. S.5°NiyCrr , N MogC T '• I ■ ♦ o ■ • i 363 W Residentialar O ♦��... �#• ♦�1� 707 • 1sce 4b 41110 .� Mixeduse ' J •� �♦ �, with Office Residential 04b 4Y��♦ qP # Retail Light Industrial/ .46 2110 60 41* Office ♦♦♦ O��C 4.Office ,, - TERRA BELLA AVE •• F/F Office - �� ♦�� > _ Light Industrial/ ' Light Industrial/ ♦♦ 2� R� ♦� m Residential r Office Office ��' Mth W Mixeduse • o �gR9"t'O,p 3P♦*� Mix Z Retell 21 7 Residential Residential ■ R. 270 ksf 9 QPPW ♦♦.. 6 $2 �'• = Residential esi enha � MARCOS QR 3P •�.�■ � fY*� J 2 SAN AftpO WAY o SAN PA8L0 DR � � /[ O O ¢O SAN CARRIZO WAV The areas (in thousands of square feet, ksf) were calculated by entering the map into a CAD program. But in fact, how much building does the area permit, and how many people could live there? The floating green dots representing open space also need to be dealt with. The de facto standard seems to be 3 acres per 1000 people. If 3000 people are housed in the area, that comes out to 9 acres or 392 ksf, a significant portion of the area available. Besides land that needs to be reserved for open space, some areas have long- term occupants (the Korean Baptist Church (153 ksf) and the Church of Scientology) which are unlikely to move, and the block at 1001 N. Shoreline Blvd. is already committed to an existing project, Shoreline Gateway (341 ksf including the Church of Scientology). What's left comes out to 1466 ksf as shown below in yellow. 1 We can get a rough idea of the residential capacity by simply taking known apartment buildings and trying to arrange them on the map. I did this by entering the plans for the apartment complex under construction at 500 Ferguson Dr. into the same CAD program. One possible arrangement is shown below. Note that these buildings are 5 stories tall: 1 story of podium parking and 4 floors of apartments or condos. The actual buildings use underground parking, but this is not feasible in Terra Bella due to a high water table and soil contamination. Here I've placed 31/22 -building complexes in the larger residential areas and also put in 305 ksf of open space (bright green) which is still short of the 374 ksf needed by the 2867 residents (including 498 in Shoreline Gateway) in this configuration, but some of the "leftover" yellow areas could also serve as open space. In estimating the number of occupants, I assumed one person per bedroom except in the case of 1 bedroom 2 apartments where I used an average of 1.5 persons. Of course these buildings were not designed to fit these lots; nevertheless they do a reasonably good job of filling the area. Despite this density of 5 -story buildings, this configuration only slight exceeds the minimum number of people in Option 6 of 2700. Implementing acceptable transitions to the single -story homes in the neighboring communities would certainly significantly reduce the number of people that could be housed. A more detailed analysis taking into account the interdependency of open space, residents, and building area is given in Appendix 1. The result is slightly fewer people, 2737, 3.3 apartment complexes, and 358 ksf (82 acres) of open space. A portion of the land adjacent to Shoreline Blvd. has been designated as "mixed use" and there have been recommendations to include residential there. Perhaps the equivalent of one more building (half a complex) could be put there, increasing the resident count to around 3050, but again, without transitions. Transitioning, especially around Morgan St., would make meeting the 2800 person goal of Option 6 challenging at best, if not impossible. The question we have to ask ourselves is, do we even want a dense mass of 5 -story buildings in the Terra Bella area? Will the infrastructure even support it? If not, then the projected populations for the area need to be drastically scaled back. I hope this report will give the reader a better feeling for what kind of development is realistically possible in the Terra Bella area. Appendix 1 Symbols A = area of all apartment complexes A, = area of one apartment complex (2 buildings) AT = total available area =1466 ksf (Churches & 1001 N. Shoreline subtracted) AO =open space area P = number of people housed in apartment complexes P, = number of people in one apartment complex = 679 PT = total number of people PS = number of people in 1001 N. Shoreline = 498 n = number of apartment complexes a = open space ratio = 3 acres = 0.1307—ksf 1000 people person To calculate the number of apartment complexes that can be built, one need only divide the available area by the area of one apartment complex. However, the available area is reduced by the open space requirement, which in turn depends on the number of people to be housed plus those in 1001 N. Shoreline. Since the number of people to be housed depends on the number of apartment complexes, we have a system of simultaneous equations. Then, AT= A + AO PT=P+PS AO = aPT P=nP, A n=— A, We can combine the first and third equations to eliminate AO and the last two equations to eliminate n: AT = A + aPT P AP PT =P+PS Combine to eliminate A and PT and solve for P: M AT = PA, +a(P+P,) AT- aPS = P Pl +a) P -- `� -aPS = 2239 people A, + a P, Then PT= P + PS = 2737 people Aa = aPT = 358 ksf n =— = 3.3 complexes These calculations are easily implemented in a spreadsheet. November 7, 2018 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 SUBJECT: Terra Bella Visioning Study Session on November 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers: SummerHill Housing Group appreciates the City's effort to establish a vision and land uses for the Terra Bella area. To help alleviate the housing crisis, SummerHill advocates for a housing -focused approach that delivers a variety of housing types, densities and price points, along with neighborhood serving retail, parks and recreational amenity space. SummerHill controls approximately four acres of land in the Terra Bella area (highlighted in green on the map on next page) and we have participated in the City's two workshops. To effectively inform the gatekeeper process, the Guiding Principles should be clear. Given its proximity to jobs, transportation and open space, the Terra Bella area offers the potential for significant housing. Allowing higher density will help the City address its challenging housing goals - including more affordable housing - and meet the need for additional housing to balance the City's recent and continuing employment growth. As such, we suggest the Council consider combining the ideas from the east half of Option 3 and the west half of Option 1 in order to envision a clear residential focus that helps the City meet its housing goals. Encouraging a greater residential focus in the Terra Bella area will help the City achieve its housing goals by taking the pressure off other planned residential areas, since the City must make up for any shortfall in residential production on sites already designated for housing in the Housing Element. Striving for a greater residential density also helps the City generate more affordable housing opportunities. In addition, permitting more flexibility in height, such as allowing seven (7) stories in select areas, while providing two - to three-story maximum heights in buffer zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods, helps projects produce more open space areas, better address contextual issues, and accommodate desired circulation improvements such as bikeways and other urban design features such as wider sidewalks and parks. Finally, establishing a focused vision for a higher density neighborhood in the Terra Bella area is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element and Land Use policies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Terra Bella Vision Plan and we look forward to your discussion and guidance. Sincerely, �aiia l�q�as�csru/ Katia Kamangar Executive Vice President, Managing Director 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com SUMMERHILL COMMUNITIES OF HOUSING DISTINCTION GROUP November 7, 2018 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 SUBJECT: Terra Bella Visioning Study Session on November 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers: SummerHill Housing Group appreciates the City's effort to establish a vision and land uses for the Terra Bella area. To help alleviate the housing crisis, SummerHill advocates for a housing -focused approach that delivers a variety of housing types, densities and price points, along with neighborhood serving retail, parks and recreational amenity space. SummerHill controls approximately four acres of land in the Terra Bella area (highlighted in green on the map on next page) and we have participated in the City's two workshops. To effectively inform the gatekeeper process, the Guiding Principles should be clear. Given its proximity to jobs, transportation and open space, the Terra Bella area offers the potential for significant housing. Allowing higher density will help the City address its challenging housing goals - including more affordable housing - and meet the need for additional housing to balance the City's recent and continuing employment growth. As such, we suggest the Council consider combining the ideas from the east half of Option 3 and the west half of Option 1 in order to envision a clear residential focus that helps the City meet its housing goals. Encouraging a greater residential focus in the Terra Bella area will help the City achieve its housing goals by taking the pressure off other planned residential areas, since the City must make up for any shortfall in residential production on sites already designated for housing in the Housing Element. Striving for a greater residential density also helps the City generate more affordable housing opportunities. In addition, permitting more flexibility in height, such as allowing seven (7) stories in select areas, while providing two - to three-story maximum heights in buffer zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods, helps projects produce more open space areas, better address contextual issues, and accommodate desired circulation improvements such as bikeways and other urban design features such as wider sidewalks and parks. Finally, establishing a focused vision for a higher density neighborhood in the Terra Bella area is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element and Land Use policies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Terra Bella Vision Plan and we look forward to your discussion and guidance. Sincerely, �aiia l�q�as�csru/ Katia Kamangar Executive Vice President, Managing Director 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com Cc: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner / City Clerk 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com L IIIA PARKING REQUIRED PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES �i 'Ir/I IIID/III/ rIII,III�\` \\VIII/�/,IIII IIID\'llV/VIII 2.6 SPACES / UNIT X 9 = 23 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING PROVIDED PRIVATE GARAGES 18S ACES TERRA BELLA AVE 3 I I I U O OPEN GUEST PARKING 5 SPACES I I I I TOTAL PARKING 2J SPACES PROVIDED Architecture+Planning a ou uu u12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 DD DENSITY STUDY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN S P.1 LOSAngeleS, CA 90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #171077 DECEMBER 17, 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 310 394 2623 �iGgyCem c0MMUN1-11ES 0f DIS[ INCIION PROJECT SUMMARY \ SITE AREA168,206 SF (3.86 AC) TOTAL UNITS 274 DU �\ DENSITY 71.0 DU/AC OR OSS FLOOR AREA 39],406 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO 236 FAR YARDS(SETBACKS) PROPOSED FRONT (NORTH) 9' STREET SIDE (EAST) 15' \ STREET SIDE (WEST) 9' INTERIOR SIDE 5 T 20' REAR (SOUTH) 33' (nAPARTMENTS SUMMARY: y `\ SITE AREA 130, 863 SF(300 Acre) UNITS 265 DU DENSITY 883 DU/AC 9�0 PO OFFICE/ INCUBATOR SPACE 19,000 SF GROSS FLOOR AREA 375,000 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO 2.86 FAR BUILDING HEIGHT 5 STORIES (4 OVER 1 PODIUM) s� UNIT MIX'. Type Beds Baths Area Units Mi. Phn 1A 1 1 700 112 \ Plan 1B 1 1 710 56 Plan Li 1 1 700 7 7 One Bedroom Mots' 175 66% Plan 2A 22 1,020 86 \ Plan 2B 2 2 1,095 4 Two Bedmon SuStotd 90 34% Total 215,160 265 INDOOR AMENITIES/ COMMON AREAS PROVIDED FITNESS/CLUB ROOM 3,400 SF \ 2500 SF CODS TGYA/LOBBV COURTRDS (d!PODIUM 30.000 SF TOTAL PROVIDED 35900 SF@135 SF/UNIT PARKING RATIO SPECIFIED (SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER PRECISE PLAN) OFFICEPARKING@1/250SF 76 SPACES RES. PARKING (d!12DU 318 SPACES 1 TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED J94 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED GROUND LEVEL 36 REST DENT SPACES ( 35GUEST SPACES (10% OF RES. PKG.) 77 OFF E SPACES BASEMENT RESIDENT 269 REDT SPACES (22 TANDEM) TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 417 SPACES BIKE PARKING _ LONG-TERM 268 SPACES PROVIDED(2-TIERED RACKS) AT AA AA AA AA FEESIMPLE TOWNHOMES SUMMARY . SITE AREA 37343 SF (0 86 Acre) UNITS DU `+ 19 DENSITY 105 DU/AC GROSS FLOOR AREA 22,406 SF(EXCL. 200 SFIUNIT FOR GARAGE) FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.60 FAR (0.6D FAR MAY, PER TOWNHOUSE) r BUILDING HEIGHT 2 STORIES, 35MAX UNIT MIX'. Type Beda Baths s AUnits I 2Smry 3 2.5 1850 9 OPEN AREA PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES REQUIRED MINIMUM 16, 804 SF @45% PROVIDED 16,821 SF@45% I BUILDING COVERAGE PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES REQUIRED MAXIMUM 13,070 SF @35% PROVIDED 11,700 SF@31% PAVEMENT AREA PER TOWNHOUSE GUIDELINES REQUIRED MAXIMUM 9336 SF @25% PROVIDED 8,822 SF@24% O OPEN GUEST PARKING 5 SPACES I I I I TOTAL PARKING 2J SPACES PROVIDED Architecture+Planning a ou uu u12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 DD DENSITY STUDY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN S P.1 LOSAngeleS, CA 90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #171077 DECEMBER 17, 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 310 394 2623 �iGgyCem c0MMUN1-11ES 0f DIS[ INCIION �mmm m ,1 21 MEM, 2A 2A sv I vz A BASEMENT LEVEL O I I I I Architecture +Plano in9 a ou uu inu 12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 S,Ie100 TERRA BELLA DENSITY STUDY PODIUM FLOOR PLANS SP.Z L31 0 os Angeles, CA90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #1]1"1 DECEMBER 1], 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 394 2623 �i ktg ° COMMUNI-1IES 01 DIS[INC]ION LEVELS 3 THROUGH 2A sv I vz A BASEMENT LEVEL O I I I I Architecture +Plano in9 a ou uu inu 12555 West Jefferson BIV d. •] 1 S,Ie100 TERRA BELLA DENSITY STUDY PODIUM FLOOR PLANS SP.Z L31 0 os Angeles, CA90066 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA #1]1"1 DECEMBER 1], 2018 SITE CONFIGURATION 394 2623 �i ktg ° COMMUNI-1IES 01 DIS[INC]ION Pancholi, Diana From: Patrick Neschleba Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Diana, We live on Morgan Street, near the Terra Bella visioning plan area, and like many of our neighbors we are a dual -income working family with kids and have not had the free time to attend the workshop sessions that have been held. I wanted to send commentary ahead of the next round of reviews, after reviewing the latest proposals. We've notice that plans are calling for immediate transition from single -family -home zoning to 7 -story residential immediately adjacent to our neighborhood, which we've learned is not something that's been done in any other project like this. While we are not opposed to the conversion of light commercial zoning over to multi -story residential, this abrupt transition seems rather extreme and will significantly impact the character of our neighborhood. Three-story residential seems like a more reasonable limit that will still add a considerable amount of housing in a needed area. We recently remodeled our home to add a second story, and had a few learnings from that process which I wanted to make sure we shared with you. First, we were a borderline case with the EPA with regards to subfloor ventilation requirements due to our proximity to the groundwater plumes; the Terra Bella area is right on top of these and so there may be restrictions on residential building. Second, we learned through soil studies that the water table is already very high in our area, and the ground is at risk of liquefaction in an earthquake. For a two-story home, this required significant additions to our foundations in order to mitigate the risks, and limited our ability to dig. For dense multi -story construction, I can only imagine how much more would need to be done, and wonder if it is even possible to build dense residential of —7 stories (including what I'd expect to be underground parking for buildings of that size) with the local geology being what it is. It would be good to get these questions answered with a detailed study before too many conclusions are drawn regarding the size and height of buildings in the Terra Bella area. As frequent users of the Shoreline athletic facilities, we've also noticed the extreme traffic during the evening commute. As part of the development plans, I'd love to see both widening of the Shoreline Boulevard highway crossing, as well as addition of public transit from Terra Bella to the Shoreline office parks, in order to help ensure easy movement of traffic in and out of that area. The Terra Bella area will be highly desirable for tech workers to live there, and the current set of overpasses over 101 are really undersized for the amount of people that need to get in and out of that area every work day. Thanks for considering this input and we look forward to hearing more about the development plans. If the City has an e-mail interest list forming for the visioning plan, I'd be happy to be added. Thanks, Patrick Neschleba Pancholi, Diana From: Linda Thoma Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:46 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning - Input from Impacted Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We have recently been made aware of the plan for the redevelopment of the Terra Bella, Middlefield, Shoreline area. We have also become aware that only those areas whose residents speak up the loudest are being accommodated. Those of us who trusted the City to plan according to what is fair and right for the entire neighborhood are being ignored. Clearly our trust in the City has been misplaced. So here are our voices: WE VEHEMENTLY PROTEST THIS PLAN! 6 TO 7 STORY BUILDINGS TOWERING OVER OUR 1 STORY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! Linda and Michael Thomas Pancholi, Diana From: Eric Stabell Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:16 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Debbi Beauchesne; Chris Beauchesne; Sue Stabell; Sue Stabell-Work.Desk Subject: Terra Bella Vision - Morgan/Spring St. Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Diana, Thank you for taking the time to speak to us last night about the Terra Bella Vision Plan. It was good to hear about the plan first-hand from you. My Morgan Court neighbors and I felt we missed a good opportunity to add our input at last year's Vision Plan workshops, but we plan to be more vocal in the future. Anyway, in reviewing some of the information about the plan, I wanted to share some of my own thoughts with you. Hopefully better late than never... I counted about twenty Stierlin Estates 1 -story single-family residences, along San Pablo Drive area, bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. It sounded like that neighborhood was well represented at the previous Vision Plan Workshops. Unfortunately, my Morgan/Spring St neighborhood, was virtually unrepresented, partly because we have nothing resembling a homeowners association. We too have about twenty 1 -story single-family residences directly bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. I would hope that we would get equal consideration, just as the more organized Stierlin Estates homeowners did, when it comes to being mindful of the transition zones between our older 1 -story residences and the new construction. I personally feel that with the Terra Bella zone adjacent to so much residential, that 5-7 story buildings seem excessively high for most of the area. As I'm sure you've already been hearing from the Stierlin Estates residents, we in the Morgan/Spring St area also would like to see a thoughtful transition from our 1 -story homes to taller buildings. I'm thinking nothing more than 2-3 stories high adjacent to our residential properties would be acceptable, combined with a generous buffer space and perhaps a landscape screen or other consideration. Noise from our new neighbors should seriously be taken into consideration also. With that said, when I look at the proposal options, my thought would be to consider having the tallest buildings right along noisy/high traffic Shoreline Blvd, and perhaps along the freeways (they would make great sound walls!), all the while keeping them fairly far away from the existing single-family residences in the neighborhood. Taller buildings on Shoreline might make for a nice gateway into central Google, which could complement (or even copy) the beautiful new4-story Google building at the corner of Terra Bella &Shoreline. (Did I mention it's only 4 -stories?). I really think it would be best for us neighborhood residents to have the tallest buildings a minimum 1-2 blocks away from all the existing 1 -story residential. Thanks for listening and we look forward to hearing about future meetings on the topic. Please keep us posted with any developments and City Council dates on the matter. Sincerely, Eric Stabell Sent from my iPhone March 11, 2019 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan Dear Mayor Siegel and City Councilmembers: This letter is a response to the latest Vision Plan which depicts the location of a future bicycle/pedestrian path through the edge of my property at 915 Linda Vista. While I am excited to support Mountain View's growth, safer travel paths, and community connectivity — I am worried that this proposed path will reduce my privacy, security, and property value. The reduction of my lot size in favor of this path could potentially increase noise, theft, and need for maintenance. Please reconsider main thoroughfares such as Terra Bella or Middlefield Road, which have the size to accommodate a new and efficient bike path. I encourage the city council to consider using existing public right of ways, rather than private property. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Harry Cheung Pancholi, Diana From: Patti Schrotenboer Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:06 PM To: City.Council Cc: , City Manager; Pancholi, Diana; Tim Schrotenboer Subject: Terra Bella Visioning To Mayor Siegel, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Councilmembers, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Terra Bella area yesterday evening at the council meeting. It was clear that the council and staff have spent many hours working toward a plan for this area that considers the needs of the larger community as it grows and changes, as well as taking the time to consider the existing residents in the area, for which I personally am very grateful. I wanted to take a minute of your time to request again that this plan be moved forward through the Precise Plan process. As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the Precise Plan process was what we were told would be used when we attended the first vision planning meeting this past June, and I believe it is the only responsible way to allow development in this area that is outside of the current zoning and general plan allowances. I understand that this area is not one of those identified as a change area within the General Plan; however, it has become clear that this is an area of interest for developers. I credit the council for recognizing that when multiple projects started coming in for this area, a broader, more holistic approach was needed, and starting the visioning process. As the developer interest in this area has continued, and even increased, I ask that council continue to build on the work that staff has already started, and incorporate the environmental studies that accompany a Precise Plan, including traffic impact reports, to help inform the density thresholds that make sense for this area as a whole. While all of the vision is good, and I have been encouraged by the plan as it has morphed and changed over the past months, we don't yet have a clear picture of what the impacts of the type and scale of the envisioned development would have on the area. Beyond not having that clear picture, an additional concern with moving forward without a Precise Plan is that we end up with infrastructure that is not unified. As projects come through the gatekeeper process, the frontage improvements, building setbacks, utility sizes, etc. are all considered for that project individually. A precise plan allows for not only the vision of the what the area could be, but the studies to show that the vision will function well once constructed, and the requirements to actually construct it that way. This is helpful to both neighboring residents and to developers, as they know exactly what will be required when a project is constructed. Another major concern is the community benefits item, and how that is incorporated into the area. As a number of council members mentioned, having a "floating" park may mean that the park gets pushed onto a piece of land that doesn't make sense for the area, or worse yet, not included at all. I am concerned about how the community benefit approach will be put into practice without the "teeth" of the requirements that generally come from a Precise Plan. A Precise Plan can also include phasing, which would ensure that the community benefits are constructed in tandem with the developments, and not pushed to the end. As a public sector employee myself, I am acutely aware that staff resources must be considered here. My request is to recognize that this area is a priority for development, and to direct the resources to develop it properly through the creation of a Precise Plan. Alternatively (and this is not my personal preferred alternative), only allow projects to move forward that meet with the current General Plan and zoning for the area. Each project that comes in under the gatekeeper process requires a certain amount of staff resources. If the amount of staff time and resources spent on each gatekeeper project could be combined and focused up -front on a Precise Plan, we would end up with an area more likely to benefit all community members. Thank you again for your time, your service to our community, and your attention to this area. Sincerely, Patti Schrotenboer Pancholi, Diana From: Edith Hugo Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:45 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning meeting April 2, 2019 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Diana Please include this email in the packette which will go to the City Council for the April 2, 2019 Study Session To the Mountain View City Council: From: Mountain View Industrial Associates LLC owner/manager Edith Hugo Property location: This correspondence is to comment on the proposed Bike Path through properties connecting San Leandro Avenue and San Pablo Avenue with possible extensions. It appears from the site drawings that this Bike Path will go along the property line of 922 San Leandro Avenue and perhaps impact the property negatively by going into the property, past the property line, and using the area which is now permitted parking spaces. As the owners of this property have no desire to change the useage or sell this property, changing the property line and removing parking areas will not only reduce the value of the property, but limit it's useage. The property now falls within the desired usage of the proposed Vision Plan by providing small office and R and D space for people wishing to live and work in the Terra Bella Vision Area. Many of the tenants of this building now bike to work from their residences within the area and use the provided roadways to do so. Thus falling within the Vision Plan. As we fall within the Vision Plan, we would like to keep our property lines in tack. I propose that the City incorporate into the Vision, Bike Lanes within the now existing streets, which are already being used as "bike paths" to and from residences and the building. The proposed Bike Path between San Leandro and San Pablo is extraneous. There is also an advantage to having a bike lane in the existing streets as that is a preventative to habitational vehicles parking along the curbs and lining the street, causing issues of vagrancy and vandalism in the area. Having owned said property since 1982 I can attest to the fact that vandalism, crime and vagrancies have become a major problem in the area in the recent two years. To the point that I am now installing a fence and electronic gate to prevent negative impact on the property. A bike path as proposed would increase unwanted access to the property and encourage the same problems we are now encountering. I am therefore requesting the reconsideration of the placement of the proposed bike path. I proposed the Bike Path be placed as a lane on the existing City streets. Should you have any questions I will be present at the April 2nd meeting. Thank you, Edith G Hu o VIA Electronic Mail March 5, 2019 The Honorable Lisa Matichak Mayor City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94043 RE: Agenda Item 9.1—Terra Bella Visioning Dear Mayor Matichak and Council Members: Zappettini Investment Company (ZIC) owned and managed by the Zappettini Family is a longtime member of the Mountain View business community, with particularly deep roots in the Terra Bella neighborhood. We have enjoyed working with the City on the Terra Bella Visioning and look forward to our ongoing partnership throughout the process. The following are a few points for your consideration tonight. As you know, the Zappettini family is the majority stakeholder of property in the Terra Bella area on the west side of Shoreline Boulevard and first developed the properties in the 1970's. Our longtime holdings in this area provide us with the unique opportunity to deliver the City's ultimate vision for the western Terra Bella areaa complete ecosystem of residential, office, mixed-use, commercial, bicycle and pedestrian - friendly streets, open space, public spaces, and infrastructure—all knit together in a comprehensive way with appropriate densities that are sensitive to the neighboring conditions. First, as we have pointed out, we are sensitive to the transitional concerns expressed by single-family homeowners; therefore, we strongly believe that it makes sense to allow for higher, densities along W. Middlefield Road. As shown in the aerial below, W. Middlefield Road is at least 125 feet wide with a significant street median with mature tall redwood trees which serve as a buffer and transition that separates the two sides of the road from multi -family uses across the street (i.e. not single-family). Consequently, density along W. Middlefield Road not only makes sense in the Terra Bella Visioning context, but we believe it is where the density belongs, especially in light of the transition sensitivities. 235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 415, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 415 495 9222 1 WWW.ZAPPETTINI.COM 125 feet wide median + mature tall redwood trees which are a buffer and a transition Second, we would like to express our support for Alternative 5 as presented to the Environmental Planning Commission, with the optionality for higher densities of residential along West Middlefield and the potential for a hotel in the Mixed -Use with Retail location at the corner of Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. As the City continues this visioning for the area, we believe it is critical to provide maximum flexibility for future uses while being sensitive to the edge conditions. These edge conditions can be treated through the various transition strategies emphasized in staff's Study Session Memo. Third, we understand that the City Council will consider whether to add a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as a next step to the Visioning Plan adoption. Regardless of the City Council's decision on this point, The Zappettini family is prepared to put forth a comprehensive proposal for a gatekeeper to be a catalyst to redevelop a major portion of the west side of Terra Bella with a fully integrated, mixed-use community of which the city of Mountain View and its residents can be proud. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We appreciate the City's thoughtful deliberation on the future of the Terra Bella area. Sincerely, cc: Martin Alkire Diana Pancholi Aarti Shrivastava Thomas S. deRegt tpl r SV1 Kate Jorgensen 235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 41S, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 415 495 9222 1 WWW.ZAPPETTINI.COM Attachment 4 5.1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 23, 2019 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Terra Bella Vision Plan PURPOSE The purpose of this meeting is for the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) to provide a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Terra Bella Vision Plan and related materials included in this Staff Report. RECOMMENDATION That the EPC recommends to the City Council approval of the Terra Bella Vision Plan. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The EPC agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area (including property owners in the City of Sunnyvale) were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations (Wagon Wheel, North Whisman, and Slater). Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/ activeproj ects / terrabella. asp PROJECT OVERVIEW The Terra Bella Visioning process provided an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key topics like land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement the City Council direction on this project. The resulting Vision Plan is a guiding document that can inform future creation of a Precise Plan to accomplish the identified vision for the area. While some specific objectives may be articulated for preferred land uses, intensity of development, and general circulation conditions, the Terra Bella Vision Plan does not establish specific Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 2 of 11 regulations or regulate land use, zoning, or properties. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. This can be achieved through a future Terra Bella Precise Plan or by evaluating Gatekeeper applications in the area. BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Vision Plan process started in April 2018 as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and to develop strategies to guide future development. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. The Terra Bella Visioning process has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and two EPC and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Exhibit 2. City Council Meeting—April 2, 2019 The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on the preferred land use alternative and key policy considerations in February and April 2019. City Council direction included the following: • Preferred Land Uses: Council supported a Lower -Intensity Land Use Alternative 6 (refer to Exhibit 3) with a focus on achieving better transition to single-family residential neighborhoods; preserving small business in the area; and an option for up to five -story residential building heights south of Terra Bella Avenue along Middlefield Road with the ability to expand the adjacent Crittenden Middle School site. Figure 1 shows the revised land use map based on this direction. EL7rg4VE G 44 Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 3 of 11 Figure 1: Proposed Land Use Vision OLD MIDDLEFIELD WRY 0 x z i� '1 1 r+r r • i' Reald•ntpl �,��rrr, ■ o ♦.r 0.\\\\1 • fFo_ k, Ret=ti.�nr�,l ♦fir• , ✓& Mi rn �+ �J L4JN 30 MA�'accsoR 5kl,6q,t Tarr 4fhce ReEMennal '/ r•- Light ftd.t la1l % �•! r - oMce •s� TERRA RELLAAYE �r Oft. TERRA # light � ' `ItedusvW!' Intluirnay+ �■ m Duca anlee � ''r•� M� z FReaMeMial` Reyidenttal � �`• r�ResltYnrW �i� an.[lil t5n� k i SAN CORi7o WAr �r ■■■■■� A 0 ?50 500 1,000 Feet Residential lupto3storlesl Office (up to3stories) . Plan Boundary Residential Cup to 5 storlesh Office (up to 5 stories) env Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 storlesh Light Industrial/Office New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to2stories) • New Pedestrianf0lke Path Ml)*d Use with Retall ff , j1/� Light Industrial / Office (up to 4 stories) Potent Dedicationlchoal • Development Strategies: Council supported inclusion of key development strategies for achieving the vision for the area. These key strategies address school; jobs -housing linkage; neighborhood transition, affordable housing, parking and traffic mitigation/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM); small business preservation; and parks and open space. These have been incorporated in the Vision Plan in Chapters 3 and 4, and are also discussed later in this report. • Precise Plan Need: At the Council meeting, staff presented a comparison of a Precise Plan against one off development through Gatekeeper projects. Council discussed the implementation of this Vision Plan and a majority of the City Councilmembers agreed upon a need for a Precise Plan in the future for achieving the goals of this Vision Plan. The City Council also supported Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 4 of 11 the idea of requiring a Master Plan for the west of Shoreline Boulevard Plan area. ANALYSIS The Vision Plan (Exhibit 1) is organized into five chapters. The following is a summary of each chapter. 1. Chapter 1 includes background information about the area, key considerations in the Plan area, and how the Plan relates to other City regulations and plans. 2. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the policy foundation of the Plan, including guiding principles and the community outreach effort. A summary of the community workshops and stakeholder interviews is included in Appendix B. 3. Chapter 3 includes the land use vision and development character for the area, design guidelines for buildings, frontages, open spaces, and transition strategies. 4. Chapter 4 includes development principles for future development and an implementation framework. The Plan's major strategies include: Jobs - Housing Linkage, Affordable Housing, Small Business Preservation, Public Open Space, Schools District Strategy, and TDM. 5. Chapter 5 includes the transportation network vision for the area and street design concepts. VISION PLAN KEY STRATEGIES In previous Study Sessions, the City Council and EPC have discussed and supported several key strategies for the Plan area. These strategies are a key component for implementing the vision for the Plan area and are summarized below. Master Plan At the April 2019 Study Session, the City Council recognized the need for a Precise Plan to achieve various goals of the Vision Plan. The City Council also supported a Master Plan for the west of Shoreline Boulevard areas. Though a Precise Plan for Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 5 of 11 this area is not a priority work item for the City at this time, need for more organized development process has been emphasized at various occasions by the City Council. In response to City Council direction and in the absence of a Precise Plan, staff proposes a Master Plan process. Any development not consistent with existing zoning and the General Plan will require a Gatekeeper authorization and a Master Plan application. A Master Plan process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella Avenue to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing project flexibility. The Vision Plan provides requirements for a Master Plan for the east and west sides of Shoreline Boulevard. The Plan also lists the minimum components and key development strategies (as discussed below) for the Master Plan application. These development strategies are potential measures to reach higher development intensities above current zoning. Please refer to Chapter 4 of the Vision Plan for further details. Staff is proposing this master planning process based on City Council direction and a logical solution to achieve the Plan's vision without a Precise Plan. Staff notes that east and west of Shoreline Boulevard have a very different character and parcel configurations as shown in Figure 2 below. Therefore, individual Master Plans for the east and west sides are recommended. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 6 of 11 Figure 2: Plan Area Parcel Map 0 OLD MIDDLE F#ELD WAV � m 2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �rtOo�FFrF�►. .. Yea *9 d s'f,y�4RfDi CryI SAY IVIS ", N o 2so 500 A Terra Bella Vision Plan CITY OP MMVI THIN V117 rar ♦� iF■■A 8Fl1A AYF O J o a, +........................................... �■ ..:.t Afl flO WAY SAN PaAIOpR aa� ik 1,000 Feet Legend 0-0.5acres 2.0-3.5 acres 05-1.0acres 3.5-5.Oacres I� 1,0-2.Oacres 5.0-10.oaue5 Project Boundary b, ti Parcel Size Throughout the visioning process, there has been considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. This has been incorporated in the Plan and includes increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs; 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes; orienting primary windows away from existing homes; providing landscape buffers; and limiting balconies. The Vision Plan includes transition standards with guidelines for transitions along Rock Street and the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood (refer to Chapter 3). Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 7 of 11 Parks and Open Space Strategy During the visioning process, creating new parks and open spaces was identified as a top priority. Community members expressed a strong desire that new open spaces be publicly accessible and include green spaces, not just hardscaped plazas. The Plan vision provides new publicly accessible parks and open spaces on both the east and west sides of Shoreline Boulevard to serve the needs of the Plan area. Per the current City park land dedication requirements, the preferred land use development for the Vision Plan area would require 16 acres of park land. Based on the development potential, the Vision Plan guidelines require a minimum of 4 - acre park land dedication on each side of Shoreline Boulevard (refer to Chapter 3). The park land requirement can be met through land dedication, privately owned, publicly accessible open space, sharing of school open space, and park in -lieu fees. The vision also includes additional sharing of open space on the west side of Shoreline Boulevard with a future school site extension. Conceptual open space locations are shown in Figure 3. Achieving this vision will require a coordinated effort between the City, property owners, and project developers, including land dedication by residential projects, City purchase using park land dedication in -lieu funds, and creation of public plazas and open space by nonresidential projects. The Vision Plan open space guidelines state that the new nonresidential development should provide on-site, publicly accessible open spaces under private ownership, such as plazas, landscaped areas, and public art installations. Specific locations and sizes would be determined during the project review process. The Plan prioritizes new park and open space locations near housing, commercial uses, and public paths. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 8 of 11 Figure 3: Vision Plan Conceptual Open Space OLD IstIDDLEFIELo wav Z S n LA A VENIDA yy O 9.. W 2 ♦A Pou Si t °'4EWAV[ F 4 Y ANF -04E SqN MAAS SAN [UV,5g4T y O3$yy d �$ g_...-..�...- �5 SAN (ARRJZO WAy N :lllll: /l 0 250 S00 1,000reet ;■■l■■: Plan Boundary ) Conceptual Public Open Space • New Street . Conceptual Joint -We School Park Site" New Pedestrian/Bike Path Terra Bella Vision Plan Existing Parks/Open Space Cur ra M111111— V11 Tral is Enact bcadon wtlt be determined os port of master proal developmenrmfewprocess. Small Business Preservation Terra Bella is home to many small businesses. Preserving these small businesses is a key to Terra Bella's vision. In previous discussions, the City Council has supported the land use vision along with preserving small businesses in the east of Shoreline area to maintain smaller, more affordable spaces for start-ups, small businesses, and nonprofits. The Plan requires new development projects to provide support for small businesses, such as including small, flexible work spaces within new buildings, rent subsidies for small or local businesses, and relocation assistance (refer to Chapter 4). Parking and TDM Guidelines Concerns about spillover parking into existing neighborhoods and parking demand from the new development were emphasized by the community Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 9 of 11 throughout the visioning process. The Vision Plan incorporates parking standards consistent with the East Whisman Precise Plan where the City is exploring aggressive parking standards along with higher trip reduction goals to limit traffic congestion in the area. All the new developments in the area will have to meet the City's TDM requirements. The Plan further includes a target for no net -new trips generation from employment generating uses, i.e., office and research and development uses (refer to Chapter 4). Affordable Housing The Plan envisions the Terra Bella area as including a variety of housing types at varying income levels. The City Council has stated that the Vision Plan should help to create as much affordable housing as possible. The Vision Plan guidelines require any new residential development projects in the area to provide 20 percent affordable units (refer to Chapter 4). This goal is higher than the City's current affordable housing requirements but is consistent with some of our recent Precise Plans, including the East Whisman Precise Plan. School District The City has multiple policy goals for increasing the number of housing units in the City in response to the Bay Area's housing crisis. The City has been creating Precise Plans, authorizing Gatekeepers, and approving housing projects in support of these goals. Over 6,500 net -new units have been approved or are under review. The majority of the City's housing growth is expected within the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) boundaries, including the North Bayshore, East Whisman, and Terra Bella areas. Local school districts have raised concerns about their ability to accommodate students from these new housing developments. To support the school districts, the City has included "Local School District Strategy" language in the recently adopted North Bayshore Precise Plan and draft East Whisman Precise Plan. A Citywide school strategy was also discussed at the last City Council Study Session on October 15, 2019. At this meeting, Council supported proposed School Land Strategy, including City and developer contributions in the form of shared open space, land dedication, and off-site Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Staff will return to Council in winter 2020 with further analysis and options for appropriate contribution from Office and Residential Developments. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 10 of 11 The Vision Plan area is adjacent to Crittenden Middle School to the west along Middlefield Road. During the visioning process, various stakeholders, including the school district and the community, expressed interest and the need for addition/ expansion of school facilities to accommodate demand from future growth. Similar to the North Bayshore and East Whisman Precise Plans, the Vision Plan also identifies a local school strategy as a key requirement and potential measure to reach higher development intensities (refer to Chapter 4). New development under any Master Plan shall propose a Local School District Strategy to the school districts and the City, intended to support new local schools serving the Vision Plan area. The strategy may include, but is not limited to, land dedication for new school development; additional funding for new school development; TDR strategies to benefit developer(s) that provide new school facilities; or other innovative strategies supporting schools. Jobs -Housing Linkage The City has been developing a jobs -housing linkage strategy with the draft East Whisman Precise Plan. The Precise Plan emphasized the need for a better jobs - housing balance in the City by requiring commercial development to support and facilitate residential development. Job -housing balance has also been identified as a key consideration in the Terra Bella area. The Vision Plan requires a "jobs - housing linkage" program to ensure residential development is balanced with office and R&D growth. The expectation is that all new office and R&D development will help facilitate residential development through jobs -housing linkage strategies, which could include: direct construction of housing, dedication of land suitable for housing, contribution of fees to offset costs for residential development, residential development partnerships, purchase of existing office square footage from residential developers who demolish office buildings, and other creative strategies or partnerships that support or facilitate housing development (refer to Chapter 4). CONCLUSION The Terra Bella Vision Plan Process gathered input on community preferences on key topics such as land use and development strategies. The Visioning Plan summarizes public input received during the visioning process and includes guidelines for future development in the area. The visioning process also defines guiding principles to support review of future projects in the area. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report October 23, 2019 Page 11 of 11 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend modifications to the Final Terra Bella Vision Plan. 2. Do not accept the Final Terra Bella Vision Plan. Prepared by: Approved by: Diana Pancholi Senior Planner Martin Alkire Advanced Planning Manager DP-MA/5/CDD 807-10-23-19SR Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director Exhibits: 1. Draft Terra Bella Vision Plan 2. Previous Meeting Summary 3. City Council Study Session Staff Report, April 02, 2019 terra bella Exhibit 1 City of Mountain View November 2019 FA 0 Lipi table of contents Plan Context and Location Key Considerations in the Plan Area Relationship to Other Plans Vision Guiding Principles Community Conversations and Engagement Process Vision Plan Frontage Types and Character Transition Areas Parks and Open Space Floor Area Ratio Maximum FAR Jobs -Housing Linkage Small Business Preservation Parking and TDM Master Planning Process Transportation Network Reversible Bus Lane New Internal Access Roads Walking and Bicycling Connections Street design concepts Appendix A: Existing Conditions Appendix B: Community Workshop and Online Survey Results 6 8 9 12 13 15 20 25 28 32 36 37 39 39 40 44 48 48 48 50 52 acknowLedgments City Council • Lisa Matichak, Mayor • Margaret Abe-Koga,Vice Mayor • Christopher R. Clark • Alison Hicks • Ellen Kamei • John McAlister • Lucas Ramirez Former Councilmembers • Ken Rosenberg • Pat Showalter • Lenny Siegel Environmental Planning Commission • Pamela Baird (Chair) • Margaret Capriles • Robert Cox (Vice Chair) • William Cranston • Preeti Hehmeyer • Kammy Lo • Joyce Yin City Managment • Daniel H. Rich, City Manager • Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director • Michael Fuller, Public Works Director • Jesse Takahashi, Finance and Administrative Services Director • Krishan Chopra, City Attorney Former City Management • Randal Tsuda, Former Community Development Director • Jannie Quinn, Former City Attorney Former EPC members • John Scarboro Vision Plan Project Staff • Diana Pancholi, Project Manager, Community Development • Martin Alkire, Advance Planning Manager, Community Development • Stephanie Williams, Current Planning Manager, Community Development • Renee Gunn, Public Works Consultant Team • Raimi +Associates • Nelson\Nygaard • Seifel Consulting Additional Support Provided by: • Mountain View Chamber of Commerce Cho introduction I iO Introduction Located in the northern part of Mountain View along Shoreline Boulevard just south of Highway 101, the Terra Bella neighborhood consists mainly of low -intensity office and light industrial uses surrounded by single-family residential neighborhoods. During the 2030 General Plan update process, the City, in collaboration with the community, identified a number of change areas in the city fortargeted growth and development. Terra Bella was not identified as a change area and therefore no specific vision was identified for the area during the 2030 General Plan update process. However, after several years of interest from developers and property owners to build housing and higher -intensity office in the area, the City Council directed staff to study existing conditions n the area and launch a process to understand the community's vision for the future for this area. This Vision Plan guides the transition of the Terra Bella area to a neighborhood with a greater mix of land uses, with new homes, spaces for small businesses and non -profits, open spaces, and multiple mobility options. The Vision Plan is based on community input gathered during the summer of 2018 through spring of 2019. It highlights common preferences, as well as topics with diverging input. This Plan includes preferred land uses, intensity, character, and development principles which will provide a foundation to review and evaluate future development projects in the area or recommend further study or analysis. It also identifies mobility, open space, and other key opportunities and strategies. Purpose and Authority The purpose of the Terra Bella Vision Plan is to: • Define a vision and guiding principles forfuture development • Provide direction on the preferred use, intensity, and character of future development • Identify mobility, open space, and other improvements in the area • Provide recommendations for future study and analysis The Vision Plan provides a foundation to review and evaluate future development projects in the area. The Vision Plan does not replace the existing zoning code or augment building safety codes or other non -planning related codes. All applications for new construction, substantial modifications to existing buildings, and changes in land use shall be reviewed for consistency with the Terra Bella Vision Plan. Additionally, any new development not consistent with the current General Plan orzoning designation forthe area will require City Council "gatekeeper authorization" to amend the General Plan orzoning designations. w z Plan Context and Location Z O The Terra Bella Vision Plan area covers approximately 110 acres south of Highway 101 and east of State Route 85. The area is bounded by West Middlefield Road to the LL south and Crittenden Middle School/ Whisman Sports Centerto the west, and is bisected by North Shoreline Boulevard. The area is characterized by a mix of industrial O uses, office buildings, single family homes, and public facilities. The Plan area abuts the North Bayshore Precise Plan area to the north beyond Highway 101. Figure ~ 1-1 shows the Plan area boundary. U 11 Figure i -i. Plan Area Boundary �{!'b# ■* ■SMA■` ■ �R -MailaYF Fir � m 44 qL s #�',5,# j■■ ate■*R rs........... fafrrorwr Fs�■iaris.+'� r N 11 250 500 1.OW Feet Terra Bella Vision Plan Pian Boundmy :*memo: 7 Key Considerations in the Plan Area The project team analyzed background information and existing conditions in Terra Bella to provide a general understanding of the Plan area's land use, urban form and character, open space, mobility, and environmental conditions. The detailed data and analysis can be found in Appendix A Existing Conditions. The issues and opportunities identified through this analysis were used to develop the Plan vision, guiding principles, and recommendations. The following is a summary of the key considerations in the Terra Bella area. 1. Parks and open spaces. Though there are public parks located outside of the Terra Bella area, there are no public parks or community gathering spaces within the neighborhood. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is in need of additional open space to meet the City's goal. 2. Traffic and parking. Traffic congestion is a key issue in the area, particularly along North Shoreline Boulevard which funnels vehicles in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore. Appropriate mobility policies and mitigation measures should be applied to new development to reduce the number of new vehicle trips and parking spillover to nearby neighborhoods from new development. 3. Walking and bicycling conditions. Major auto -oriented roadways including US -101, SR -85, Shoreline Boulevard, and Middlefield Road create high stress conditions and substantial barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access in, out and through the area. Additionally, long block lengths in Terra Bella, particularly west of North Shoreline Boulevard, has resulted in poor pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by reducing opportunities for crossings and direct routes. Building pedestrian/bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), protected bikeways and full-time bike lanes, and breaking up large blocks with streets or greenways can improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 4. Mix of uses. Terra Bella consists of predominately office and light industrial uses, with limited residential and retail uses. The result is a commuter -oriented environmentwith limited neighborhood amenities.A diverse mixof uses and activities should be encouraged in Terra Bella while maintainingthe unique character of the area. 5. Development and building character. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of Shoreline Boulevard, includes large suburban office parks. In many cases, buildings do not face directly onto the street and have deep front and side setbacks, with little interaction between private properties and public areas. Active and well-designed building frontages are crucial for creating a more inviting, pedestrian -oriented environment that will attract people to walk, gather, shop, and spend time. 6. Residential adjacency. The Terra Bella area is bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast, including Rock Street and the Stierlin Estates neighborhood. Future development should be designed to respect and benefit the adjacent single-family neighborhoods by providing additional amenities for residents, improving multimodal access, and creating appropriate transitions to existing homes. Z 7. Small business preservation. Terra Bella, particularly the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard, is home to an eclectic mix of small businesses, light industrial Z uses, and non profits. Redevelopment of the area could continue to put upward pressure on property values and rents, leading to displacement of small pbusinesses. The Vision Plan includes several strategies to preserve small businesses in the area. I O 8. Environmental conditions. Contaminated sites in Terra Bella, particularly the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund site west of North Shoreline Boulevard, pose a concern for new development. While cleanup activities are still ongoing, further studies and remediation will likely be required as new development is U considered in this area. 8 PLan Structure The Vision Plan is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 2: Vision and Guiding Principles describes the vision and guiding principles to direct future development and improvements in Terra Bella. Chapter 3: Land Use and Community Design describes the overall land use vision for Terra Bella and includes standards relating to land use, development intensity, height, transitions, frontage type and character, and parks and open space. Chapter 4: Development Principles Framework provides guidance on desired community benefits in the Plan area, including affordable housing, small business preservation, parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and other contributions from property owners and project applicants. Chapter 5: Mobility establishes the overall street network, street design, bicycle and pedestrian networks, and other transportation improvements in the area. Appendix A: Existing Conditions provides a description of the current conditions in the Terra Bella Vision Plan area related to land use, urban form and character, open space, mobility, and environment. Appendix B: Community engagement summaries describe the engagement activities and input provided by the community throughout the process. ReLationship to Other PLans 203o General Plan The General Plan includes policies for Citywide development and general land use. The Vision Plan is guided by the General Plan's goals, policies, and urban design direction. Zoning Ordinance The City of Mountain View's Zoning Ordinance establishes zoning districts, permitted uses, development standards, and procedures to align with the General Plan. These regulations apply to properties and projects in Terra Bella. The land use and development standards and guidelines in this document do not supersede the land use and development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Picvcle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan The Terra Bella Vision Plan builds on the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2013 Pedestrian Master Plan. These transportation plans provide strategies and improvements to encourage active transportation. Relevant projects and improvements are shown in the Mobility Chapter. 1.1 Shoreline Boulevard Transportation Study A 2014 study of the Shoreline Boulevard corridor recommended a package of comprehensive of new treatments for the street. Among these treatments, the study recommended a reversible transit lane extendingfrom Middlefield Road north to Plymouth/Space Park Way in North Bayshore. The lane would be used by northbound buses on weekday mornings and by southbound buses on weekday afternoons. It would feature median and curb -side stops at Terra Bella Avenue and Pear Avenue. In addition to North Bayshore transit service, regularVTA routes and othershuttle services would be eligible to use the lane. Key design features will include dedicated transit signals, physical barriers, pavement markings, and high visibility signage. Additional recommendations include protected intersections, protected bikeways along Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road, and a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over US -101. Mountain ViewAutomated Guideway Transportation Feasibility Study In 2018, the City of Mountain View completed a study that evaluated innovative ways to address the anticipated increase in commutertraffic between Mountain View's Downtown Transit Center and North Bayshore. The study assessed how the introduction of an automated guideway transportation (AGT) system might successfully integrate into other transportation improvement strategies and projects throughoutthe City overtime. Based on the evaluation, the study concluded that an Automated Transit Network (ATN - automated vehicles operating on a network of guideways, including both personal and group rapid transit) and autonomous transit vehicles were best suited for the study area which includes the North Shoreline Boulevard area. North Bayshore Transportation Access Study (2017) The North Bayshore Transportation Access Study recommends serving the North Bayshore area with a fleet of buses and autonomous vehicles (AVs) that travel along RT Jones Road and Charleston Road in the short term. In the long term, the study recommends conducting an analysis of AVs on the Highway 101 alignment and light rail on the RT Jones alignment. Recommended infrastructure improvements include a Charleston Road Bridge crossing at Stevens Creek, new transit centers at the Bayshore/NASA Light Rail station and Moffett Boulevard, and a series of dedicated AV stations throughout the area. w Z H Z O i LL O } H U 10 Chothe vision �o I" rin and cimaina Prinenn The Terra Bella area transitions into a complete neighborhood with a wider diversity of uses, open spaces, and amenities. Terra Bella continues to serve as an employment area in Mountain View, home to both large and small businesses, including light industrial and manufacturing, office, retail, and service uses. Existing local small businesses and organizations remain as a valuable part of the neighborhood fabric. Residential units accommodate a range of incomes, ownership types, and life stages. The intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue serves as a multimodal, mixed-use hub for the community. North Shoreline Boulevard is transformed into a complete street and an active and vibrant mixed-use corridor with shops, restaurants, services, and hotels that caterto both office workers and residents. Residents and workers have easy multimodal access to parks and open spaces. Neighborhoods east and west of North Shoreline Boulevard integrate different land uses and buildings to create a pedestrian- and bicycle - friendly, human -scaled, well-designed urban environment. Buildings are located close to the sidewalk to create a distinctive urban street. Buildings with doors and windows oriented to the street support lively and comfortable pedestrian activity. New buildings are designed to respect the scale and character of adjacent residential neighborhoods, such as Rock Street and Stierlin Estates. Terra Bella is a well-connected neighborhood, with multimodal access to major employment and commercial centers, Caltrain, light rail, and regional open space amenities, such as Shoreline Park and Stevens Creek. Transit investments along North Shoreline Boulevard improve service to key destinations, including Downtown and North Bayshore. Large blocks are broken up into human -scale blocks that make it safer, easier, and more comfortable to walk in and around the neighborhood. New pedestrian and bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), low - street facilities, and streetscape improvements promote active transportation throughout the area. Guiding Principles The Terra Bella vision is supported by the following guiding principles. The principles connect the overarching vision with the Plan's land use and mobility plan and development principles. These guiding principles establish a reference point for stakeholders and decision -makers as new development is reviewed. s. Maintain Terra BeLLa as an area for employment Terra Bella maintains a mix of employment generating uses including office, R&D, light industrial, retail, and service uses. Local small businesses and non -profits, alongside larger companies, contribute to an economically -diverse area. 2. Create neighborhoods With balanced and integrated Land uses Terra Bella transitions to a more complete neighborhood with a mix of uses, including office, R&D, light industrial, residential, retail, service, and open space. New retail, services, and parks support housing development and surrounding neighborhoods, and create a vibrant neighborhood with both day and nighttime activity. I Maximize Land use flexibility The Plan provides flexibility to allow individual property owners to develop residential, mixed-use, office, light industrial, or commercial uses, responding to market changes and other factors. 4. Promote housing at variety of income levels and ownership types The Terra Bella area provides a variety of housing types, both market rate and affordable housing, and creates more housing choices in the neighborhood to serve a diverse demographic of new and existing residents. New housing includes a mix of ownership and rental housing. 5. Create walkable blocks with buildings that support the public realm A fine-grained network of pedestrian -oriented streets provides safe, efficient, and attractive walking and biking routes throughout Terra Bella. Human -scaled building design and active frontages help shape and define the public spaces, creating an inviting pedestrian environment, and enhancing neighborhood character. 6. Respect the character of adjacent neighborhoods, such as Rex Manor, Rock Street, and Stierlin Estates New development in Terra Bella is designed to respect surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. New projects provide context -sensitive design transitions in bulk, height, and massing. Appropriate buffers, including setbacks and landscaping, are provided between new development and existing single- family homes. 13 7. Create new public parks and open spaces Terra Bella adds new neighborhood parks, plazas, community facilities, and other public open spaces to provide a place for the community to gather, socialize, and play. 8. Minimize vehicle trips and congestion The Plan prioritizes walking, biking, and transit throughout the area. New transit investments along North Shoreline Boulevard better connect residents and workers to jobs and services in Downtown and North Bayshore. Parking management solutions, such as sharing of spaces between uses, district parking supply, structured parking, and parking demand reduction measures, discourage single -occupancy trips and encourage more efficient use of parking resources. g. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity The Plan focuses on better pedestrian and bicycle connections to destinations throughout the neighborhood. An interconnected street grid, sidewalk enhancements, and new bicycle facilities provide safe, direct, and pleasant walking and biking routes for residents, employees, and visitors. 1o. Preserve space for a number of small, employment -generating uses Terra Bella supports an environment where diverse businesses can flourish and thrive. The area east of North Shoreline Boulevard features small and flexible work spaces to support retention of existing small businesses and light industrial uses. 11. Ensure new development provides community benefits New development in Terra Bella provides public benefits servingthe whole community, such as parks and public space, support for local schools, small business support, public art, community facilities, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and shared parking. 12. Promote environmental sustainability Terra Bella features sustainable and innovative development that includes green building, energy efficiency, water conservation, and stormwater management best practices. 14 Community Conversations and Engagement Process The Terra Bella visioning community engagement process took place from June 2018 to April 2019. Several community engagement tools were used to gather a wide range of community input, including three community workshops, one-on-one meetings, online surveys, stakeholder interviews, and Environmental Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Common community preferences that were emphasized repeatedly by participants at workshops, public meetings, and through online tools are highlighted throughout this plan. Community Workshop 1 - June 2, 2o18 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project, and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. Participants generally supported introducing a more balanced mix of land uses and higher -intensity development in Terra Bella but also voiced concerns in the following areas: 1. Transitions to existing residential neighborhoods. Existing residents expressed concern that new higher -intensity development would create shade and privacy impacts on adjacent single-family homes. 2. Traffic and parking. There was concern that new development would increase traffic and parking spillover in and around existing neighborhoods. 3. Current lack of parks and open space. Community members wanted to ensure the provision of parks and open space in the area to meet the needs of both current and future residents. 4. Potential displacement of existing small businesses. Community members and business owners expressed concern that new development in the area could lead to the displacement of existing small businesses. A summary of the workshop and online survey outcomes are included in Appendix B. Neighborhood Petition Following the first community workshop, the City received a petition signed by 100 residents of the Stierlin Estates Neighborhood expressing community support for future development with proper transitions along existing residential developments. The petition also expressed community interest in preserving existing large trees in the area, the need for parks and open spaces with the future developments, and support for low- to medium -intensity development (office and residential) in the future. Some of the community concerns included potential shade, view, and privacy impacts from higher -density development, as well as traffic congestion and parking spillover into existing neighborhoods. 15 Community Workshop 2 - August 25, 2019 The second workshop was held at the Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included a large group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use vision plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. Most participants supported a land use vision with new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well as additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Viewpoints diverged over preferred heights and densities for future development with some participants favoring higher -intensity development and others preferring a lower -intensity scenario. A summary of the workshop is included in Appendix B. Stakeholder Meetings In the fall of 2018, the Vision Plan team met with over20 stakeholders including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. The purpose of these interviews was to listen to stakeholders with a unique interest in the Plan area and identify issues, opportunities, and ideas on a range of topics. Overall, there was general agreement among stakeholders in the following areas: • Create a balanced mix of uses, including parks, residential development, retail, and light industrial/maker spaces Create shared business spaces, such as General Industrial and Office Z uses, within one building D • Create a more pedestrian and bicycle -friendly district, including safe O X routes to nearby schools LL O • Create a clear identity and gateway signage for the neighborhood U 16 • Allow denser development, particularly away from existing single-family neighborhoods • Provide an appropriate transition between existing single-family residential neighborhoods and future development. Stakeholders also expressed the following concerns regarding new development in the area: • Transitions between future development and existing single-family residential neighborhoods • Incompatibility between light industrial and residential uses • Upward pressure on rents for business and commercial spaces • Cut -through traffic and parking spillover in and around existing neighborhoods • Potential traffic impacts of closing the SR 85 on-ramp • Impacts of future development on neighborhood school capacity • Neighborhood safety issues. The stakeholder meetings included a roundtable with small businesses and non-profit organizations housed in the Terra Bella planning area. 17 Community Meeting #3 - January 28, 2019 A third community meeting was convened at Crittenden Middle School. The discussion focused on transitions to the single-family residential neighborhoods along the northwestern boundary of the Plan area, near Rock Street. Ten people attended the meeting, including five homeowners from the Rock Street neighborhood. Residents expressed concerns over potential five to seven -story residential development adjacent to their properties and instead suggested allowing taller residential development closer to West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard. A summary of the workshop is included in Appendix B. W_ Z H Z 7 O X LL O } H U 18 3 . land use ;DO w Z z 0 X LL 0 } H U 20 3. Land Use and Community Design This chapter of the Vision Plan illustrates the vision for future land uses and development character in Terra Bella to create a complete neighborhood with a balanced mix of housing, office, services, and open space. It includes direction on use, intensity, physical character, building placement, and transition strategies that will be used to evaluate new development proposals in the area. Land Use Vision The land use vision articulates the vision forfuture development in Terra Bella - including physical use, intensity, public spaces, and circulation, as illustrated in Figure 3-1 and further described below. TOPICS FOR FURTHER STUDY Areas of concern that require further study included: • Building heights and intensity particularly along Middlefield Road and adjacent to Crittenden Middle School • Potential expansion of Crittenden Middle School • Building height and intensity of light industrial uses on the east side of Terra Bella • Land use compatibility and interface between light industrial properties and residential uses on the east side of Terra Bella • Shade and view impacts of new development on adjacent single- family homes • Specific locations of new parks and open spaces • Specific locations of new streets and pathways Figure 3-1. Land Use Vision Plan WXk}I -tiv,vt r w OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAV 10 i■(Yii# 4 LA x roA 7p� r Cl{hce A!5(i1Pr1[iod *4% � a1P Sr313tindusway. , �41b /fps �4 e 1'E■SUA BELLA AvE s � _ ��� [p Ir%u'II�IFF � «$fit I LIgHC 1 * i4ia Lvs a ;g A N 0250 500 1.040 Feet I i I i i i I I Terra. Bella Vision Plan Wth Llght Industrial I Office (up 1o.2 stories) .->,7itSlhaU' '. IFldU€traWl� ** `�� �.[tl�ll� tr�f PotentW School Ofilication �# •** MrxedksrW wi■iei l.YiY�tirsV viii l.i�..� +# rr Rgird�xNal Poes nSlAl IteSideedn'1 1 i *#* maw rarrr�et SSN Akp{7 WA' a SPR PARD If 3 >' 49 Edi CAH4-k+:r Residential (tip to .3 stories) Resldenttal (up to 5 stories) Reslclential (up to ) storkhs) M Id Use with fetal I l t]irce (up to 3 stories) :Plan Baunfry ■powwow CJffi€e (up to 5 stories) %+v v Neighborhood Taansitions ===I NewStreet ■ — — ■ New pedestriakn ake Path 21 Llght Industrial I Office (up 1o.2 stories) o�lellll Light Industrial I Office ;up to 4 stories) PotentW School Ofilication ===I NewStreet ■ — — ■ New pedestriakn ake Path 21 w Z Z D O X LL O F_ U 22 Terra Bella East of Shoreline Key elements of the land use vision for Terra Bella to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard include the following: • Light industrial preservation area maintains lower-cost spaces for start- ups, light industrial and flex spaces, and local businesses • New publicly -accessible neighborhood parks and open spaces totally approximately 4 acres • New residential uses • Atransition area along the southern edge emphasizing deeper setbacks, landscape buffers, and lower -scaled buildings facingthe adjacent single- family neighborhoods • The addition of new mixed-use and neighborhood -serving retail uses along North Shoreline Boulevard • New connections, including a pedestrian and bike pathway along the southern boundary connecting North Shoreline Blvd to San Leandro Avenue and Stevens Creek Trail via a potential pedestrian and bike tunnel under 1-85 Terra Bella West of Shoreline Key elements of the land use vision for Terra Bella to the west of North Shoreline Boulevard include the following: • A concentration of moderate to high-intensity office uses along Highway 101. New residential uses closer to West Middlefield Road. • A new publicly -accessible neighborhood park or open space approximately 4 acres in size • A potential school dedication site adjacent to Crittenden Middle School approximately 1.2 acres in size • Heights and intensities that transition from greatest near Highway 101 and North Shoreline Boulevard, and are reduced towards single-family neighborhoods • A transition area along the north-western edge emphasizing deeper setbacks, landscape buffers and lower -scaled buildings facing the adjacent single-family neighborhoods • The addition of new mixed-use and neighborhood -serving retail uses along North Shoreline Boulevard • A new street connecting West Middlefield Road to Terra Bella Avenue at San Pierre Way and breaking up this large block structure. • New internal pedestrian pathways providing more direct and convenient access to and between residential and office developments Master Planning A master planning process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly -accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing projects flexibility and with a review process focused on key development objectives. This requirement is outlined in the Master Planning Process section in Chapter 4. Development Types Table 3-1 describes each of the development types shown on Figure 3-1, including the preferred mix of land uses, height, and Maximum FAR. Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Requirements for Floor Area Ratio, Maximum FAR, and the Master Planning Process are outlined in Chapter 4. Table 3-1. Development Types Development Height Maximum Description Image Type MI FAR* Lower -Intensity Up to 3 stories 1.0 Lower -Intensity Residential supports a mix of townhomes, Residential rowhouses, and walk-up apartment building types with massing located away from existing single-family homes. Buildings have generous private open space, with _ + opportunities for public open spaces. r Moderate -Intensity Upto5stories 2.25 Moderate -Intensity Residential supports mid -rise multi - Residential story residential buildings. Buildings have smaller setbacks, ti greater massing that is generally located towards the front ^~ of the site, with active ground floor uses. Higher -Intensity Up to7stories 3.25 Higher -Intensity Residential supports multi -story residential Residential buildings. Projects have generous private open space, with opportunities for public open spaces. New buildings would have minimal setbacks and human -scale, pedestrian - oriented frontages. r Mixed -Use with Up to7stories 2.35 Mixed -Use with Retail is intended to encourage a _ Retail (up to 0.75 combination of ground floor services or retail with office FAR can be or residential uses above the ground floor. New buildings; r «� office or have minimal setbacks and active, pedestrian -oriented M, = .� commercial) frontages. � Z 0 g W m D: W H Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Maximum FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a projector master plan area. Seethe F►oorArea Ratio section in Chapter for more information. �3 Development Type FAR* Lower -Intensity Up to4stories 0.75 Lower -Intensity Office supports office, R&D, and light Office industrial uses up to 4 stories in height. Parking would generally be accommodated in structures. ' '~ Higher -Intensity Up to 6 stories 1.0 Higher -Intensity Office supports office, R&D, and light Office industrial uses up to 6stories in height. Buildings have active ground floors and human -scale, pedestrian -oriented frontages. Parking would generally be accommodated in structures. Lower -Intensity Up to2stories 0.55 Lower -Intensity Light Industrial / Office supports light Light Industrial / industrial, small office, and start-up spaces up to 2 stories _ Office in height. Parking would generally be accommodated in — .low. surface lots.'' Higher -Intensity Up to4stories 2.0 Higher -Intensity Light industrial / Office supports light` .. Light Industrial / industrial and office spaces up to 4 stories in height. Office Base FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district. Maximum FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a projector master plan area. Seethe F►oorArea Ratio section in Chapter �4 for more information. Frontage Types and Character Well-designed pedestrian oriented frontages will help create engaging streets and sidewalks, a cohesive look and feel to the area, and a comfortable and attractive environment for residents, employees, and visitors. This Plan envisions new street -facing buildings with pedestrian -oriented frontages throughout the area, with a focus on better pedestrian scale and orientation. Frontages consist of the street fagade of the building, any projecting elements, and the hardscape, landscape, walls and fences in the frontyard. Frontages define the relationship of the building to public areas with appropriate transitions from the public street to the semi -private and private areas of front yards and street -facing ground floor spaces. To implement this urban design vision for Terra Bella, this section introduces the following guidelines that apply to all new projects in the area: 1. Building setbacks. Commercial, mixed-use, and residential development should occur near the front edge of the property line unless outdoor dining or a recessed entry is proposed. Buildings should have shallow setbacks, generally 10 feet from the sidewalk. For corner buildings, the public street side setback should be the same as the front setback. 2. Massing. Building massing breaks should be used to reduce the visual appearance of large-scale buildings and articulate the building as a series of smaller "building blocks" with a range of depth, width, and height. Facades longer than 100 feet should be subdivided with at least one major massing break. Building facades should contain minor massing breaks approximately every 50 feet. DESIRED FRONTAGE TYPES 3. Articulation. Facades should use the following horizontal and vertical Frontages types should be selected based on building use and articulation strategies: location. Appropriate office and R&D frontage types include lobby • Horizontal articulation. Massing breaks, projections, architectural entry, forecourt, and landscaped setback and office yard. Appropriate details, and variations in materials and color should be incorporated to residential frontage types include stoop, patio and porch, lobby entry, Z break up the horizontal length of facades. and forecourt. Appropriate retail and mixed-use frontage types include a • Vertical articulation. Building stepbacks, projections, articulation shopfront, arcade or gallery, and dooryard and porch. p N in wall planes, architectural details, and variations in materials and > color should be used to break up the vertical height of buildings and 5 distinguish between upper and ground floors. Variations in height, m massing, roofline, and vertical articulation overall are encouraged. UJ UJ H 25 4. Transition from public to private space. Street setback areas should clearly delineate the transition between the ground -floor of a building and the street. This may be accomplished through the use of well -landscaped areas, outdoor seating and dining areas, pedestrian access to front entries (e.g. stoops, porches, terraces), art, and gathering spaces allowing for social interaction. These areas should be designed with amenities or improvements to engage or otherwise create a comfortable environment for people. 5. Building entries. Building entries reinforce building character, increase visual interest, break up massing, and provide inviting entrances into buildings and residential units. Primary building entrances should face the primary street frontage or be oriented toward public open space, such as a landscaped square, plaza, or similar space. The primary entrance to each street or ground -level tenant space along a public street should be provided from that street. 6. Active frontages. Active, pedestrian -oriented street frontages are encouraged on the ground floor of buildings thatface public spaces such as streets, greenways, and public parks. Engaging ground -floor uses include but are not limited to neighborhood commercial businesses, residential, and office amenity spaces, such as exercise, food service, and lobbies, and direct unit/secondary entrances to streets. 7. Ground -floor treatments. The ground floor of facades facing a street or public space should include distinctly different design elements than upper floors, using architectural and landscape features of utility and interest, particularly at pedestrian eye -height, and distinguished by elements such as a greater floor -to -ceiling height, greater articulation, different materials, finer design details and ornamentation, unique colors, enhanced w entrances, and/or architectural variation. Blank walls, including facades Zwithout doors, windows, landscaping treatments, or other pedestrian interest, should be minimized. Z D 0 1 LL 0 U 26 Example of neighborhood commercial shopfront frontage Residential ground floor that activates the pedestrian realm with porches and other architectural interest Example of neighborhood commercial shopfront frontage 8. High-quality materials. New developments should utilize high-quality, durable material and finishes to provide texture and enhance the visual interest. 9. Transparency and privacy. Buildings should maintain a high degree of transparency to maximize the visual connection to the street by using clear and unobstructed windows, doors, and other openings. Street -level glazing should be clear. Design techniques may be used to create an appropriate degree of privacy for ground floor residences and office spaces. 10. Parking. Parking should be located behind or under buildings, rather than along the street frontage. Parking should not create a "gap -tooth" street frontage where parking lots disturb the continuity of the active street frontage. 27 Transition Areas New development provides appropriate transitions in height and scale to existing neighborhoods. To achieve this, the Vision Plan includes a transition zone along the northwestern and southeastern boundaries of the Plan area. This transition zone includes a step down in height to provide compatibility with existing single-family neighborhoods. In addition, new development in these zones incorporates additional transition strategies. Examples of transition strategies described and illustrated below include: • Increased building setbacks • Upper -story step -backs • 45 -Degree Daylight Plane for buildingvolumes • Orienting primary windows away from existing homes • Providing landscape buffers • Limiting balconies overlooking existing homes • Conducting additional studies, such as shade analyses to reduce impact to neighboring homes. Example of transition in height and scale z 28 Transition Standards 1. Office neighborhood transitions. New office development in the Rock Street Neighborhood Transition Area shall meet the building height and setback standards described below and shown in Figure 3-4. • New buildings shall be located within the 45 -Degree Daylight Plane from the property line adjacent to single-family homes (see Figure 3-4). • All buildings greater than 15 ft in height shall be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • No building greater than 35 feet in height shall be located within 90 feet of the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • Building setbacks from property lines adjacent to single-family homes shall include a pedestrian path or driveway and a planting strip for medium to large size trees. 2. Residential neighborhood transition area. New residential development in the Rock Street and Stierlin Estates Neighborhood Transition Areas shall meet the building height and setback standards described below and shown in Figure 3-5. • Any part of a new building shall be located within the 45 -degree Daylight Plane from the property line adjacent to single-family homes (see Figure 3-5). • All buildings frontages facing single-family home parcels shall step back a minimum 10 feet above the second floor. • All buildings greater than 15 ft in height shall setback a minimum of 40 feet from the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • No building greater than 35 ft in height shall be located within 90 feet of the property line adjacent to single-family homes. • Building setbacks from property lines adjacent to single-family homes shall include a pedestrian path or driveway and a planting strip for medium to large size trees. 3. Balconies. Balconies in new developments shall use architectural design, screening, and building orientation to reduce privacy impacts on existing residential parcels. To the extent possible, balconies should be limited opposite existing single-family homes. 4. Landscaping and screening. New development shall use physical buffers and design treatments to reduce impacts on adjacent residential properties. Buffers may include larger setbacks, fencing, and landscaping and tree screening. Plant palettes shall enhance local identity, encourage biodiversity, and minimize environmental impacts by emphasizing the use of locally native and drought -resistant plant species and avoiding invasive plants as listed in the Cal -IPC inventory. (General Plan Policies INC5.5, 16, 19). 5. View studies. New development shall conduct shade and view analysis to study impacts on neighboring homes. 29 Figure 3-4. Office Neighborhood Transition Diagram M kul Figure 3-5. Residential Neighborhood Transition Diagram A: 2-3 Story Townhouse B: 2-3 Story Townhouse C: Stepping Corridor Bldg R min 90 ft R min 90 ft 160' 30-45 ft avg max height 35 ft bh; •' min. 40' R min 90 ft z 11 a z O N a� J J W m Uj W H 31 Parks and Open Space To serve the social and recreational needs of the Plan area, new publicly - accessible parks and open spaces on both the east and west side of Shoreline Drive will be provided. Conceptual open space locations are shown in Figure 3-6. Based on development potential, the minimum park dedication required should result in a combined total of 4 acres of parkland on the east side of Terra Bella and 4 acres on the west side of Terra Bella, with an additional 1.2 acre dedication for a school site (west of Shoreline). The exact location of parks will be reviewed as part of the master planing process and project review. New public open spaces should be designed for active and passive recreation, and may include neighborhood parks, plazas, linear greenways, and recreational facilities. As part of this Plan, a pedestrian and bicycle pathway is envisioned along Moonbeam Drive from North Shoreline, with a potential tunnel at San Leandro Street running under 1-85 that will provide access to Stevens Creek Trail. In addition, the proposed pedestrian bridge across Highway 101 could connect Terra Bella residents to the regional open space network, including Shoreline Regional Park, and planned open space amenities in North Bayshore. Achievingthis vision will require a coordinated effort between the City, property owners, and project developers, including land dedication by residential projects, City purchase using parkland dedication in -lieu funds, and creation of public plazas and open space by non-residential projects. New development in areas where a park is envisioned should dedicate public parkland. New non- residential development should provide on-site publicly -accessible open spaces under private ownership, such as plazas, landscaped areas, and public art installations. Specific locations and sizes should be determined during project approval. Locations near housing, commercial uses, and public paths should be prioritized. The City will continue to maintain cooperative arrangements with w the school district to use open space and facilities at Crittenden Middle School Zand nearby schools for public parks, playgrounds, and recreation programs. Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 32 Example of park design and amenities Examples of park and open space design Park and Open Space Standards 1. Terra Bella public parks. Non-residential and residential projects shall dedicate land for a public park. Modifications to park location within a project master plan area may be allowed based on project design review. 2. Privately -owned, publicly -accessible open spaces. New privately -owned, publicly -accessible open spaces shall be provided by non-residential projects. These open spaces are not identified on Figure 3-6. At the discretion of the City Council, this requirement may be waived in locations that are not on majorvisible corridors or accessible to residential areas. If waived, projects shall provide additional public benefits. Publicly -accessible open space areas should meet the following standards: a minimum 30' width in both dimensions and a minimum total of 3,000 square feet. The total amount of publicly -accessible open space should be scaled appropriately to the size of the project. This space should be accessible directly from public paths and sidewalks at the ground level, and not through gates and stairs. Publicly -accessible paths and greenways should not be used to comply with this requirement if they are provided pursuant to public Z mobility requirements, unless additional width and amenities are provided, subject to design review. Projects are encouraged to locate publicly -accessible open a spaces adjacent to other sites to allow for expansion of public spaces over time. Z 0 N 3. Park and open space landscaping. Plant palettes for parks, open spaces, and newly developed properties shall enhance local identity, encourage biodiversity, and minimize environmental impacts by emphasizing the use of locally native and drought -resistant plant species and avoiding invasive plants as listed in the m Cal -IPC inventory. w H 33 5� 34 Figure 3-6. Conceptual Open Space Diagram 1 0 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY iq C, 2r.0 1;00 1,000 Feel !Wpaqw: Nan Roundary + ===I New street Terra Bella Vision Plan New Pede5trian/ail;e Pat L LAAVENMA Ov Conrept"al Nbk op" spatR , Conceptua I Jol nt-Use SchooC Park Site* Existing ParkslOpen Space Trails hfoo Awmian wjfi be dprerminsdas part cWmm Per iWoni'dow-0opmenr epojew process. 4 . deveLopment rinciples & implementation framework S MM E 17 '`'� _ l�l� � I ; � ♦� �� - �' : • �� d--�� sem-" - "- ��,� _ _ _ � . �iT4 7Oda=: f., 4. Development Principles and Implementation Framework Achieving the vision and other principles established by the Vision Plan will require important contributions from property owners and project developers to address key local and regional concerns, such as traffic congestion, park creation, and small business preservation. Future development in Terra Bella is expected to help address these concerns by implementing the following development principles and policies. Floor Area Ratio 1. Floor area ratio (FAR)." Base" FAR is the allowed FAR per the underlying zoning district that meets minimum Vision Plan and Citywide requirements." Maximum" FAR is the highest allowed FAR within a project or master plan area including all FAR bonuses. "Maximum" FARs are established within each development type in the Vision Plan area (see Table 3-1). Floor Area Ratio is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, except as provided below. 2. Gross floor area exemptions. Building spaces for small businesses or educational, cultural, or other non-profit uses and neighborhood commercial uses may be excluded from gross floor area. The maximum floor area exemption shall not exceed 5% of the project's gross floor area, except when an existing structure is being preserved for use by a small business. An appropriate legal agreement shall be recorded on the property to identify the approved gross floor area exemption and use of the space for qualified businesses or organizations. 3. Dedications and easements. The area of new dedications and easements for publicly accessible streets, paths, or other transportation purposes shall be included in a site's lot area for the purposes of calculating FAR. 4. Parking -FAR calculations. Above -grade parking is not included in calculations of Maximum FAR for non-residential. Above -grade parking shall be included in calculations of Maximum FAR for residential or hotel uses. 5. Multiple areas. If a project site or master plan boundary includes more than one development type, the project's total gross floor area shall be the sum of allowed gross floor area in each constituent part. The floor area may be applied across the project as a whole if the project substantially complies with the purpose and intent of the Vision Plan. Z Z 0 1 LL 0 T 36 Maximum FAR The Vision Plan proposes maximum FAR guidelines for different land use categories (see Table 3-1) for development not consistent with the existing Zoning and the General Plan. The maximum FAR is suggested based on development studies in recent City Precise Plans and also the land use vision for the area. The maximum FAR program ensures that new development provides benefits and limits impacts to the community in exchange for additional project floor area. Individual projects may request additional FAR, above the Base FAR, for which they must provide community benefits to implement key Projects and policy goals established by the City Council. These projects must submit a master plan as defined later in this chapter. 1. School district strategy. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall submit a Local School District Strategy to the school districts and the City, intended to support new local schools serving the Vision Plan area. The School Districts and the developer shall meet and confer in good faith to develop the School District Strategy to support new local schools. The School District Strategy shall be memorialized as a legally binding agreement. The strategy may include, but is not limited to, land dedication for new school development; additional funding for new school development; TDR strategies to benefit developer(s) that provide new school facilities; or other innovative strategies supporting schools. 2. Community benefits contribution. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall contribute to community benefit projects. The maximum FAR amount for a given project shall depend on the contribution to the community benefit, and compliance with other Maximum FAR requirements. Community benefit value. Projects requesting floor area above the Base FAR shall propose community benefits contributions with minimum value proportional to the project's building square footage in excess of the Base FAR, as determined by the City Council. Community benefit projects. In lieu of monetary payment of community benefit contributions, projects may propose to provide a community benefit or district improvement project. These on- or off-site improvement projects may include additional affordable housing units, new dedicated public park space, shared parking facilities, district transportation or utility improvements, retention and/or expansion of existing small business, buildingarea for neighborhood commercial uses (such as a grocery store) or non -profits, dedication of land for schools, or other projects proposed by applicants. Table 4-1 provides a list of example projects. Specific public benefit or district improvement projects shall be determined during review of the proposed project, and approved by the City Council. Community benefit may not apply towards the Local School District Strategy and Jobs Housing Linkage program. 3. Affordable housing. All residential projects shall provide at least 20% affordable units. All projects shall comply with the City-wide Below -Market -Rate (BMR) Housing Program (ArticleXIVofthe ZoningCode and the BM RAdministrative Guidelines) forqualifying households, determination of rents and sale prices, alternative mitigations, timing, and administration. Development of affordable housing units on or off-site within Terra Bella, over and above the amount required under existing City and Precise Plan regulations is highly encouraged. 37 4. Green building. • Non-residential projects: Achieve LEED Platinum or equivalent. • Residential projects: Achieve 120 points on the Green Point Rated system or equivalent and submeter, or use other appropriate technology that can track individual energy use, for each residential unit. Table 4-1. Community Benefits/District Improvement Projects List Affordable Housing Development of affordable housing units on or off-site within Terra Bella, over and above the amount required under existing City regulations. District Transportation Improvements Off-site pedestrian, bicycle, or other roadway improvements. District Utility Improvements Off-site infrastructure and utility improvements above and beyond those required to serve the development (including water, sewer, and recycled water systems). Support for small local businesses Supporting or subsidizing small, local businesses including (but not limited to): • Providing new dedicated flexible space for small businesses located within new buildings; • Dedicating an existing building for small business use in perpetuity at below market rates through an appropriate instrument; • Providing relocation assistance to help small businesses in Terra Bella displaced by new development to locate elsewhere in Terra Bella or the City. Shared public parking facilities Constructing or otherwise providing publicly accessible parking facilities to serve district -wide parking needs. Floor area for neighborhood Providing dedicated building area for qualifying neighborhood commercial uses or community facilities. commercial uses or non -profits Dedication of land for schools Dedicating land to one of the local school districts (Mountain View Whisman School District, MVWSD, or Mountain View -Los Altos Union High School District, MV-LAUSD) Other Other benefits or district improvement projects proposed by applicants and approved by City Council W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 38 Jobs -Housing Linkage The City's recent planning efforts in East Whisman have strongly emphasized the need for a betterjobs-housing balance in the City by requiring commercia I development to support and facilitate residential development. The Plan requires a "jobs -housing linkage" program to ensure residential development is balanced with office and R&D growth in Terra Bella. The expectation is that all new office and R&D development will help facilitate residential development through jobs -housing linkage strategies which could include: direct construction of housing, dedication of land suitable for housing, contribution of fees to offset costs for residential development, residential development partnerships, purchase of existing office square footage from residential developers who demolish office buildings, and other creative strategies or partnerships that support or facilitate housing development. 1. Plan requirement. Office, R&D, and industrial development applicants shall submit a Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan. The proposed strategies to facilitate residential development shall be roughly proportional to the net new floor area proposed. This may be less if affordable units are provided in excess of the City's inclusionary requirements, or if other housing -related goals are met. 2. Timing.A phasing or housing delivery plan shall be included in the Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan. Proposed strategies, includingthe construction of units, should be implemented before non-residential building occupancy, unless otherwise determined by the City Council. Strict timing requirements may be waived if additional certainty is provided (such as a deed restriction or land dedication to an affordable housing developer). Projects may not use the Jobs -Housing Linkage Plan to satisfy the requirements of the Community Benefits contribution. 3. Partnerships. Subject to requirements established by the Jobs -Housing Linkage Program Administrative Guidelines, office projects may partner with residential projects to satisfy the Jobs -Housing Linkage Program requirement. SmaLL Business Preservation Helping existing businesses survive and grow is a vital strategy to preserve the unique, small business character of Terra Bella and create an economically diverse area. The vision for Terra Bella is to expand and intensity office uses, particularly to the west of North Shoreline Boulevard, while maintaining smaller, more affordable spaces for start-ups, small businesses, and non -profits to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard. New development projects should provide support for small businesses, such as small, flexible work spaces located within new buildings, rent subsidies for small or local businesses, and relocation assistance. 39 Parking and TDM Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the practice of influencing travel behaviorwith the goal of reducingdemand forsingle occupantvehicle use. In the context of Terra Bella, TDM can help reduce peak demand trips that contribute the most to existing vehicle congestion, reduce parking demand, and reduce vehicle miles traveled to help meet environmental goals such as greenhouse gas reduction. Parking and TDM are strongly interrelated since parking cost and availability are key factors that influence travel decisions. Given the relationship between parking availability and driving, making Terra Bella's parking policies efficient will help reduce impacts from new development on congestion. Parking While the Terra Bella Vision Plan builds on the strengths of the area's planned BRT transit access, network of complete streets, and mixed land uses, there will be parking demand from new development. The following principles will help the ensure that parking is efficiently used and supports community values such as safe walking and biking. Off -Street Parking The off-street parking requirements for Terra Bella are shown in Table 4-2. Parking maximums are an effective way to limit additional trips. Peak drive - alone trips cannot exceed parking availability. Developments in Terra Bella should be required to share parking resources with wadjacent developments where suitable. The Mountain View ordinance includes K a provision for adjacent land uses to pool their parking resources through "shared parking". Shared parking is beneficial in many ways - it reduces the Z total amount of parking needed, which reduces the amount of land needed for iparking, allows more flexibility in project design, and often saves developers U. money while making housing more affordable. U 40 Table 4-2. Off -Street Parking Standards Land Use • . Standards Office/Research and Maximum 2.9 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross Development building floor area Retail, restaurants, other Minimum 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross uses permitted by zoning building floor area designation Multi -Family Residential - Maximum 1 space per unit Studios and 1 -bedroom Multi -Family Residential - Maximum 2 spaces per unit 2 -bedroom and up Warehouse/Data Center Maximum 0.8 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross building floor area Other Uses Minimum as defined in the Zoning Ordinance or through the Provisional Use Permit process The two predominant land uses proposed for Terra Bella are office and residential development. These uses pair very well for shared parking as offices have peak parking demand during the day but minimal demand at night, while residential developments have the exact opposite. The parking supply for shared parking can often be 30% lower than for individually provided parking, though the exact reduction depends on the composition of the adjacent land uses. While minimum parking requirements are still recommended for retail and restaurant uses, developers providing strong parking management, parking sharing, and TDM programs may request exemptions from the minimum requirement. Unbundled porhing Parking may be offered as unbundled: the cost of parking is sold or rented separately from housing or commercial units. With unbundled parking, occupants only pay for the parking spaces they actually need. Details of the unbundled parking program will be reviewed as part of the development review process. 1,� � � <_, ;Pv , .0 The intent of shared parking and unbundled parking is not to provide too little parking for the planned land uses, but rather to avoid providing too much. However, if residents in adjacent neighborhoods experience excessive demand foron-streetparking, the City of Mountain View has a residential parking permit program that can be employed to ensure that people visiting or living at Terra Bella do not park in adjacent neighborhoods. Designated Porhing for Carpools and Vonpools In office, R&D, and industrial developments, designated parking for carpool/ vanpool vehicles should be located near building entrances. These spaces should be included in the maximum allowable parking. Residentiol permit parking (photo credit: Brodie Thomas/Livewire z a z O N J W m UJ W H 41 '3 42 New multi -family residential and office and R&D developments should provide parking for carsharing services as shown in Table 4-3. Carshare spaces should be in a highly -visible location and accessible to both building users and the general public. Carshare spaces do not count towards the parking maximum. Table 4-3. Required Spaces for Carshare Services Land Use EM Carshare Vehicle Requirement mmmt:7:�im Office/Research and Development For buildings greaterthan 40,000 square feet, minimum of three parkingspaces per buildingsite for carshare. Multi -family Residential 0-49 dwelling units - 0 car -sharing spaces 1 per 2,000 sf or a minimum of 4 spaces, 50-250 dwelling units -1 car -sharing space 251 or more dwelling units - 2 car sharing spaces, plus 1 for every additional 200 dwelling units Bicycle and Mobility Device Porhing New development should provide bicycle facilities in accordance with Table 4-4 below. Short-term bike racks should be conveniently located in highly -visible, well -lit locations near building entrances. Long-term secure bicycle parking should be provided in convenient, covered locations such as near placard parking spaces within the garage on the level closest to the ground floor. Designated space for shared mobility devices should be provided with appropriate marking in a convenient, well -lit, publicly -accessible, and highly -visible location near building entrances. Table 4-4. Required Bicycle Parking Facilities Land Us (a Short -Term BicycLe Parkin A' I 01.�! howers Office/Research and Development 1 per 20,000 sf or a minimum of 4 1 per 2,000 sf or a minimum of 4 spaces, 1 unisex for the first 80,000 sq. ft and 1 spaces, whichever is greater whichever is greater additional unisex for each additional 40,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood Commercial Uses 4 per5,000sf ora minimum of2spaces, 1 per 5,000 sf or a minimum of 2 spaces, None required whichever is greater whichever is greater Multi -Family Residential 1 per 10 units 1 per unit None required Transportation Demand Management The Vision Plan establishes an ambitious target for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Terra Bella. To meet this target, the Vision Plan prioritizes walking, biking, and transit use. Large blocks will be subdivided into a finer -grained network of pedestrian -oriented streets. Streets within the Plan Area will be "Complete Streets," safely accommodating bicycles through lanes or buffered cycle tracks, pedestrians through wide sidewalks and enhanced crossings, and buses and shuttles through improved shelters. All new development projects will meet the City's requirements for TDM, develop and maintain a TDM Plan, and join the Transportation Management Association (TMA). In addition, any new non-residential employment generating (Office and R&D uses) development in Terra Bella will remain net neutral (not increase) with no net new trips as compared to today's baseline. Each project should implement a robust monitoring program (including site-specific trips) to provide information on how the Plan is performing and help inform on-going City decisions on capital improvements, TDM requirements, developments, and more. The TDM measures shown below represent strategies that are positioned to work with the transit and multi -modal investments planned forthe area. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list. There are a variety of subsidies that can be provided to incentivize other modes besides driving, especially drive alone trips. The simplest is a parking cash -out, typically used in employee TDM programs, where employees are given money each time they commute to theirjob site and do not use parking. Employers often give transit passes for Caltrain (Go Pass) or VTA (Eco Pass) or a set amount of money per month to pay for transit. With both types of passes the price is negotiated annually with an institution such as an employer or property developer/manager at a steeply discounted rate compared to an individual transit pass. For residential sites, a non -driving subsidy can be in the form of a VTA Eco Pass or a monthly non -driving stipend per unit. The stipend can be used on any combination of transit (e.g. Clipper Card, VTA Eco Pass), car share (e.g. Zipcar, Getaround), or ride -sharing platforms (e.g. Uber/Lyft). Free or subsidized transit passes can increase residents' awareness of nearby transit options, and can reduce the financial barrier by making it a more cost -comparable option between the cost of public transportation and the cost of parking. Especially for residents of affordable units, this strategy can reduce household transportation costs, improve transit use, equity, mobility options, and further reduce the need for owning a car. Providing a flexible stipend rather than a specific transit pass maximizes residents' transportation options by providing residents' access to multiple services ratherthan just one. Commute trips are typicallythe longest dailytravel distance, the most consistenttrip throughoutthe week, and offer unique opportunities to reduce drive alone trips. Work sites often have multiple employees starting at similar times and converging on the same area, both of these trends increase with the size of the employment site. Employmentsites of more than 50 employees should develop a TDM Program. ATDM program can consist of multiple elements such as: TDM coordinator, parking cash out, subsidized transit pass, employee shuttle, carpool matching, vanpool subsidy, active transportation benefit, etc. The most effective programs reveal to motorists the actual cost of providing parking, either through parking fees, or by giving non -motorists the cash value of the free parking provided to motorists. For example, commercial property owners and theirtenants can be required to charge for parking at $1 an hour, up to $10 a day, or parking could be free, but employees who do not drive are given $10 a day in tax-free commuter benefits or taxable cash. A more detailed study will need to be developed to establish a goal and monitoring program such as developing a trip cap and/or transportation mode -split goal. 43 z 44 Master Planning Process A master planning process will be required for both the east and west sides of Terra Bella to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to new development. This process will allow the City to implement key Vision Plan principles, such as creating new publicly -accessible streets and open spaces, while allowing projects flexibility and with a review process focused on key development objectives. This section outlines the conditions and requirements forthe master planning process. 1. Required master plans. A master plan is required prior to Major Development Review permit or General Plan or zoning modification applications in Terra Bella, including new buildings and major additions, in accordance with the following: b. Terra Bella East of Shoreline. Projects east of Shoreline Boulevard shall submit a master plan for the east side of Terra Bella. The master plan shall include the following: • New public parks and open spaces, totally approximately 4 acres shall be provided across the area with at least 1 acre provided as a continuous space. The plan should include location, size, and design for each park and/or open space in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. • New publicly -accessible private open spaces, including location, size, and design. • Surrounding development, both proposed and existing, including location, mix, intensity, and square footage of new development. • The amount and type of affordable housing provided, the unit size mix, and the income targets. • Neighborhood transition strategies for the transition area along the southern boundary adjacent to single-family homes. c. Terra Bella West of Shoreline. Projects west of Shoreline Boulevard requiring a Major Development Review permit or general Plan or zoning modification permit shall submit a master plan for the entire west side of Terra Bella. The master plan shall include the following: • New public parks and open spaces, providing a combined total of 4 acres over the Terra Bella West area with at least 1 acre provided as a continuous space. The plan should include location, size, and design for each park and/or open space in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. • New publicly -accessible private open spaces, including location, size, and design. • Surrounding development, both proposed and existing, including location, mix, intensity, and square footage of new development. • The amount and type of affordable housing provided, the unit size mix, and the income targets. • Neighborhood transition strategies for the transition area along the northwestern boundary adjacent to single-family homes. • Potential school site dedication of 1.2 acres adjacent to Crittenden Middle School. 2. Project master plan preparation. in addition to the above, master plans shall include the following minimum components: • Signed development applications from all property owners within the proposed master plan. • Materials such as maps, surrounding and proposed uses, proposed building locations, circulation plan, total square footage, open space, and other materials that demonstrate compliance with the purpose and intent of the Vision Plan. • Parking strategy, including but not limited to, shared parking or district parking faciIities. • Urban design strategy, including a conceptual architecture plan, including how the location, intensity, and uses of planned and future buildings function and relate to each other, the project site, and surrounding area. • A block circulation plan shall be submitted. The block circulation plan should be consistent with the Future Transportation Network map (Figure 5-1) and Vision Plan land use map (Figure 3-1). The block circulation plan shall include the following: street design recommendations and cross-sections; each connection specified as public or private (e.g. dedication vs. easement); future connections to vacant sites and planned/proposed parks; and an implementation and phasing strategy for the connections. • Phasing and implementation strategy, including the timing and plans for any public improvements. The master plan shall identify an initial and final phase, with optional intermediate phases. The initial and intermediate phases need not include all open spaces, school dedication, district parking or other amenities and public benefittargets, butshall show howthe phase complieswith incremental increases in these targets and minimum development standards. The final phase shall show actions and fundingsources to achieve the desired amount and mix of land uses, and othercomplete neighborhood concepts identified in the Vision Plan. • Other components deemed necessary by the City. 3. District parking. If the project applicant proposes to accommodate required parking off site, the master plan shall include the parking structure (or below grade parking) location, number of parking stalls, number of parking stalls required for the new development, and the non -automobile connections between the project site and district structure. 4. Review process. Once the master plan application is deemed complete by the City, the Master Plan shall be reviewed by the Environmental Planning Commission, who will provide a recommendation to the City Council. 5. Planned Community (PC) permit process. The City Council shall determine, at the time of Master Plan approval, the City's subsequent development review process for PC Permit applicants associated with an approved Master Plan. Planned Community (PC) Permit applications associated with an approved Master Plan may be eligible for an expedited review process. 45 This page is intentionally left blank. 46 5 m mobility il O r 7' R aT`16f 4'llfil...4V, ^ 21 5 'N. 5. Mobility The transportation vision for Terra Bella is to provide access to and within the Terra Bella neighborhood for residents and employees with a multimodal transportation network that prioritizes pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Transportation Network The future multimodal transportation network for Terra Bella is shown in Figure 5-1 and contains new internal streets, reversible bus lanes on Shoreline Boulevard, and proposed active transportation improvements, including full-time bike lanes, protected bikeways, and across -barrier connections. Reversible Bus Lane A reversible bus lane (RBL) is planned for Shoreline Boulevard with stops on Terra Bella Avenue. The lane will be situated in the center of North Shoreline Boulevard, protected by physical barriers, and will accommodate northbound buses on weekday mornings and southbound buses on weekday evenings. Transit service along the corridor will also have reduced stop frequency, and high frequency of bus service. The full design and implementation of this transit priority lane will determine how these elements are applied to North Shoreline Boulevard. Having a stop within the center of the neighborhood will provide a direct connection to employment centers in North Bayshore as well as to downtown Mountain View, VTA light rail, and Caltrain. New Internal Access Roads The block bounded by West Middlefield Road, Terra Bella Avenue, and North Shoreline Boulevard is significantly longer than would typically be recommended for walkable development. Adding a new street connecting Terra Bella Avenue to West Middlefield Road would improve access for all modes, but especially for people walking and bicycling. The new street would primarily provide access, and should be designed for low speeds, safe accommodation for all modes, and sufficient on -street loading for the proposed land uses. w Z H Z O i LL O } H U 48 Figure 5-1 Future Transportation Network OLD M I'DI) L FF FEL D WA y m ........... ■ db de 4' lb TIRM 014i .7 41F z.. ...................... .......... 0 02 raw % V, S'Xfl--9J 'NA SAM muo k)k 0- Ya :tin CVW213.tiWj 250 500 LOW Feet :F -%W4: Sul Iding rGotprinn. ;memo.; Man Eoum6ary EXBt1nVPrap05*d Trarrift Existin.MrGpcised Bike Facilities StFeeir Nettvark Terra Bella Vision Plan -010, VrA rov(eSJStQps ..... class I Path 44tw5rje" Cin -01 MOLNTMN VIFW mvp "I" Protected Elikeway JC IaSs IV) Ratecred intersectiam Future RSL foutWmops ... Class 11 Me Lane New signalized Class III Rom intwwaion 49 Walking and Bicycling Connections Planned bicycle lanes and shared bicycle and pedestrian paths will improve access for people walking and biking within the neighborhood as well as traveling to nearby destinations. In addition, emerging technologies such as electric skateboards and scooters are rapidly gaining popularity and are likely to play a larger role in future transportation. Mobility devices such as electric skateboards and scooters typically operate in the same space as people use to ride bikes and walk. Under California state law, however, motorized scooters are not permitted to be operated along sidewalks. Providing better connections and more space for people to walk and ride bicycles can also provide space to accommodate emerging mobility options in ways that reduce potential conflicts, encourage compliance with state and local laws, and enhance personal mobility. Connection to Stevens Creek Trail There are three options to add a connection between the Terra Bella neighborhood and the Stevens Creek Trail. These options include: • At grade under 101/85 interchange • Atunnel under 85 at San Leandro Street (the most direct, and likely most expensive option) • At grade under 85 on-ramp at Moffett Boulevard. Connectivity across North Shoreline Boulevard North Shoreline Boulevard is a barrier for people walking and biking in the Terra Bella neighborhood. It is characterized by large distances between crossings, long crossing distances, and relatively high vehicle speeds. The street's design is conducive to vehicles traveling faster than the 35 -mph speed limit, and is unwelcoming to vulnerable road users. To reconnect the two halves of the neighborhood, pedestrian crossing improvements are necessary. The intersections at North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and at North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, are optimized forvehicle throughput. The crossings are characterized by long crossing distances and wlarge turn radii that enable high cornering speeds. Z The Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study (2014) recommended that the North a Z Shoreline/West Middlefield and North Shoreline/Terra Bella intersections be D redesigned as protected intersections. Planned protected intersections will U. provide the following benefits: O Y H U 50 Closs IV cycle track • Shorter crossing distances for pedestrians • Lower vehicle cornering speeds • Protected waiting space for cyclists making left turns Connection to Permanente creek Trail Permanente Creek Trail is located just outside of the project boundary, but nonetheless is an important pedestrian and bicycle connection to the North Bayshore. A connection between pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within the Terra Bella Plan area and the Permanente Creek Trail would help create a more complete active transportation network. The connection could be achieved via two strategies, both of which are envisioned for the area: 1.) the proposed Class IV protected bikeway on West Middlefield Road, which would provide a direct connection to the beginning of the trail, and 2.) the proposed paseo between Rock Street and Terra Bella Avenue. This would require improved bicycle infrastructure on Rock Street leading into the Permanent Creek Trail. 51 Street Design Concepts General Street Design Recommendations This section provides general street design recommendations for Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. It is followed by specific design concepts for each street. 1. Travel lane widths. With the exception of Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road, travel lanes shall be 10 feet where possible. 2. Traffic calming measures. A range of traffic calming measures could be implemented to slow traffic and improve safety on Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. Several options include speed cushions and curb extensions. Speed cushions are small raised humps that require vehicles to slow down. Curb extensions ("bulbouts") reduce the radius of the curb at street corners, which reduces vehicle turningspeeds and the pedestrian crossing distance. 3. Loading space. While most parking for future development would be provided off-street, on -street space for short term parking and loading will continue to become more important as increasing numbers of people use ride -hailing apps such as Uber and Lyft. Where possible, space should be preserved for on -street loading, as shown in the street design alternatives that follow. At the same time, proposed protected bicycle facilities will protect people biking from loading or parking activity that today might occur in bike lanes. 4. Green infrastructure. Integration of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) design into streets and public spaces should be considered to provide w an attractive landscape feature while also capturing and treating runoff z to meet water quality requirement. GSI measures shall be placed into zretrofitted streets when required by the Municipal Regional Permit, and, if feasible, in alignment with the City's GSI Plan and the Countywide GSI X Handbook. LL O } H U 52 Figure 5-2. Protected Intersection Curb extension Rapid street improvements North Shoreline Boulevard The Shoreline Boulevard Corridor Study (2014) envisions the street as a multimodal corridor with dedicated transit lanes as well as protected bikeways, protected intersections, and a pedestrian/bike bridge across US -101 between Shoreline/Terra Bella and Shoreline/La Avenida. These recommendations remain appropriate, and the improvements to transit, walking, and bicycling, will be crucial to accommodate anticipated trip growth without increasing vehicle trips. As mentioned previously, North Shoreline Boulevard is a barrier to pedestrians and cyclists. Figure5-2 illustrates a protected intersection that includes bulbouts to slow turning vehicles, and to provide safe spaces for pedestrians and cyclists to wait. This design reduces the potential for conflict between bicycles going straight and vehicles to rning right by slowing and to rningvehicles so that drivers are in a position with good visibility of oncoming cyclists in the bike lane. The design, while intended to better protect people walking and bicycling, should take into account all vehicles using the intersection, particularly emergency service vehicles and where necessary buses and trucks. Speed cushion az J IL z O a g J W m LU W H 53 W_ 7 Z H Z O 1 LL O z 54 Terra Bella Avenue As the main road providing access to the Terra Bella neighborhood from West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue should accommodate access for all transportation modes, as well as support commercial loading and deliveries. Since most properties will likely continue to provide parking onsite, there will be limited need for on -street parking. Flexible curbside areas could accommodate both loading and pick-up/drop-off of passengers. Terra Bella Avenue between West Middlefield Road and North Shoreline Boulevard has a curb -to -curb distance varying between 48 - 50 feet. East of North Shoreline Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue is slightly narrower at 46 - 48 feet. This is enough space to accommodate a two-way protected bikeway on the north side of Terra Bella Avenue. This option would extend a high-quality network from the protected bikeways on North Shoreline Boulevard into the Terra Bella neighborhood. A two-way protected cycletrackwould requirespecial design consideration at intersections and driveways, including measuresto slow turningvehicles, ensure adequate visibility, and potentially add dedicated bicycle signal phasing at signalized crossings. More conventional buffered bike lanes are also possible, though there is insufficient width fora parking -protected design and buffered bike lanes do not eliminate the potential forconflict between active modes of transportation and curbsidevehicle activity. Examples of cycle tracks Figure 5-3 Terra BeLLa Avenue Two -Way Protected CycLe Track Alternative mini -0 =No r� 01 .. = No Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Figure 5-4 Terra Bella Avenue Buffered Bike Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Ar w Z H Z D O X LL O } H U 56 Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue provide access from Terra Bella Avenue within the Terra Bella neighborhood, and would support a mix of dense office and residential developments. As such they should provide a balance of access, safety, and placemaking. The cross-sections vary from 38 - 40 feet curb -to -curb. There are two possible alternative: 1. A parking -protected bike on one side of the street and another conventional bike lane on the other side, with parking or loading on one side of the street. 2. Shared lanes with traffic calming measures if loading is required on both sides of the street. Example of shared lanes with traffic calming Example of protected bike lanes. Photo credit: Joe Linton/Streetsblog LA Figure 5-5 Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue, Bike Lane Alternative Y MAN& w Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord Figure 5-6 Linda Vista Avenue and San RafaeL Avenue, Shared Lane Alternative Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord no 1 ■■ No ME ,n 57 San Leandro Street San Leandro Street provides internal connectivity and access, and varies from 32 - 34 feet. Given the limited width, a low -speed street with shared lanes and on -street parking or loading is recommended. Figure 5-7 San Leandro Street, Shared Lane Alternative F� Source: Streetmix, Nelson�Nygoord W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 58 y IP APP`existing conditions Existing Conditions This section presents a summary of the existing land use, urban form, and mobility conditions in the Terra Bella area. Existing Land Use and Zoning Existing land use in the Plan area includes a mix of low -intensity office buildings, industrial uses, retail services, single-family homes, and institutional facilities. Figure A-1 shows the existing land use by parcel in the Plan area and the vicinity and Table A-1 below provides a breakdown of acreage and percentages for each existing land use. Predominant land uses are office/research and development (66%), followed by services (10%), which includes a Credit Union, a storage facility, and other services. There are two church facilities (7%) on the site and the Summit Denali charter school (1%). Among the industrial land uses (6%) is a Recology City of Mountain View facility site. Larger office complexes are found west of North Shoreline Boulevard, while the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard is home to light industrial, small businesses, and several non -profits. There is a small percentage of single-family residential (3%) in the Plan area, all to the east of North Shoreline Boulevard. The Plan area is, however, surrounded by single and multi -family housing to the northwest and southeast. In many cases, office or industrial properties directly abut single-family homes with little to no transition. w Z H Z O X LL O } H U Table A -i. Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percentage Office/R&D 62 66% Services 10 10% Church 6 7% Industrial 6 6% Institution/Recreation 3 4% Single -Family 3 3% Vacant 2 2% Retail 1 1% Grade School Grand TotaL 0.6 93.6 1% 100% Figure A -s. Existing Land Use ULD MIppLEFIELO WAY NOk G ;� (} LA rMYIwDA k 2 0 10 "fill m If I t ■�. ` *� t 7ikR14>f4J�NYi *#*i alk a i .f F14Hq Wa a !`rar+AalDdv C.- '� ff 8r � wu r+Arak't31�w 0250 SOO 1.G00 Fe&t Legend Existing Land Use OfkelR&D Retail - scbool Senices Terra Bella Vision Pian - Church ` motellmolel - I.ndustrial wit] -Family Medical Singk-Famlly y lr% • s,i• ••• •. 4 l- InstimmrvReereational yr<ani r-^■ 16■■. Project Boundary 61 W Z Z 0 X LL 0 } H U 62 The General Plan designation for the entire Terra Bella area is General Industrial. General Industrial is intended for the production, storage, and wholesale of goods and services to create abroad industrial base. The allowed land uses are industrial uses, including manufacturing and storage, research and development, administrative offices and ancillary commercial uses. Zoning designations for the Plan area are Limited Industrial (ML) east of North Shoreline Boulevard and General Industrial (MM) west of North Shoreline Boulevard, consistent with the General Plan General Industrial designation (see Table A-2). Approximately a third of all industrial zoned land in the City is located in Terra Bella. Despite its industrial designation, only a small percentage (6%) of existing uses in the area are industrial. Figure A-2 shows the zoning designations forthe area. Table A-2. Zoning Figure A-2. Zoning Ip LDMFOO,tFIELp WAY a m 7 W (AAVENI[JA 0 S Vi F N 0 2513 540 1.004 Feet Legend Single•Familyki General Industrial NAM MulupleFamilyR3 AgriCUILUreAAW Terra Bella) Vision Plan MobMe Home RMH � Planned COmn unitylPwNe lir, P Limited Industrial ML Public Facility PF ,rrrEr 11'j 411 N114 s[ IN I IV.. MW. ■ � �iO�fC �OI1 nQdr� Zoning Qz J IL z O a g J W m W H 63 f # t # y ■ 4 r *4M�r■�I#* *+4** 4# ■ •# F 4 111R *� ice},411, TEUA b{SIA AVE' -4m # ****4040 ;16 f f - N 0 2513 540 1.004 Feet Legend Single•Familyki General Industrial NAM MulupleFamilyR3 AgriCUILUreAAW Terra Bella) Vision Plan MobMe Home RMH � Planned COmn unitylPwNe lir, P Limited Industrial ML Public Facility PF ,rrrEr 11'j 411 N114 s[ IN I IV.. MW. ■ � �iO�fC �OI1 nQdr� Zoning Qz J IL z O a g J W m W H 63 Urban Design and Character The existing urban character and development pattern in Terra Bella can be characterized into two distinct subareas -the area east of North Shoreline Boulevard and the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard. West of Shoreline The site west of North Shoreline Boulevard consists of larger parcels (greater than 2 acres) with large suburban office development (see Figure A-3). The area includes two blocks and all parcels are accessed from Terra Bella Avenue, North Shoreline Boulevard, and West Middlefield Road. The west side of North Shoreline Boulevard is one long, continuous block (see Figure A-4). This presents an opportunityto break up this super -block and create more walkable, pedestrian -friendly block sizes in this area. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard, is characterized by large building footprints that reflect the commercial and industrial nature of the uses. In many cases, buildings have large front and side setbacks without a clear relation to either street or other buildings. In several cases the buildings have blank or inactive facades. Compared to the area east of North Shoreline Boulevard, the area has wider sidewalks with higher quality landscaping. The existing land uses, frontage character, and long block lengths arejust a few of the factors that make this area less conducive to walking. Examples of development west of North Shoreline Boulevard 64 two - ,Jwtll Existing Condtions W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O z 66 East of Shoreline East of North Shoreline Boulevard, the urban form follows a grid with perpendicular cross -streets creating distinct blocks. The parcel size is smaller, typically less than two acres, resulting in smaller -scale development and buildings in the area (see Figure A-3). Small parcels, less than an acre is size, are often more difficult to redevelop and require aggregation. The east side of North Shoreline Boulevard also has smaller blocks (about 600 feet) that allow for increased opportunities for crossings and provide more direct routes for pedestrians (see Figure A-4). A large percentage of land is devoted to surface parking, landscaping, outdoor storage, or other uses both on the east and west side of North Shoreline Boulevard. The area has narrow sidewalks with irregular landscaping. The area includes a diverse mix of uses, with vacant or underutilized parcels that provide an opportunity for infill redevelopment. low- I Examples of development east of North Shoreline Boulevard Examples of development east of North Shoreline Boulevard az J a z O N a� J J W m uj w H 67 Figure A-3. Parcel Size OLD MIDDLEFIELD wAY ;i -ilii 4.-. J IW k J W A AVf'HroA {+J Z 16. or 1,40D Feet Legend 0 -Q.5 acre -s 2.0 - 3.5 atrts 0.5 -1.D acres 3.5 - 5.0 acres 1.0 - 2-0 ages 5.0 - 10.0 ares fProject 8aundary Parcel Size w N V 25D 5S7t] z Z 0 Terra Bella Vision Plan x LL 0 } F- U V 1,40D Feet Legend 0 -Q.5 acre -s 2.0 - 3.5 atrts 0.5 -1.D acres 3.5 - 5.0 acres 1.0 - 2-0 ages 5.0 - 10.0 ares fProject 8aundary Parcel Size Figure A-4. Mock Lengths IC0 LA4y"JDA In sally ]IRRA a9k aA &VI 170 67V r 675' 685' Ab IrIk. 700' 70V Cr OLD MI D D LEFIE LD WAY IIN 4A IC0 LA4y"JDA In sally ]IRRA a9k aA &VI 170 67V r 675' 685' Ab IrIk. 700' 70V Cr < 4w feet 404 -SOD feet Terra Bella Vision Plan 800 - 16DO feet > 16011 fem CIA 4 44 544,w IAA % V-1 �A4 7Atg�O Block Lengths z z 0 W Z Z 7 O X LL O H U 70 Building Height and Intensitv Most of the buildings in Terra Bella are single story with a few 2 -story structures, less than the General Plan height guideline of 3 stories. The only 4 -story building in the Plan area is the recent recently constructed office building on the northeast corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. Figure A-5 shows a 3-dimensional view of existing uses and building heights. Building intensity is measured in floor area ratio (FAR), the ratio of a building or project's floor area to its land area. FAR is typically used to measure the intensity of commercial, office, and industrial uses. The maximum permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for parcels in the Plan area is 0.35. The majority of the parcels are developed between 0.20 and 0.30 FAR, belowthe maximum permissible limit. The parcels on the eastside of North Shoreline Boulevard have a lower FAR, and are thus underdeveloped as compared to the parcels west of North Shoreline Boulevard which are closer to the FAR limit with large building footprints. Figure A-5. Existing Building Heights and Land Use x"� - C Existing Use Legend Offire/ R&D quail = School services Church HotellMotel Industrial Multi -Family M-adical Seng.Ie•Famity _ lni5JiivJiOrVRLmrt!ateonal Vacant APPENDIX A: Existing Condtions 41 �110 Jim 4 u ` n 1 -S�. GAS` �� � -• - �wycfirvg $Buy:Hsc� Cwa�r � - '� 12 Parks and Open Space There are currently no parks or open space within the Terra Bella Plan area. Figure A-6 maps the parks and open spaces in and around Terra Bella. The open spaces around Terra Bella are limited to the Stevens Creek Trail that runs east of the Terra Bella Plan area, Permanente Creek trail, the proposed open space in North Bayshore, and a few smaller -scale parks within a half -mile from Terra Bella. Stevens Creek and Permanent Creek trails both function not only as open space but also as corridors for active transportation and wildlife habitat. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is part of the larger Stierlin Planning area which is in need of an additional 7.73 acres of open space to meet the City's goal of 3.0 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. The Crittenden Middle School and the Whisman Sport Center are located just west of the Plan area and provide nearby sports facilities. There is currently a joint use agreement between the City of Mountain View and the Mountain View Whisman Schools District that allows joint use of all the City's school park spaces for recreation outside of school hours. Crittendon Middle School (photo credit: dovidtroyer.com) 72 ,:Wj, A Figure A-6. Parks and Open Space 4w 1, 0 900 7.8014 3.600 Feet Legend ° Y One MWe WITee Terra Bella Vision Plan I Wall lleeufter 'f Falls 9 Uoah Baoate Proposed open Space L_!7 PM]mTe8undmy Parks and Open Space z O N_ J W m Uj W 73 Retail Centers The Terra Bella Plan area currently has a limited amount of retail properties - the Taco Bell located at Terra Bella Avenue and North Shoreline Boulevard and two gas stations at the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road. However, the area is served by the Bailey Park retail center approximately a third of a mile south of Terra Bella and will be served by the potential North Bayshore retail center to the north of Highway 101. Bailey Park Plaza currently includes a Safeway grocery store, some restaurants, and basic neighborhood commercial services. Nearby retail centers are shown in Figure A-7. 74 Figure A-7. Retail Centers �rt ,w ,tff <++•w+�Esrc�warr F m r o � + M I 2 I r`F r r' OLD PA r ;=" *kk r 14 WAY )c*me* i r LAAyfMpA r r ; q* y y. S r1tr I L 4 L 5 5 ti w r r F � ffk � �xk . r 4 f � Y 2 Jf !+ r#� 0 9€10 1,800 3.604 Feet Legend Oqeh+IleEulier Terra Bella Vision Plan `= Halt Mile BuTler Rmail rkmlcr L. <- C" pt N$* ' DowdMown wanh8ays'horePrapasedReradComm ■ C 1 Prn[arr 9aumdary Retail Centers 75 Environmental Cleanup The Plan area includes the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund, as shown in Figure A-8. The super fund site includes the former Teledyne Semiconductor (Teledyne) property located at 1300 Terra Bella Avenue and the former Spectra -Physics Lasers (Spectra -Physics) property located at 1250 West Middlefield Road. Investigations beginning in the 1980's documented the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (mainly trichloroethene (TCE) and its associated degradation products such as cis1,2-dichloroethene) into soil and groundwater at the properties within the Spectra -Physics site. Furthermore, contaminated groundwater that migrated north from another contaminated site, Teledyne Semiconductor (just north of Highway 101), merged with the contaminated plume of the Spectra -Physics site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) oversees cleanup activities in the superfund site. Various cleanup efforts have been ongoingsince the 1980's. New development within the Spectra -Physics site may need to invest in remediation, vapor barriers, or other clean-up strategies. While the past/ongoing groundwater remedy has substantially reduced contaminant concentrations, cleanup will likely continue for many years to come W_ 7 Z H Z D O 1 LL O T 76 Figure A-8. Sites with Listed Contaminants 0L M I DDLE FIFLD WAy z **m m lb 4b § ��- 46 b hL I "I 4p ERRA BELLA AVE 4p I�b Ib z b% dx Terra Bella Vision an 1.OGO FeLt Legend ftmurninged Sites Project Eloundafy tfflCAft6'UWAY Sites with Listed Contaminants Sourre: Environmental RaWticin ftency mfp22-epuZovfsuperlund) 77 Mobility Roadways Terra Bella is located along North Shoreline Boulevard adjacent to the intersection of Highways 101 and 85, which provides regional motor vehicle access to the area, as well as connectivity to both City and regional destinations. In addition, West Middlefield Road runs along the southern boundary of much of the area, and Terra Bella Avenue provides an important east/west spine within the neighborhood. Of these roadways, North Shoreline Boulevard connects Terra Bella to both Downtown Mountain View and the North Bayshore employment area. It is the only north -south roadway through the Plan area, is served by several transit stops, provides north -south bike connections suitable for confident bicyclists, and connects directly to and crosses the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101). Although the area has close freeway access, traffic congestion during the commute hours can make it very difficult to access. The most recent data on traffic volumes and congestion suggest that intersections in the Plan area do not experience significant congestion despite high volumes on North Shoreline Boulevard (though the intersections just outside the Plan area at North Shoreline Boulevard and La Avenida Street and North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road do). Table A-3 provides data on traffic volumes in the area. w Z H Z O X LL O } H U 78 Table A-3. Traffic VoLumes in Study Area Source: 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard Office Building Project Final Transportation Impact Assessment, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015 Note: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was estimated based on the PM peak traffic volume Traffic VoLumes Time Street Cross -street Period North Middlefield PM Peak Shoreline Rdst 1,110 756 758 1,588 Blvd North Middlefield Est. ADT Shoreline Rdst 11,100 7,560 7,580 15,880 Blvd North PM Peak Shoreline Terra Bella Ave 102 95 1,056 1,453 Blvd North Est. ADT Shoreline Terra Bella Ave 1,020 950 10,560 14,530 Blvd Source: 1001 North Shoreline Boulevard Office Building Project Final Transportation Impact Assessment, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2015 Note: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was estimated based on the PM peak traffic volume Active Transportation Network The Plan area is served by a complete sidewalk network within and extending far outside of the area in all directions. All of the streets within the Plan area have sidewalks on both sides of the street, as do nearly all of the streets in the surrounding area. Sidewalks appear to be well maintained and in good condition. All major intersections have crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Bicycle access and bicycle level of traffic stress in the Terra Bella area is mixed. Both North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road are wide, heavily - trafficked roadways, with four lanes of traffic and turn lanes. The current Class II bike lanes on North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road are narrow with minimal separation from auto traffic, and are thus deemed moderate -stress facilities. However, North Shoreline Boulevard is slated for conversion to a Class IV protected bikeway. This upgrade will significantly reducethe intersection stress of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, and will improve connectivity to Terra Bella Avenue. U.S. Route 101 presents a major challenge for multimodal travel from Terra Bella to the North Bayshore employment area. The existing overpass provides minimal accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians, and the high vehicle speeds and challenging crossings largely deter travel on bike or by foot. A dedicated pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Highway 101 on the west side of North Shoreline Boulevard is currently in design. When it is constructed, it will significantly improve safety, attract bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and improve bike/ped connectivity between Terra Bella and North Bayshore. See Figure A-9 for existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure locations. 79 Figure A -g. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Infrastructure OLK) M1UDLE FPEL0 WAY 0: a 52 K � ........KIM....................... rx # y S � r �y.tr S •F4 •, p - TWA i ,iAAYi % r 4 # r 99, Ct fid* "'lob ■ .i ` OR 7 „- ...fi.....ram......�.■r�r.r��r.ira.asarrr.�ra� y} m i 4 LI •yFRqO VYiw�FyN;;* �` 4i 0 250 500 7.000 Fee[ ■f■a■®■ E cjildir�g Footprints Flan Boundary DdsOn&foposed Wi€e Facilities Terra Bella Vision Plan 4.4.. fta%51 Path k• M , 3 i !:. Protected Bikeway (Class IVi ••••• C9a5, 9 Hike Lane "+ Claris 911 %ute Transit Connections The Terra Bella neighborhood is served by three transit providers operating routes within the Plan area - Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MVgo), and Mountain View Community Shuttle. Combined, these operators run seven fixed -route services that travel near or through the Plan area. Of these services, five are within a half mile of the Plan area: • VTA Route 40 - Foothill to Mountain View • VTA Route 185 - Gilroy Transit Center - Mountain View • MVgo East Bayshore (Orange) Shuttle • MVgo West Bayshore (Green) Shuttle • Mountain View Community Shuttle The West and the East Bayshore Mountain View Go (MVgo) shuttle connects the Plan area to the Caltrain and the VTA Light Rail station in Downtown Mountain View. MVgo provides free shuttle service to reduce trafficvolumes forthe benefit of the community. While targeted for commuters accessing employment areas in North Bayshore and East Whisman, it is available for use by all members of the public. Transit route locations are illustrated in Figure A-10. Planned transit improvements along North Shoreline Boulevard (such as the planned dedicated reversible transit lane) and West Middlefield Road will improve transit access to both Caltrain and VTA by making bus service faster and more reliable especially during peak hours. This will enhance the development opportunities in Terra Bella. In addition, the City is studying automated guideway transportation (AGT) options for North Shoreline Boulevard to address anticipated commuter traffic between Downtown and North Bayshore. r $ - z a z O a g J W m LU W H 81 T Figure A-io. Bus Routes Operating Within or Near the Study Area ROCKST m «4»_ N az40 4813 1360 Feel Legend Building toorprinis C:11 Prole it Boundary Terra Bella Vision Plan o0- vrArautrsJstops Mou ntain Ilew Ga - hitureEIRS Irnelsttpps CrF' LI %k,; UA1% Vir.x `Note: this mop shows transit routes and stops os ofApri12018. Transit `� w r�r.wi�i�r.■����r.�*a �i���i�irrsar���s����+e�r.4 J Nr PABLO OR SAMCv2Rr4Vv Legend Building toorprinis C:11 Prole it Boundary Terra Bella Vision Plan o0- vrArautrsJstops Mou ntain Ilew Ga - hitureEIRS Irnelsttpps CrF' LI %k,; UA1% Vir.x `Note: this mop shows transit routes and stops os ofApri12018. Transit Key Considerations The following is a brief summary of the key considerations in the Terra Bella area. 1. Parks and open spaces. Though there are public parks located outside of the Terra Bella area, there are no public parks or community space within the neighborhood. As outlined in the City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan, Terra Bella is in need of additional open space to meet the City's goal. 2. Traffic and parking. Traffic congestion is a key issue in the area, particularly along North Shoreline Boulevard funneling in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore. While many community members expressed interest in seeing more housing and non-residential development in Terra Bella, there was concern that new development could lead to more traffic congestion and parking spillover in adjacent residential neighborhoods. I Walking and bicycling conditions. Major auto -oriented roadways including US -101, SR -85, Shoreline Boulevard, and Middlefield Road create high stress conditions and substantial barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access in, out and through the area. Additionally, long block lengths in Terra Bella, particularly west of North Shoreline Boulevard, has resulted in poor pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by reducing opportunities for crossings and direct routes. Building pedestrian/bicycle across -barrier connections (ABCs), protected bikeways and full-time bike lanes, and breaking up large blocks with streets or greenways can improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 4. Mix of uses. Terra Bella consists of predominately office and light industrial uses, with limited residential and retail uses. The result is a commuter -oriented environment with limited neighborhood amenities and little to no evening or nighttime activity. The community expressed interest in encouraging a diverse mix of uses and activities in Terra Bella while maintaining the unique and quiet character of the area. rj. Development and building character. Most of Terra Bella, and particularly the area west of North Shoreline Boulevard, is characterized by large suburban office parks. In many cases, buildings do not face directly onto the street and have deep front and side setbacks, with little interaction between private properties and the public realm. Active and well-designed building frontages are crucial for creating a more inviting, pedestrian -oriented environment that will attract people to walk, gather, shop, and spend time. 6. Residential adjacency. The Terra Bella area is bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the northwest and southeast, including Rock Street and Stierlin Estates. Future development should be designed to respect and benefit the adjacent single-family neighborhoods by providing additional amenities for residents, improving multimodal access, and creating appropriate transitions to existing homes. 7. Small business preservation. Terra Bella, particularly the east side of North Shoreline Boulevard, is home to an eclectic mix of small businesses, light industrial uses, and non -profits. Redevelopment of the area could continue to put upward pressure on property values and rents, leading to displacement. S. Environmental conditions. Contaminated sites in Terra Bella, particularly the Teledyne/Spectra-Physics Superfund site west of North Shoreline Boulevard, pose a concern for new development. While cleanup activities are still ongoing, further studies and remediation will likely be required, especially if new housing and non-residential development is considered in this area. 83 FA 0 LiFA '\ 61 'o 0 Ah Ah 0 -W Ah carol mo `,:ro. Terra Bella Vision Plan Workshop 1 Summary Time and Da e: Saturaay, June 2, 2018 (9:30am — 12:00pm) Location: Mountain View Senior Center, 266 Escuela Ave, Mountain View, CA 94040 The first public workshop for the Terra Bella Vision Plan was hosted on Saturday, June 2nd at the Senior Center in Mountain View from 9 am to 12:00 pm. The workshop aimed to introduce the project, engage interested community members, and get a sense of their vision for the area's future. Approximately 45 people attended the event, representing a range of residents, property owners, businesses, and developers. The workshop commenced with an opening statement by Mountain View Vice Mayor Lisa Matichak and Project Manager Diana Pancholi, from the Mountain View Planning Department. After the introduction by Ms. Pancholi, Eric Yurkovich of Raimi + Associates, lead project consultant, addressed the participants and provided a more detailed overview of the Vision Plan project. His presentation provided a brief overview of existing conditions in the plan area and an explanation of the three interactive workshop exercises. Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan The workshop activities were organized around small group tables of six or eight participants each, with facilitators guiding and moderating the discussions at each table. The three exercises in the workshop were: Discussion Exercise - Strengths, Issues and Vision. Workshop participants were asked a series of discussion questions regarding their vision for the future of Terra Bella. The facilitators led the conversations, with participants listing the issues, strengths, and their vision for Terra Bella on sticky notes which were collected and summarized. 2. Mapping Exercise — Land Use Stickers. Each participant was given a map of the plan area and stickers representing different land uses. They were asked to place these stickers where they envisioned future uses such as office, housing, retail, parks/open space, and community facilities. They also had the option to use markers to highlight new street, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections in Terra Bella. Finally, the participants were also asked to note the appropriate heights for the various uses on the stickers. 3. Visual Preference Exercise - Character of Future Development. Each participant was given a visual preference survey package with a range of possible housing, office, and mixed-use development types in Terra Bella. The participants were asked to vote for their preferred building type in each of those development categories and explain why in text boxes below the images. Page 12 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Activity 1. Strengths, Issues and Vision Workshop participants were asked a series of discussion questions regarding their vision for the future of Terra Bella. The facilitators led the conversations, with participants listing the issues, strengths, and their vision for Terra Bella on sticky notes. A summary of the results is listed below, and a graphic tally of the results is shown on the following pages. Strengths. Some of the universally agreed-upon strengths of the area were: • The area's location and easy access to the 101 Freeway, State Route 85, and nearby bicycle paths • Proximity to jobs, such as in North Bayshore • Proximity to nearby open spaces including Shoreline Park and Stevens Creek Trail • Mix of uses and small business -friendly environment Other listed strengths included the quiet character of the area, industrial uses, and proximity to schools. Issues. Some of the prevalent issues that emerged were: • Traffic (particularly along Shoreline Blvd funneling in and out of Mountain View to Highway 101 and North Bayshore) • Lack of open space and parks within Terra Bella itself • Presence of Recreational Vehicles (RVs) in the area • Lack of housing • Development and building character (older buildings) • Pedestrian infrastructure and safety Among other issues listed were poor public transit, recycling facility, surface parking, and a lack of amenities. Vision. Many participants agreed that Terra Bella was poised for redevelopment/change and that new housing was a priority in the area. Some responses envisioned Terra Bella as a complete neighborhood with diverse uses, open space, amenities and improved transit facilities while maintaining the quiet character of the area. Page 13 Key Strengths Identified by Workshop Participants 0 2 4 Access (freeway, bike routes) Proximity to open spaces (Shoreline park and Stevens Creek) Proximity to jobs - Location Friendly to small businesses/ non -profits/ flex -office spaces - Mix of uses - Quiet residential neighborhood - Safety Recycling facility - Landscaping/ trees 2 Improve public transit 2 Proximity to school 2 Preserve low industrial 2 Light traffic 2 3 3 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan 6 8 10 12 14 12 8 7 5 5 4 4 Page 14 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Key Issues Identified by Workshop Participants 0 5 10 15 20 25 Traffic 24 RV Parking/ Homeless 9 Lack of Parks/ Open Space 8 Lack of Housing 8 Pedestrian infrastructure and safety 7 Building/ development type 7 Connections (to North Bayshore and Downtown) 6 Lack of retail/ amenities 6 Poor public transit 5 Recycing facility 5 Contamination 5 Surface parking/ trucks 4 Adhoc land uses 3 Circulation 2 High rents 2 Freeway 2 Air quality 2 No landscaping 2 Bike facilities 2 Page 15 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Activity 2. Land Use Mapping Exercise All participants were given a map of the plan area with stickers representing different land uses to illustrate their individual vision for the plan area. They were asked to use the stickers to show where they preferred office, housing, retail, mixed use, industrial, parks/open space, and community facilities, and also to use markers to highlight new bicycle, pedestrian, auto, and transit connections in Terra Bella. The sticker options also included street improvements such as crosswalks, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The participants were also asked to note their preferred height for these land uses by writing the number on the sticker itself. The results showed a wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella and the level of redevelopment. For the purposes of analysis, the overall results were broken down into the three distinct geographies — West of Shoreline, East of Shoreline and along Shoreline Blvd. The results for each separate geographic area were then qualitatively assessed for the degree and type of change marked on the maps. The overarching themes that emerged from this analysis are summarized below with maps that illustrate those themes. West of Shoreline. A majority of the audience envisioned some kind of redevelopment and introduction of other land uses on the west side of Terra Bella. A number of participants preferred to keep the area as is. Overall, most participants called for open space and streetscape improvements. About one-third of the participants expressed a desire to re -develop the area with higher intensities, heights, and mix of uses. • About a quarter of the participants wanted moderate change in the area with mix of uses. About a quarter of the participants wanted no change in this area, keeping it predominantly low-density office. Page 16 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Along Shoreline Blvd. A majority of the audience indicated a desire for increased retail activity along Shoreline, in addition to transit and bicycle/pedestrian improvements to create a more active street front. • About one-third of the participants • envisioned retail uses along Shoreline of varying intensity. The thorough traffic would yield high footfalls conducive to retail uses. 'v�1vf A majority of participants marked some sort of transportation improvement such as pedestrian crossings, traffic signals, protected bike lanes, and measures to relieve traffic on Shoreline. • A few participants also saw the intersection of Shoreline and Terra Bella as a potential site for a hotel. Page 17 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan East of Shoreline. The participants had a strong preference towards moderate to high change by introducing a diverse mix of uses with higher intensities than currently present on the east side. A large percentage voted to retain some kind of light industrial uses in the area and also for a park or open space. • More than half of participants were in favor of moderate/high change in the area, with a mix of residential and office use. They envisioned lower heights near existing single-family residential uses, and a gradual transition to higher heights along 101. • Approximately half the residents expressed a desire to retain light industrial/ maker's space in the area. Terra Bella is recognized as being friendly to small businesses and non -profits offering flex -office spaces. VII Ok • There was consensus among half of the participants to introduce new open space or parks in the eastern side with bicycle/pedestrian connections to Stevens Creek Trail. Page 18 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Activity 3. Visual Preference - Character of Future Development Each participant was given a visual preference survey package with a range of possible housing, office and mixed-use development types in Terra Bella. The participants were asked to vote for their preferred building type in each of those development categories and explain why in text boxes below. Overall, a large number of the participants chose more traditional architectural styles for both housing and office development. In some cases, a majority of respondents voted for none of the images. According to their notes, some of the participants who voted for the higher density building types based their votes on the need to create more housing and open spaces, add landscaped setbacks, and introduce more active ground floor uses. Below are the results for each land use and development type along with some selected comments. Page 19 r 'moi" -z 13 28.9% Liked style and scale, suitable for residential 3 6.7% 4 8.9% �- GG 10 22.2% Liked warmer material, retail on ground floor 2 4.4% 8.9% Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan I 7 15.6% Liked green space, setback 26 57.8% Liked open space, human scale, architectural style 17 37.8% None 9 20.0% Page 110 17 37.8% Liked open space, lower height Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan 8 17.8% Liked curved facade, reflective glass, height None 10 22.2% 4 1 7 5 18 8.9% 2.2% 15.6% 11.1% 40.0% Too boxy, character and type inappropriate for Terra Bella Page 111 4 10 8.9% 22.2% Liked green space, ped - friendly, colorful 8 17.8% Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Liked interesting massing 12 26.7% 6 4 4 4 16 13.3% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 35.6% Too boxy, character Liked interesting plaza and scale more suitable for Downtown Page 112 Workshop #1 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Conclusion Overall, there was support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low to moderate density development was envisioned. Many participants saw the potential for Terra Bella to add more diverse uses — especially new housing and retail. There was support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; however, there was strong support for improvements that would enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. The overwhelming issue cited was traffic congestion, which prompted participants to call for mobility and streetscape improvements along Shoreline Boulevard to try to address traffic concerns. Other key takeaways included: • Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing mixed use, residential, and retail to create a more vibrant and thriving district. Some interest in preserving light industrial uses on the east side of Terra Bella. • Traffic was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. • For both residential and office, higher intensities were more acceptable away from existing residential neighborhoods. • New residential development should gradually transition from the existing low-density single-family homes to higher densities/heights. Fostering neighborhood character and introducing new open space and connections was important to workshop residents. • Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. • Retail and mixed use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Blvd. Page 113 Curur mo `,:ro. Terra Bella Vision Plan Workshop 2 Summary Saturoay, August 25, 2018 (9:30am — 12:30pm) Mountain View Senior Center, 266 Escuela Ave, Mountain View, CA 94040 The second public workshop for the Terra Bella Vision Plan was held on Saturday, August 25th at Mountain View City Hall from 9:30 am to 12:30 pm. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses., Approximately 62 people attended the event, representing a range of residents, property owners, businesses, and developers. The workshop commenced with an opening statement by Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel and Project Manager Diana Pancholi, from the Mountain View CDD. Eric Yurkovich of Raimi + Associates, lead project consultant, then led a presentation and large group discussion of proposed land use and transportation concepts for Terra Bella. Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan The workshop activity included a large -group discussion and participant questionnaire (see Appendix A) on the following topics: 1. Guiding Principles. Participants were asked to review the draft guiding principles for the project, circle their top three principles, and add any principles they thought were missing. 2. Land Use Vision Plans. Participants were asked to select their preferred land use vision plan for Terra Bella and explain why. If participants chose "Other Vision," they were asked to describe their alternative vision idea. 3. Building Heights. Participants were asked if new development should provide transitions between new projects and various existing uses, and if so, select uses and preferred strategies. 4. Parks and Open Space. Participants were asked if park space should be added to Terra Bella, and if so, where. In addition, they were asked what kinds of amenities they would like to see in open spaces. 5. Transportation and Street Concepts. Participants were asked to provide any comments they might have on the proposed transportation network for the area and street concepts for Terra Bella Ave, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Street. 6. Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Participants were asked if TDM strategies should be included in the plan and if so, which strategies they would support. 7. Frontage Character. Participants were presented with various frontage types/options and asked which would be appropriate for each street in the Terra Bella area. 8. Community Benefits. Participants were asked if development projects should provide community benefits and if so, which benefits they thought were a priority. 9. Small Business Support. Participants were asked if future development should support small businesses in Terra Bella, and if so, what type of support. Results of the questionnaire are summarized on the following pages. Page 12 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Guiding Principles In this exercise, participants were asked to review the draft guiding principles for the project, circle their top three principles, cross out principles they did not agree with, and add any principles they thought were missing. Priority Guiding Principles The top three guiding principles selected by a majority of workshop participants as a priority were the following: 1. GP#3: Promote housing at a variety of income levels and ownership types (27 votes) 2. GP#2: Create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses (17 votes) 3. GP#6: Create new public spaces (17 votes) Guiding Principle Revisions, Additions, and Comments Although GP#3 was selected by most participants as a priority, there were quite a few participants that disagreed with providing housing for a variety of income levels and ownership types and crossed it out on their questionnaire. The other two guiding principles that some participants did not agree with or feel were unnecessary included: • GP#5: Respect the Rex Manor neighborhood character — some of the residents who live in Rex Manor said they were not concerned that the Plan would impact the character of their neighborhood and thus this GP was not needed • GP#1: Maintain TB as a strong employment center — some participants wanted to see the area shift towards predominately residential uses Some of the suggested revisions to Guiding Principles included: • Revise GP#5 to state "Respect the Rex Manor and Stierlin Estates neighborhood characters" (13 votes) • Revise Gp#6 to state "Create new public parks" rather than "Create new public spaces" (5 votes) In addition, participants wanted to see the following incorporated or added to the Guiding Principles: • Be mindful of transitions between single-family residential and other uses • Encourage denser housing, office, and mixed-use development • Promote environmental sustainability • Create a village -like environment with a mix of uses Page 13 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan • Improve access to health services Among other comments listed were concerns over building heights, particularly near single-family residential neighborhoods, potential traffic impacts on existing residents, and the desire to build denser development to maximize housing (both market rate and affordable). Land Use Vision Plans All participants were presented with the three proposed land use vision options for Terra Bella and asked to select their preferred vision. The results show that most participants preferred Vision Plan 1 which proposes new parks spaces and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, and additional mixed-use/retail development along Shoreline. The option that received the second highest number of votes was "Other Vision." For those that selected one of the three proposed visions, a few people commented that they would like to see higher densities/heights among the proposed uses, while others suggested lowering the proposed heights for office and/or residential uses. Preferred Vision Plan Vision•Tally Vision Plan 1 25 Vision Plan 2 9 Vision Plan 3 6 Other Vision 15 Option 1 OLD MIDDUF IELD WAY rr r o r � i z 4 L_ T �4!`!• "+6. 'yam e*? SN i:.rr d k 9 s a,v,.eaa oik, iee.neEita avr " Oil- N �.� ali L� r k•Iam4i l ,,P O 3,. w.r Ansi)—nrl.� ....r.. — — — w 0 250 500 1,000 Feet besldentlal {up to 3 storks? 0" (up too storles) "••••� PWn boundary A Re5Wential JUP tv 55h)Fle5) 4Ffive(up to Fs stonesl Neighborhood Transitiom ResWential Iwo 7 storks) Church New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan ,,��.,,�� � ht lDdusvml I0M. New PedestdanlBike Path Mimd Use with Geta it / ��Light C—ptual Public 0j.. SWC [VP to 1 stvneA Hotel [up to P stones) Page 14 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan When asked why participants selected Vision Plan 1, the reasons most often stated were: • Great balance of uses • Adds the most housing • Increases density Participants who selected Vision Plan 1 also liked it because it: • Would create a walkable neighborhood • Includes two proposed park spaces • Proposes additional retail along Shoreline • Preserves office uses near 101 • Includes diverse housing options Approximately 15 participants selected "Other Vision," with varying reasons or proposals for an alternative. The "Other Visions" proposed included the following: • Hybrid of Vision Plan 1 (housing focus) and Vision Plan 2 (light industrial preservation east of Shoreline) (1 vote) • Hybrid of Vison Plan 2 (west side of plan) and Vision Plan 3 (east side of plan) (2 votes) • Lower density 1-2 story residential development only, with green buffers between existing single-family neighborhoods and new development (proposal from Stierlin Estates residents; 5 votes) • No comments or suggestions, but a request for more data on each vision plan (2 votes) • More high-density office and residential (1 vote) • More residential, less office (1 vote) • Reduced heights/density for office and residential uses (1 vote) • Less office, lower -density residential (1 vote) • No new streets. New development will increase traffic. (1 vote) As seen above, the comments for "Other Vision" suggest that there is a wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella and the level of potential redevelopment. Some chose "Other Vision" because they wanted a hybrid of the proposed vision plans, some wanted to see higher densities and/or more housing, and others wanted to see lower -density residential development. Some participants also commented that they would like to know the number of potential new residents and employees associated with each vision plan. Page 15 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Building Heights As seen in the graphs below, when asked whether the Plan should include neighborhood transitions, most participants said they would like to see transitions between new development and neighboring single-family and multi -family residential development. There appeared to be broad support for all the proposed transition strategies, particularly height transitions. Participants also proposed additional transition strategies such us open space, landscaping, parking, and setbacks. Existing industrial uses Across residential streets Neighboring MFR Neighboring SFR Landscaping Setbacks Height transitions Priority Uses or Conditions for Transitions 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Preferred Transition Strategies 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Page 16 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Parks and Open Space When asked if new park space should be added to Terra Bella and where, the majority of workshop participants said east of Shoreline. Preferred amenities for new parks included tot lots/playgrounds, landscaped areas, and community gathering areas (see graph below). Tot lot/playground Landscape areas Community gathering areas Community garden Dog park Exercise equipment Pop-up retail Preferred Park Amenities 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Transportation and Street Concepts A majority of participants seemed to be supportive of the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and street concepts for Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, San Rafael Avenue, and San Leandro Avenue. The following is a list of key takeaways based on individual participant comments on the transportation network and street concepts: • The community would rather have protected (or separated) bike lanes on all the key streets through the area rather than shared lanes, even if that means removing on -street parking. • Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. • The community would like to see better walking/biking connections between the east and west sides of Terra Bella, across Middlefield Road, and also to North Bayshore and Stevens Creek. Page 17 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan • There is concern over the impacts of new development on the parking supply and potential spillover onto surrounding neighborhood streets. • The City should consider making San Leandro a dead-end street closed to through -traffic. Parking and Transportation Demand Management The majority of workshop participants agreed that the Plan should include TDM strategies. The TDM strategies supported by most community members were (see graph below): 1. Shared parking between projects (22 votes) 2. Bicycle Parking/shower/changing facilities (19 votes) 3. Carshare parking (13 votes) 4. Development to provide fewer parking spaces (12 votes) Some participants also suggested making all parking in the area paid parking and increasing the cost of street parking to reduce potential spillover effects on neighborhood streets. Shared parking Bike parking/showers Carshare stalls Few parking spaces TDM plan Transit passes MVGo participation TDM coordinator Preferred TDM Strategies 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Page 18 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Frontage Character Workshop participants were asked to choose up to three preferred frontage options for each street in the Terra Bella area. Generally, frontage preferences were in keeping with the types of land uses that the community would like to see along each street. For instance, most people chose the retail/shopfront for Shoreline Boulevard. Participants chose residential -type frontages such as stoop and door yard/porch for quieter residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. The responses indicate that the community would like to move away from parking frontages, which are currently the predominate frontage type along many of the streets in Terra Bella. A detailed tally of participant responses is shown in the table on the following page and the preferred frontages are summarized below: • Terra Bella Ave (E of Shoreline): Retail shopfront, stoop, landscape • Terra Bella Ave (W of Shoreline): Retail shopfront, landscape, forecourt • Linda Visa Ave: Stoop, door yard/porch, landscape • San Rafael Ave: Stoop, landscape, door yard/porch • Shoreline Blvd: Retail shopfront, forecourt, landscape • W Middlefield Rd: Retail shopfront, stoop, landscape Terra Bella (E of Shoreline) Terra Bella (W of Shoreline) Linda Vista San Rafael Shoreline W Middlefield 26 15 17 22 19 7 23 12 11 10 23 6 12 7 18 23 17 7 12 9 17 23 19 5 32 15 10 6 15 5 *1' 9 12 17 17 3 Page 19 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Benefits A majority of workshop participants (over 85%) responded in favor of requiring community benefits as part of new development projects. As seen in the graph below, the priority community benefits selected were public open space, bike improvements, streetscape improvements, and affordable housing. Public open space Bike improvements Streetscape improvments Affordable Housing Green buildings Local business prservation/ retention Commercial retail space Local business/ fagade improvements A school/ educational facility Childcare center Preferred Community Benefits 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Page 110 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Small Business Support When asked whether new development should support existing businesses, most workshop participants responded "yes." The small business support activities most favored by the community were (see graph below): 1. Create new building space (25 votes) 2. Support public art and placemaking (18 votes) 3. Maintain existing building space (17 votes) Many of the individual participant comments specified that small business space should be preserved east of Shoreline Boulevard. Create new building space Support public art and placemaking Maintain existing building space Allow access to project facilities Employ local workers Use local businesses in contruction of projects Preferred Small Business Support Activities 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Page I 11 Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Conclusion Overall, most participants seemed to support Vision Plan 1, which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed vision plans, and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. Generally, most participants were supportive of the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception that people would like to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets rather than shared lanes. Other key takeaways from the workshop included: • Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. • New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. • There was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. • There was support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. • Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. • The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. • The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/changing facilities, and carshare parking. • The community showed a preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominately residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues • Most participants were in favor of requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Page 112 Appendix A: Questionnaire Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Page 113 AGENDA CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop Time and Date: Saturday, August 25, 2018 (9:30am-12:30pm) Location: Mountain View City Hall, 500 Castro St, Mountain View, CA 94041 Meeting Objectives • Review high-level themes and results from Community Workshop #1. • Examine land use vision plans for Terra Bella and discuss elements or ideas for a preferred vision. • Provide preferences for the location and function of streets in the area and the character of public sidewalks along Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, and San Rafael Avenue. • Discuss key policy questions related to community benefits approach, parks, schools, and small businesses. • Review draft guiding principles for the Terra Bella area. Workshop Agenda 9:00am — 9:30am: Doors open and registration 9:30am — 9:40am: Welcome and introductions 9:40am — 12:20pm: Presentation, large group discussion, and questionnaire exercise 12:20pm—12:30pm: Wrap-up and adjourn For more information please contact: Diana Pancholi City of Mountain View Senior Planner diana.pancholi@mountainview.gov (650) 903-6306 Eric Yurkovich Raimi + Associates Senior Associate eric@raimiassociates.com (510) 394-3715 VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Draft Guiding Principles 1. Maintain Terra Bella as strong center of 6. Create new public spaces employment 7. Minimize vehicle trips and congestion 2. Create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses 3. Promote housing at variety of income levels and ownership types 8. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity 9. Preserve space for a number of small, employment - generating uses 4. Create walkable blocks with buildings that support 10. Ensure new development provides community the public realm benefits 5. Respect the Rex Manor neighborhood character 11. Other?: Circle your top three guiding principles. Strike out any principles you do not like. Add any principles that are missing. 2 QUESTIONNAIRE Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop #2 Land Use Vision Plans 1. What is your preferred land use vision plan for Terra Bella? (circle one) CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 2. Please briefly describe why you support your selected vision 3. If you select "Other Vision", please describe your vision plan. Would you change anything about your vision plan? idea. QUESTIONNAIRE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Building Heights Near Existing Residential 4. Should new development projects provide appropriate transitions between new projects and the following types of uses, and if so, what are some preferred strategies (height transitions, setbacks, or landscaping). (circle all that apply) Uses • Neighboring single-family residential • Neighboring multifamily residential • Across residential streets • Existing industrial uses • Other Parks and Open Space Strategies • Height transitions • Setbacks • Landscaping • Other 5. Should park space be added to Terra Bella area? (circle all that apply) • East of Shoreline Boulevard • West of Shoreline Boulevard • Along Shoreline Boulevard 6. What would you like to see in the open spaces? (circle all that apply) • Community gathering areas • Community garden • Tot lot / playground • Dog park • Pop-up retail • Exercise equipment • Landscape areas • Other ideas? QUESTIONNAIRE Transportation Network and Streets Concepts 7. Do you have any questions or comments on the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella? ARA - CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 8. What do you think about the concepts for the following streets in Terra Bella? What do you like / dislike about each concept? Terra Bella Avenue 1 I IN Linda Vista & San Rafael Avenues :J� 4 San Leandro Street QUESTIONNAIRE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Parking and Transportation Demand Management 9. Should the plan include parking and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to help address traffic and parking concerns in the area? (circle one) Yes No 10. If yes, please circle the strategies that you support. If you wish to add an item, please add at the bottom of the list. • New development to provide fewer parking spaces • Shared parking between projects • A TDM coordinator • A TDM plan be developed and submitted to the City for review • MVGo participation • Subsidized transit passes • Bicycle parking and shower / changing facilities • Carshare parking stalls • Other QUESTIONNAIRE Frontage Character CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 11. Check up to three frontages you think would be appropriate for each street in Terra Bella and note why in each box. QU ESTI ON NAI RE Community Benefits 12. Should development projects provide community benefits? (circle one) Yes No ARA - CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 13. Select and prioritize three community benefits for Terra Bella. If you wish to add an item, please add at the bottom of the list. (circle your top 3 choices and prioritize them (1 through 3)) • Affordable housing • Public open space • Streetscape improvements • Bicycle improvements • Local business building / facade improvements • Local business preservation / retention • Commercial retail space Small business support • Green buildings • A school or educational facility • Childcare center • Other • Other • Other 14. Should future development support small existing businesses in Terra Bella? (circle one) Yes No Other 15. If yes, please circle activities that you support. If you wish to add an item, please add at the bottom of the list. • Maintain existing building space for small businesses • Create new building space for small businesses • Use local businesses in the construction of new projects • Employ local workers • Allow access to project facilities (meeting spaces, open space) • Support public art, murals, and creative placemaking projects • Other Appendix B: Comment Cards Workshop #2 - Terra Bella Vision Plan Page 114 COMMENT CARD Terra Bella on Plan Community Workshop 00,,Yoll havo aqv odnw, que�oYons Or f/votf/d like loshorr;,? CITY OF MOUNTAIN Vim 1��F.R,�. 111111111TS1 mm 9 'Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop you f/voul'I yc t,.Y� zl��4 . .. ....... ,�ov/ 1�vlAc� I Terra Bella Vision Plan community Workshop Yoe- y�'Ji..i hao, Y T LOG 61) IM!, INAII E N ('!i I: INI 0 [.1 X. I 1,\Vww ­Ferra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop '!:'� rra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop ... .. ... .... ..... .... ... .. r� To 1141, U lle,-- i--\ vv v e- Xv,,\ f� 0 [A� IM k )t I f V I m 'Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop jvad f / IV,! �,,n,j/ w - ----- ---- 01ov N FA t N V11: W OMMENTCARD ... ...... . CI I Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop i;-,� ale)tj O/W mvuh.) c; c`,' veillue- -rL,� ?OU, . ..... . . .. ca's , -.1�".-.----�-�-�-�--.----�-.-�- - ----- --- - -- 17-F' ...... ...... awd veillue- -rL,� ?OU, . ..... . . .. ca's , -.1�".-.----�-�-�-�--.----�-.-�- - ----- --- - -- 1MOI:.\1"\I\ Vww 'forra Bella Vision PlanCommunity Workshop Ycwl hi,ow( i I y I bb// D CARD y ('I OI rnI\ N/I v Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop 1 F r You { i � ._ ! p , / < ¢� < y°::.� _ . �..P�7 FP�.:. �.. l',1F { _ F,Y�e..t n.� q f R s ;- 'i x b J 4 r a' T ,; �I [!� f F s �s. � f G F': E � f C'3E +.e��4 Ddk.%F 6f:.,: �'�. � � v,C ....._......, ............,, ..,...; ,;.., ... ... ... ..._ 1� � 1 F� ..I F.... ,. ......... ... .. >. ... .,. .-r ...... .,_....... .., �.,..,. ....,_. 4F r M1 1 c"I 1), (.)1 lkloll�[;\I� V "ferra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop fjlj�v /,t) f. I fli,41 j I O�s I COMMENT CARD Tema Bella Vision Plan Community rksh CITYOF MOUNTAIN VII:W C-0- MMENT CARD V CITY 0 F MOUNTAIN VIEW Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop Doyou haile aqy wYiot, qf ORd........ .... . I Rol 15 v,�Qr&d 11 9 ... �,�rra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop A) K� .... .. . . ... ... . .. ..... . 0, G Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop ,.I - 11 '1 , V. ., , .1 I I .� i - I:f , yo I I ; , ", ? 1) s+D,p o.— KAd 01)'(WIMOUNIAIN vin\, COMMENT CARD Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop 00.^w havo any ofher qw--,wdons Or I/vould fike �,Y)share? '- I -1 2211=.,-., CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW f% COMMENT CARD Terra Bella Vision Plan Community Workshop /)0.]/(,)/-$ ho ve ai-T o Oor que�iions or cofnim"'t? i's flou m/ofdd fila" i -o shan-"? 11 Al--,=-�_. CITY OF MOUNTA IN VIFU 9 Exhibit 4 Terrace 13W,aa V 4 o-pv P l a*v. 042" SfCL � M s y CrrY OF MaunpTnln VrRN' During August, September, and early October, the City of Mountain View and the Raimi + Associates team conducted ten stakeholder meetings with Mountain View business leaders, employers, and residents about issues and opportunities for the design and neighborhoods within the Terra Bella Vision Plan Area. The list of stakeholders can be found at the end of this document. Many of the responses could be categorized into one of three groups, as seen in the notes consolidated below: V 4 o -w for Terra 6 ala, • Balance different land uses within the Terra Bella area. o Create new parks and open spaces to serve current and future neighborhood residents and employees. o Add residential housing to Terra Bella, east and west of N Shoreline Boulevard. o Create a mixed-use area with neighborhood -serving retail, either along N Shoreline Blvd or along Terra Bella Ave. o Preserve some area for light industrial, makers space, or similar. • Create a more pedestrian and bicycle -friendly district. Improve access to the Crittenden Middle School and Theuerkauf Elementary School, making crossings and routes safer for students. • Create clear gateway signage for the neighborhood (an identity) and Mountain View. • Allow denser development, particularly away from the existing single-family neighborhoods. • Provide an appropriate transition between existing single-family residential neighborhoods and future development within the area. GrZt� 1 • Provide a sensitive transition between future development and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. o Consider larger transitions and setbacks than currently required under City Code. o Use mature trees. • Create both renter and owner -occupied housing in Terra Bella. • Location of the recycling center and the potential impacts on a residential neighborhood. • Existing non -conforming uses. • Ensure future development provides adequate parking in order to minimize spillover parking. • Review existing City Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) to ensure that the requirements to participating within the program are not excessive. • Address cut -through traffic within the Terra Bella area. Individuals use San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues to avoid traffic on N Shoreline Blvd and W Middlefield Rd. • Closing the SR 85 on-ramp may have significant neighborhood traffic impacts. Terra Bella Vision Plan: Stakeholder Meeting Summary October 10, 2018 11 • Existing right-of-way widths are small. Consider creative street and public realm design that does not require expanding widths, while still meeting overall mobility goals. • Safety issues associated with RV parking in the neighborhood. • Consider the impacts of future development on neighborhood school capacity, including Crittenden Middle School and Theuerkauf Elementary School, making sure there is adequate capacity to meet future student needs. � ' • Define clear development transition areas, with established setbacks and maximum heights in those areas. • Mix residential development types (e.g., townhomes, mid -rise, and mixed-use podiums) to provide a variety of tenure types (e.g., owner and renter) to households at different income levels. • Explore a small elementary school in the neighborhood. • Establish a neighborhood parking plan that may include RPPP and no overnight parking in industrial areas. • Create non -automobile connections east and west of N Shoreline Blvd to promote safer and more conformable pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Provide a non -automobile connection to the Steven's Creek Trail. • Restrict southbound u -turns on N Shoreline Blvd during commute hours to minimize neighborhood cut -through traffic. • Implement traffic calming, complete street concepts on Linda Vista and San Pablo Avenues. • Create a framework that balances development fees and requirements with community benefits, such as parks, bicycle and pedestrian connections, and small business support. • Integrate existing transportation planning projects (e.g., Shoreline Boulevard, Highway 101 freeway ramp, and Highway 101 bicycle and pedestrian bridge) with the Terra Bella Vision Plan. • Google • Mountain View-Whisman School District • Palo Alto Housing Corporation • Prometheus Real Estate Group • Public Storage • Irvine Company • Swenson • Sares Regis Group • Sterlin Estates neighborhood residents • SummerHill • Zappettini Capital • Kilroy Realty Corporation • Others A separate small business roundtable is scheduled for October 16, 2018. Notes from this meeting have not been included within this summary due to timing issues. Terra Bella Vision Plan: Stakeholder Meeting Summary October 10, 2018 12 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Third Community Outreach Meeting January 28, 2019 As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was held on Monday January 28, 2019, 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at Crittenden Middle school and was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around reduced -intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to implement similar development intensity and buffers in the plan area at this location that is proposed at the southeastern border adjacent to the Steirlin Estates neighborhood. The suggested changes are shown below in Figure 2: Figure 2: Community Outreach 3 —Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY - z — f J 41vFNla4 O AtJ. w I 4 N.** Office (up to 4 stories) FAI ; --= •• Office iup toff stories) , Neighborhood Transitions •---r---- 1••.offi,. %' Light industrial /Office asseress-I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan larwnrw (up to "i"') - New Pedestrian/Bike Path a_m er sf�lan'raln rlr+ 1 F • o�lr Light lndustilal/Office � _ �W.aVr 4 C RO' a 1 � w NrsMenlnl - M� wnh �axtnvr � 7 m I.-tVu, aeYll 1 �s°;Y' Retat o �: 12 LghtlnEatLF,tl r - +rRRA eF4rn nv[ •. L9hrlMv V LIgAflndwtrlau' prKe ,_ Offce Recidenrkl _ ft. Its 2 ResMenNd HR� � '� 3 .•F"4 SINrUIJ <YF� Reskmlud � Six wal0' swrarsuow..r 6 256 500 1,006 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) ' C Plan Boundary AResidential (up to 5 stories) Office iup toff stories) , Neighborhood Transitions Residential(upto7stariesl %' Light industrial /Office asseress-I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to "i"') - New Pedestrian/Bike Path a_m er sf�lan'raln rlr+ Mbed Use with lietail/�� Light lndustilal/Office (up to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space' • Actual location will tre determined as Proit came forward At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity development alternative as suggested through public input was already being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to move the higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories) from medium -intensity Residential Land Use along the Middlefield Road frontage. FA 0 Lipi Exhibit 2 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small -group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects / terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses— especially mixed-use, residential, and retail —to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists. 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1of8 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well as additional mixed- use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 2of8 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use Alternatives and, specifically, neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around Reduced -Intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to include reduced development intensity and additional transition strategies in the area bordering the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood, and the area is identified in the blue dashed box in Figure 3 below. At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower - intensity land use alternative was being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to increase the residential density along West Middlefield Road, currently identified as medium -intensity Residential Land Use (up to five stories), to higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven 3of8 stories). The area for the suggested modification is shown in the green thick dashed box in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Community Outreach Meeting, January 28, 2019—Input on Land Use Alternative 0 OLD MIDDLEFFfLD WAY m Z f LA AVENrQA yc 2 S . 2 ROEr ST '' 1000 y _ _' ■ Residential ■ ■ de L S4N RgyRcas 4R Ah W�q� 3d 3 � � e F ............. Toy a fiesidentlalY e. Mixe6 use �>f/e'Of ':' ��• Office to 4stories) p With Retail Llghtlndustrl If Residential (up to 5 stories) N otese Ls O TERAA BELLA AVE ===I New Street � 9t'rEt — Light lndustriaV LightlntlustrlaV 4WL - I i Residennas omce - DW - / ✓�f�i�, Light Industrial / Offi[e IEesidential MJK W I^ '( � Residential ``B O - Residential Residential E4N PR90 wax g SArc Paato➢R _____� o f vvy�` ,� SAN GRflIZ9 W4Y N 0 250 SOfl 1,000 Feet Residential to 3stories) p Office to 4stories) p `:::■:' Plan Boundary suu.i Y Residential (up to 5 stories) office (up to 6 stories) %. ^Avv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories} Ught Industrial!Office ===I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to 2 stories) �. New Pedestrian/Bike Path Unne M111411111tu. : Mixed use with Retail / ✓�f�i�, Light Industrial / Offi[e (up to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space* Actual location will he determined as projects come forward Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is provided as Attachment 4 to this report —Stakeholder Meetings Summary. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles, and Other Policies The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning Plan area in October and November 2018. 4of8 In summary, the Councilmembers were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding principles for the Plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use Alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the Analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern Plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as jobs -housing balance and school strategies. Environmental Planning Commission Meeting —February 20, 2019 On February 20, 2019, the EPC held a Study Session to provide policy direction on the preferred land use alternative (see Attachment 2 — EPC Study Session Report). The meeting was focused on land use alternative selection for the Plan area. Seven members of the public spoke at the EPC meeting, including residents, property owners, and business representatives. Comments included: • Maintain the General Plan 2030 vision. • Strong need for sensitive neighborhood transition strategies to preserve the existing neighborhood character. 5of8 • Support lower building heights adjacent to current single-family zoned properties. • Concern with the amount of change proposed in the area. • Concerns with additional traffic issues from the proposed land uses adding to the current traffic issues along Shoreline Boulevard. • Concerns with additional office land uses contributing to greater jobs -housing imbalance. The EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: 1. Mixed -Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the Plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 2—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single - story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern Plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two- story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher - intensity residential (up to seven stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to three stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6of8 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to six stories to up to three stories (3 to 3 vote). 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to two stories immediately adjacent to existing R1 -zoned property along the southeastern Plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (up to five stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to three stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to seven stories to up to five stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 7of8 �FW4yF �kfgyF 7 Figure 2: Areas of EPC Discussion Based on Alternative 5 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY a m z rr 0 iuRfry�sr � 2 Z W SJ ♦ • f ■ 4 3 Residential 3 "kp `.�§....: •' •.. ■ TFgg4 Residemial B 4 of 1 ■•1••• *i,' Mlwlth Office ; Residential RQ •,. Muoed use Residential F�Aq ••. Z with a� "�o � •. Mired use- Retail 10 .• Z �MNtCaSgR =t4". ,Z •': ■ �N�N�S AVF 0 3 a JA AViNIDA nor Lghtindustrial/ Office '.• �. FE RRA RFLLA AVE Lightlndustrial! Eight Industria, Office Office residential N ReWgtial sr,ry ARX WA+ SAN PABLO nn � � F 1. GRa¢0 W, N�.....� 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to3stor'les} Office (up to4stories) ---'-� Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) 4� Office (up to 6 stories) vwvv Neighborhood Transitions Light Industrial/Office ���I New Street Residential (upto7stories) �%IN/1 (up to2stories) Terra Bella Vision Plan ---- New Pedestrian/Bike Path C11 I ')I Nh<�,1rNV1 J��/� Mixed Use with Retail / Light Industrial /Office (up to a stories) 4"h, Conceptual Public Open Space ' Actual location will be determined as projects come forward EPC expressed concerns about how the land use alternatives impact the jobs -housing balance, schools, and traffic in the area EPC also emphasized on providing context - sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. DP/5/CDD 807-10-23-19GP 8of8 DATE: April 2, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner Martin Alkire, Principal Planner Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director VIA: Daniel H. Rich, City Manager TITLE: Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives PURPOSE Exhibit 3 The purpose of this Study Session is to present revised land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan and summarize input from the February 20 Environmental Planning Commission meeting. Staff is seeking City Council input and policy direction on a preferred land use and next steps for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan. BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan process started in April 2018 and has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Attachment 1 (Summary of Prior Meetings). This work was authorized by the City Council as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and develop strategies to guide future development in the area. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. Therefore, no specific vision was identified for the area during the 2030 General Plan update process. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 19 Figure 1: Vision Plan Area EPC and Council Meetings "s AM PA9LC OP 0 The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on potential land use alternatives and other policy direction on October 17, 2018 and November 13, 2018, respectively. In summary, the City Council was supportive of the addition of residential land uses in the Plan area, and envisions a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Several members of the public spoke at both the EPC and City Council meetings, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, the need for policies that create sensitive transitions adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in the area, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The City Council responses to all the questions from the November 2018 Study Session are summarized in the table below, including EPC comments where noted. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 19 P Vision and Guiding Council supported the proposed vision and Principles guiding principles for the plan area. 2 Land Use Alternatives Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative with certain changes discussed in the Analysis section of this report. 3 Neighborhood Transition Council supported proposed transition Strategies strategies and suggested additional transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Council supported the community benefit Strategy strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. 6 Other Strategies Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring other strategies such as jobs -housing balance and school strategies. The City Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative 4 (refer to Figure 2—EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative) and further directed staff to study several changes to Alternative 4. The Council also directed staff to study an additional alternative with reduced residential densities at key locations. These changes are discussed in the Analysis section of the report. Council further directed staff to hold an additional focused outreach meeting to gather input from residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Northwestern Plan boundary; a summary of this meeting is discussed below. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 19 Figure 2: EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative o - OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY ? �3 m $ iLAAWNIDA i 11 It Z • •y �f • 1: ■ Residential '1"0 6 �• ■ ■ O�cA `�•.....: •••� •••. 707 ■ ♦ •. • Church •• ■ 4* *4'yq Re5ldential •*4' .• �, LY••.• 1N1 NP , �' 7FCokn••.1 3 M Y o•4� aN M4 4R $qN fU15A"/E O N 0 250 500 1,000 Feet AdIML Terra Bella Vision Plan Curr ur 1+tO0NIAl.v V" SAN AFOO WAY s O .' snre aaata oA � ('Lvt�, Residential(upto3stories) Office(upto4stories) Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (upto 6 stories) 1 • �•.� ryptel M. 1 1 RCsidemiad light induseria� Othce ••• Hotel (upto 7 stories) e TERRA BELLS AVE Office MMeduw 1 _ Lght Industrial/ m ssAth 1 Residential Qtfice Wall 1 i Z Mf ed llse� 1 `+ Residential Re9dential RcWG O Office — — —s— Residential SAN AFOO WAY s O .' snre aaata oA � ('Lvt�, Residential(upto3stories) Office(upto4stories) Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (upto 6 stories) Residential (upto 7 stories) Church Mixed Use with Retail Light lndustdal / Office (up to 2 stories) Hotel (upto 7 stories) Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) SAN rAARDO WAY Plan Boundary ■■■wwv Neighborhood Transitions mmm1 New Street • — — • New PedestrianBike Path Conceptual Public Open Space As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use Alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around Reduced -Intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to include reduced development intensity and additional transition strategies in the area bordering the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood, and the area is identified in the blue dashed box in Figure 3 below. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 5 of 19 At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity land use alternative was being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower - Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to increase the residential density along West Middlefield Road, currently identified as medium -intensity Residential Land Use (up to five stories), to higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories). The area for the suggested modification is shown in the green thick dashed box in Figure 3 below. r ASM Figure 3: Community Outreach Meeting, January 28, 2019 — Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY • _.111P - I � flesitlential ® ,41 ''•• O �► `F<oRo � COs rtq �iNtL�A� m o z - J � O LAAVENIDA N z aesidentlaf! •� Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui S C i Office {up to 6 stories) Llgh lndusttiaV ••!•! snonRoo war ' Mixed use DFfiee ' flesidelrcfal saa R,& QR ••!! Aetai! i Lgl tl dustrlal,' !!! !1! 411 Office TERRA SELiA AVE !� office ® - Light Indust -1/ Llghrindus,_V � m �Rlixed use flesldential ` OtSee - UFFre With M,Istff{� flesldenCyl R.esitlential !!� Residential Residential N 0 250 500 1,006 Feet •� Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui S C i Office {up to 6 stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions snonRoo war ff------__- saa R,& QR ��r�tl New Street � 6 F Cur or Mauivraln vi... Mixed Use with Retail� 6 � SAN [ARRIZO WAY Conceptual Public Open Space N 0 250 500 1,006 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to k stories' Plan Boundary ria ■qui A Residential (up to 5 stories) i Office {up to 6 stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions Residential {upto7stories) i��� Light industrial (up to2sturies) ��r�tl New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan New Pedestrian/l Path Cur or Mauivraln vi... Mixed Use with Retail� Light Industrial / Office (up to 4 storles) Conceptual Public Open Space 'Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 6 of 19 Environmental Planning Commission Meeting—February 20, 2019 On February 20, 2019, the EPC held a Study Session to provide policy direction on the preferred land use alternative (see Attachment 2—EPC Study Session Report). The meeting was focused on land use alternative selection for the plan area. Seven members of the public spoke at the EPC meeting, including residents, property owners, and business representatives. In addition, staff also received e-mails, letters, and other correspondence since November 2018 (these are included in Attachment 3 —Additional Public Comment). In summary, comments included: • Maintain the General Plan 2030 vision. • Strong concerns related to a proposed six- to seven -story building height and areas of greater intensity adjacent to existing one- to two-story residential neighborhoods. • Strong need for sensitive neighborhood transition strategies to preserve the existing neighborhood character. • Support lower building heights adjacent to current single-family zoned properties and landscaping as a buffer. • Concern with the amount of change proposed in the area. • Concerns with additional traffic issues from the proposed land uses adding to the current traffic issues along Shoreline Boulevard. • Concerns with additional office land uses contributing to greater job -housing imbalance. EPC input is summarized in the Analysis section. ATVAT YET% Since the November 13, 2018 City Council Study Session, the project team has refined the land use alternatives based on Council direction, the February 2019 EPC Study Session, and public input. The major refinements include the following: 1. Created additional mixed-use areas along Shoreline Boulevard to create an area that allows a mix of retail, services, and active land uses. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 7 of 19 2. Incorporated neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary west of Shoreline Boulevard to reduce potential impacts of new development on existing single-family home areas. 3. Extended the Industrial/ Office Land Use along San Rafael Avenue up to Terra Bella Avenue to create a more continuous industrial zone. 4. Increased the intensity of Industrial/ Office Land Use between Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and south of U.S. 101 to accommodate higher -intensity office use close to U.S. 101, which acts as a natural barrier. 5. Shifted the bike/ pedestrian path closer to the Southern Plan Area boundary east of Shoreline Boulevard to create a better access along the single-family homes. These topics are enumerated 1 through 5 on Figure 4 below to more easily reference the geographic location to which the Council directed changes (refer to Figure 4 —Revised Land Uses — Alternative 5). The City Council asked staff to update the alternative based on the above input (Alternative 5 below) and a second with lower overall residential densities (Alternative 6 below). Revised Land Uses —Alternative 5 Land Use Alternative 5, shown in Figure 4 below, incorporates all the City Council direction from the November 2018 Study Session meeting discussed above. These changes result in additional potential housing units and nonresidential square footage (due to the current church site being suitable for housing in the future). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 8 of 19 Figure 4: Revised Land Uses—Alternative 5 OLD MIDQLEFIELD WAY } m dF LAAVENeDA _ 1 Z r L' aocssr Ns. ♦ ♦♦L ♦ P• a aResidenoal p e ♦;i* ...w♦'.. •♦.'♦, Ior 4 ■ ■ r rFg � Retiderrtiai �. ■ , 9� F♦. ti♦•♦♦' `,` %-Ith— Qrfice Residential ,✓/�.f ♦♦♦♦♦' (y a♦ q \ Retail Lightindustrial/ / ♦♦ /oD�f!.♦♦ �`�'aar �,�, i - otRc TERRAR€!!nave ♦♦ /f7 .♦• Office ♦ j, J Li9h[Industrial! Light lnd.m.1/ �♦ oRrwAVE F RQ ♦'♦♦ as Mued use Residential office p� $sA' ♦♦ Z oath Residential • ti 3 •♦♦ enixedus,Z Retail n Residential °oAVEA � ,� aye c� .♦ w�tlt w ■� yr ♦♦♦♦RMall = Residential Residential �M^Rcas 3` ♦♦♦ ■ hlll� K7 GR �„ �■ - .. to . _ ■ SnH .1HL r�;3ay SAM PABLO RR "� �ry r�lS AVE 1 SAN � H.0 WAP 5 N �uuu 1 0 250 500 1.000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to6stories) vwvv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) ��'-, Light Industrial/Office -- l New Street (up to 2 stories) New Pedestrian/Bike Path C. uH Cv os MorniR view Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retail Light Industrial /Office (up to 4 stories) Oil Conceptual Public Open Space Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Revised Land Use —Alternative 6 (Lower Density) At the November 18 Study Session, Council also asked for a lower -density alternative. Alternative 6, as shown in Figure 5 below, was developed based on City Council input by further refining the revised land use alternative discussed above and studying an alternative with lower residential densities. The highest residential density areas allowing up to seven stories are reduced to up to five stories throughout the plan area, and the medium -density residential land uses areas allowing up to five stories are reduced to up to three stories west of Shoreline Boulevard. A portion of the higher - intensity office use (up to five stories) north of Terra Bella Avenue and south of U.S. 101 was changed to lower -intensity office (up to three stories). Alternative 6 reduces the projected housing units significantly from 2,500 to 1,700, whereas the nonresidential Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 9 of 19 square footage has increased from 1.6 million square feet to 1.7 million square feet (due to some residential being changed to light industrial). Comparison of Alternatives 5 and 6 Charts 1 and 2 below compare several key factors between existing conditions, the original EPC -recommended option, and the two land use alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use and Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Figure 5: Revised Land Uses —Alternative 6 (Lower -Residential Density) 0 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY 1 z I� d LAAV■afoA z RXR st a � • ■'. • a It y■ ■ ♦ ♦ A. ■ ■ �rP ■ � A ■ RPSidentlai `N�1...■T�•`+ ?E,gagB� Residential fi rFt�q ----r---- '.. •.moi +� �+ � OrRrn ' ResMentral fj // �,��� H � , �TjQO.�` � e� ��,I ' Light lnduudaV �• Office %f •�� b TERRA SELLA AVE ��• ogEH,A R F 1� F�QRO•••,, light lndustrlaV •• - tight lndushiaU • Residential • �yRq '- Ofike b _ •.• 2 with MlxeduRetail Residential 6 Residential Npa ® 5 i with ••� Rett D Residential Residential•` �414111eCIe y �� SAN AR6p WAy m tAk[Ill54VE d g SAN PAnl00R Uz ff $ r 54N CARRI$P WAY N 0 250 500 1,01M, Fr or Residential (up to 3 stories) �s.•ru� Office (up to 3 stories) Plan Boundary iuu•i N i { Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) w+.wP Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) - Light Industrial/Office m== i New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan (up to 2 stories) . New Pedestrian/Bike Path Mixed Use with Retail X111.1 Light Industrial /Office (up to 4 stories) Ak Conceptual Public Open Space . Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Comparison of Alternatives 5 and 6 Charts 1 and 2 below compare several key factors between existing conditions, the original EPC -recommended option, and the two land use alternatives (Alternatives 5 and 6) discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use and Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 10 of 19 Chart 1: Land Use Options and Mix of Land Uses Residential Housing 3(3%) 35(38%) 35(38%) 35(38%) Area 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF Office Area 62(66%) 28(29%) 25(27%) 25(27%) Light Industrial/ Office 19(20%) 15(16%) 18(19%) 18(19%) Area Mixed Use / Retail Area 1 (1%) 5(5%) 11(12%) 11(12%) Hotel Area 0% 3(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Park/ Open Space Area 0(0%) 5.1(5%) 4.6(5%) 4.6(5%) Institutional/ Church 7(8%) 2.5(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) *Figures in Chart 1 represent number of acres and composition of land use based on acreage. Chart 2: Land Use Options Comparison —20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 3,200 to 3,600 9 Residents* 2,000 to 2,600 1,500 to 1,700 1.4 msf Housing Units 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF (-73 ksf retail) Employees** Jobs — Housing Mix —20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 3,200 to 3,600 9 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 1,500 to 1,700 1.4 msf 1.6 msf 1.8 msf 1.7 msf (-3 ksf retail) (-56 ksf retail) (-73 ksf retail) (-73 ksf retail) -4,200 *Assumes 2.1 residents per unit **Assumes 3 employees per 1,000 square feet 4,700 -5,400 -5,200 0 e 0 Better to worse Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 11 of 19 EPC Input At its February 2019 Study Session, the EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: 1. Mixed Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 6—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single - story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two- story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3-3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher - intensity residential (up to 7 stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to 3 stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to 6 stories to up to 3 stories (3 to 3 vote). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 12 of 19 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to 2 stories immediately adjacent to existing R1 -zoned property along the southeastern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote) . 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (up to 5 stories) to lower -intensity residential (up to 3 stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to 7 stories to up to 5 stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 13 of 19 Figure 6: Areas of EPC Discussion Based on Alternative 5 Transition Strategies At the EPC Study Session on February 20, 2019, there was considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. In November 2018, staff presented a series of potential strategies to provide appropriate transition buffers for future development in the Plan area, including: increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs, 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes, orientating primary windows away from existing homes, providing landscape buffers, and limiting balconies. Below are some illustrative examples of what these transition strategies could look like along the edges of the Terra Bella Plan Area near single-family homes. The following illustrations show a OLD MIDDLEFI EL6 WAY 0 � �3 0 0 LA AVENIVq 2 ROCK ST . ♦ •• z r•• • • is ■ ♦ K■ ■ • J 4 i f . , , 3 w Residential Q 6 :. ...... .•.. .`...■.'`••.••'•♦ X07 ,7 � � a TtRq „� Resldemial %/� Jh ti••••• ��"a �`I Mduw •••••• Office Res. i wlth .�A i Retail LightlndustdaV •• iv • Ps 49,0••'.erl� i 40'e ,/ office ••. o�PR••• ru, ,' / T"", - FER"RELUAVE ••• onF wgvF �4� . `. •!. J Lightheugtrial! - Lightlndustrial/ G. � ., 2 + • m Residenihal Off*.ce CHfice Mired uxe �:' Np _. i ••• '�1�k .t 1• ` Z with �esidenRal (] Miae'h Reran RRRIghtial eve^✓� m 2 �' 4 e - ••. �� •• heta'el 10 O 8 f$Idenhai Resijintial •. x lJJ �'M WC sc �• �`...�..tiill��Lt! titV* F SnN Aa��S•rAP 5AN P68L0 DR �NtU,s4t'a o 5 � 2 b) S1N CARi,.a WAY g 4 250 500 1,111111 11111t Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to4stories} Plan Boundary A iiesidential(upto5stories) Office (Up to6stories} wvw Neighborhood Transitions Residential (upto7stories) Light Industrial /Office ���I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan to 2stories) ■��■ New Pedestrian/Bike Path cnvoa n7ouufn,N Vii •:. /(up Mined Use with Retail J//1/� Light Industrial /Office (up to4stories) dft Conceptual Public Open Space" " Actual location will be determined as projects tome farward Transition Strategies At the EPC Study Session on February 20, 2019, there was considerable discussion on providing context -sensitive transitions between new development in the Terra Bella neighborhood and bordering single-family neighborhoods, including the Rock Street area and Stierlin Estates. In November 2018, staff presented a series of potential strategies to provide appropriate transition buffers for future development in the Plan area, including: increased building setbacks, upper -story step -backs, 45 -degree daylight plane for building volumes, orientating primary windows away from existing homes, providing landscape buffers, and limiting balconies. Below are some illustrative examples of what these transition strategies could look like along the edges of the Terra Bella Plan Area near single-family homes. The following illustrations show a Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 14 of 19 combination of several transition strategies that could be considered in a variety of circumstances and are not necessarily specific to just Terra Bella. Example No. 1: Landscaping along the edges creates a buffer and screens views into neighboring homes. An alley or street is accommodated in the minimum setback area between new development and existing single-family homes. Townhomes are two stories at street/ alley level, stepping up to three stories. Maximum height is established (as shown on the Vision Plan diagram), and follows a 45 -degree daylight plane. Figure 7: Landscape Buffer Strategy 1 Single-family home Alley -loaded townhomes Example No. 2: Landscaping along the edges creates a buffer and screens views into neighboring homes. A new street, and an expanded setback area, provides a setback between new development and existing single-family homes. Three (3) story townhomes are turned sideways so that primary windows are not facing the backyard of single-family homes. Maximum height is established (as shown on the Vision Plan diagram), and follows a 45 -degree daylight plane. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 15 of 19 Figure 8: Landscape Buffer Strategy 2 Single-family home Townhomes rotated for privacy In addition, the Vision Plan could stipulate that any new development proposals include additional analyses to reduce the impacts on neighboring single-family homes, which could include view and shadow studies. Other Impacts EPC was concerned about how the land use alternatives impact the jobs -housing balance, schools, and traffic in the area. The Vision Plan intends to gather community input on key topics such as land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement big -picture General Plan direction and Council goals. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. Such detailed development standards and regulatory framework would require additional studies through a Precise Plan process. In reviewing this information, the Council should consider which alternative best represents its vision for Terra Bella Avenue and any particular policy areas that should be addressed. Staff also notes that elements within each alternative can be mixed and matched. Council Question No. 1: Which Land Use Vision Alternative does the Council prefer for Terra Bella Avenue? Council Question No. 2: Are there particular policy areas or direction that Council would like the Plan to emphasize or address? Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 16 of 19 Future Precise Plan During the last round of public meetings, some Environmental Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers as well as community members discussed interest in developing a Terra Bella Precise Plan once the Visioning Plan was adopted. The following is a comparison of the pros and cons of the City embarking on a new Terra Bella Precise Plan or just using an adopted Terra Bella Visioning Plan. Option 1: Terra Bella Precise Plan Pros: • A comprehensive and detailed standards and guidelines, such as floor area ratio, building setbacks, and TDM requirements, etc., would provide greater clarity and expectations for developers, the community, and decision makers. • More detailed analysis, including environmental review and technical studies on topics such as development feasibility; transportation, utility, and air quality impacts; and school and public infrastructure needs would provide more information to help evaluate new development proposals. • More efficient and consistent environmental review of development projects based on one Precise Plan EIR. Cons: • Would require significant additional staff time and funding. • The Precise Plan could take approximately 18 to 24 months, which could result in delays of pending projects or missed opportunities if market conditions change. Although preparation of a Precise Plan can take up to 24 months, the City Council could consider allowing Gatekeeper projects once the Public draft of the precise plan is available (time frame -12 months) to reduce the delay in project review time, as shown in the following graphic. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 17 of 19 Summer '19 Summer '21 I I I I I I I I Visioning I I 18 Months (Programmatic EIR) Precise Plan I 1 I I I I I I Draft PP - 12months I I I I 1 Gatekeeper 1 1 I � � 18 months with a Neg. Dec 1 1 I I I I I 1 I Total 2.5 years > Option 2: Terra Bella Vision Plan Pros: Winter/' Spring'2e • Review Time: Allows Gatekeeper project to move forward sooner instead of waiting for a Precise Plan process, which could result in some desired land uses, such as new housing, to be built. Cons: • Each project would be reviewed ou a case-by-case basis without detailed and established development standards or guidelines. This would involve negotiations on a project -by -project basis over key topics, such as building setbacks, which could result in an inefficient process and inconsistent City requirements. • Project CEQA Review: Each Gatekeeper project would need individual CEQA review which would create greater inefficiencies and require more staff review. • Resources: Individual Gatekeeper projects would require more staffing resources. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 18 of 19 Council Question No. 3: Does the City Council wish to add creating a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a possible priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as the next step following the Vision Plan Adoption? When staff brings back the final Vision Plan for adoption, after Council has determined its priority projects, the question of when or whether to accept Gatekeepers can be addressed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback on the preferred land use alternative for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Area and direction on the following questions posed in the Study Session memo: 1. Which land use vision alternative does the City Council prefer for Terra Bella? 2. Are there particular policy areas or direction that Council would like the Plan to emphasize or address? 3. Does the City Council wish to add creating a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a possible priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as the next step following the Vision Plan Adoption? NEXT STEPS Following this Council Study Session, the project team will continue preparing the Draft Vision Plan. The public draft of the Vision Plan is anticipated in spring 2019. Final adoption of the Plan is anticipated before the summer 2019 Council break. Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives April 2, 2019 Page 19 of 19 PUBLIC NOTICING The City Council agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations: Rex Manor Neighborhood Association and North Whisman Neighborhood Association. Social media was used to notify the public and the school districts were notified. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SE. DP-MA-AS/5/CAM 807-04-02-19SS 190191 Attachments: 1. Summary of Prior Meetings 2. EPC Study Session Report —February 20, 2019 3. Additional Public Comment Attachment 1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses —especially mixed-use, residential, and retail — to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. asR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. PJ 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is provided as Attachment 4 to this report —Stakeholder Meetings Summary. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles and Other Policies The EPC and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning plan area in October and November 2018. In summary, the Council members were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke 3 at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding rind les for the plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e. near Mor an Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Council members supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as Job -housing balance and school strategies. al Attachment 2 6.1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 20, 2019 6. STUDY SESSION 6.1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan—Land Use Alternatives RECOMMENDATION That the Environmental Planning Commission to review and provide input to the City Council on land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning Plan Area. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website. All property owners and tenants within the Plan area and within a 750' radius of the Plan area were notified of this meeting by mailed notice. Other interested stakeholders were notified of this meeting via the project's e-mail notification system, including adjacent neighborhood associations— Rex Manor Neighborhood and North Whisman Neighborhood Associations. Project and meeting information is posted on the project website: https: / /www.mountainview. gov / depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terra_ bella.asp BACKGROUND The Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan process started in April 2018 and has included multiple community workshops, stakeholder meetings, and EPC and City Council Study Sessions. For an overview of prior workshops and meetings, see Exhibit 1 (Summary of Prior Meetings). This work was authorized by the City Council as a targeted community outreach effort to gather community input on the future vision for the area and develop strategies to guide future development in the area. The 2030 General Plan does not identify the Terra Bella Area as a "Change Area' for future development. Therefore, no specific vision was identified for the area during the last General Plan update process. Visioning Process Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 9 Figure 1: Vision Plan Area Visioning processes provide an opportunity to gather input on community preferences on key topics like land use and circulation, and evaluate ways to implement big picture General Plan direction and Council goals. The resulting Vision Plan is a guiding document that can inform future creation of a Precise Plan to accomplish the identified vision for the area. While some specific objectives may be articulated for preferred land uses, intensity of development and general circulation conditions, a Vision Plan does not establish specific regulations, or regulate land use, zoning or properties. It does not include detailed feasibility and technical analysis of potential impacts of development. This can be achieved through a Precise Plan development. Prior Public Meetings The EPC and City Council held Study Sessions on the land uses and other policy direction on October 17 and November 13, 2018, respectively. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 3 of 9 In summary, the City Council was supportive of the addition of residential land uses in the Plan area, and envisions a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Several members of the public spoke at both the EPC and City Council meetings, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, the need for policies that create sensitive transitions adjacent to single-family neighborhoods in the area; the need for additional housing in the area; and preserving existing small businesses. The City Council responses to all the questions at the meeting are summarized in the table below, including EPC comments, where noted. 1 Vision and Guiding Council supported the proposed vision and Principles guiding principles for the plan area. 2 Land Use Alternatives Council supported the EPC Preferred Land Use Alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. 3 Neighborhood Transition Council supported proposed transition Strategies strategies and suggested additional transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e., near Morgan Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Council supported the community benefit Strategy strategy. 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and requirements for future developments in the area. 6 Other Strategies Most of the Councilmembers supported requiring other strategies such as jobs - housing balance and school strategies. The City Council further directed staff to study a few changes to the EPC Preferred Land Use alternatives and study an additional alternative with reduced residential densities at key locations. These changes are discussed in the Analysis section of Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 4 of 9 this report. Council also directed staff to do an additional focused outreach meeting to gather input from residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Northwestern Plan Area boundary; a summary of this meeting is discussed below. Third Community Outreach Meeting (January 2019) As a follow-up to the November Council meeting, staff held an additional focused outreach meeting on January 28, 2019 to gather community input on the proposed Vision Plan Land Use alternatives and specifically neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street single-family neighborhood. The meeting was attended by 10 people. The public input received at this meeting focused around reduced - intensity Residential Land Use alternatives adjacent to existing single-family residential areas. The preference was to implement similar development intensity and buffers in the plan area at this location that is proposed at the northwestern border adjacent to the Morgan Street and Rock Street neighborhood. The suggested changes are shown below in Figure 2: Figure 2: Community Outreach 3 —Input on Land Use Alternative OLD MI DDLEF I ELD WAY y m Ll aVF4lap S 4 erx,s, • 4 / is fy4q '? ' f4siaera4l • ' • IMrce I4ssdem4l 7 WMA•• om' ,� :` � lgnunaussaaV / •••• 'r DN tIQ ' • rru orrwc exCwxvE G ' iF7ORd �.; ' aesbernlnl1. Lglrc IMruP ruV �: u9Ft Inau56iaV •% ar Cm irpad� J �'� Reslderrt4l MIc Broil Pesden[NI � i s4swexs4i `4 T) ' ••••, �r ",,■}■, rp LK! �"P sw axoow.r g �xne�oo � 3 8 � S soh rswsrm w.v N Residential (up to 3storiesl Office fop [o4storiesl :.....0 Plan Boundary ~I Peddentlal(upto5stodes) Office (up to 6 stories.) vww Neighborhood Transitions P-1dendal(up to 7 stories) Light Industrial/Office New Street Cup to 2 stories) ol, rrr:Mrwrslx rlers Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retail �� light Industrial/Office New Pedestrian1ilte Path (ops to 4 stories) Conceptual Public Open Space. • Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 5 of 9 At this meeting, staff also noted that a lower -intensity development alternative as suggested through public input was already being studied by the project team as directed by the City Council at the last Study Session meeting. This information is included in the Analysis section as the "Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative." Another public comment from this meeting was to move the higher -intensity Residential Land Use (up to seven stories) from medium -intensity Residential Land Use along the Middlefield Road frontage. Additional Public Comment E-mails, letters, and other correspondence received since the last Study Session are included in Exhibit 2 —Public Comment. The comments include strong concerns related to a proposed six- to seven -story building height and areas of greater intensity adjacent to existing one- to two-story residential neighborhoods. Traffic issues in the area were again raised as another major concern. Increased lower -density development buffer and landscaping were noted as a few suggestions. ANALYSIS Since the last public meeting, the project team has refined the Land Use alternatives based on Council direction and public input. The major refinements include the following: 1. Creating additional mixed-use areas along Shoreline Boulevard to create an area that allows a more diverse mix of retail, services, and active land uses. 2. Incorporated neighborhood transition strategies along the Northwestern Plan Area boundary west of Shoreline Boulevard to reduce potential impacts of new development on existing single-family home areas. 3. Extended the Industrial/ Office Land Use along San Rafael Avenue up to Terra Bella Avenue to create a more continuous industrial zone. 4. Increased the intensity of Industrial/ Office Land Use between Linda Vista Avenue and San Rafael Avenue and south of U.S. 101 to accommodate higher -intensity office use close to U.S. 101, which acts as a natural barrier. Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 6 of 9 5. Shifted the bike/pedestrian path closer to the Southern Plan Area boundary east of Shoreline Boulevard to create a better access along the single-family homes. Revised Land Use Alternative 5 Land Use Alternative 5, shown below, incorporates all the City Council direction from the last Study Session meeting listed above. These changes result in additional potential housing units and nonresidential square footage. Figure 3: Revised Land Use Alternative 5 OLD MIDDLEFIEED WAY � m e P W a ,00 OW tAAVENfDA umRryG f h p� z aacK sr • ♦'1' el . a Residenpai � quP e'�♦`....+�• '♦♦+♦+•♦ SOF . + �g4BA //f �♦♦ tip♦ 4� ��'r'e LF M7d usr,/%//�".• • ♦,, tle office Residendal / ♦♦• je,♦♦' ♦ Retail Light Indus HA/ "/ ♦♦ �. •• "`��, �� I � Office �♦♦ Ob�E^A,♦1♦ fid ,� TERRA RELLAAVE ♦♦ /fir 1♦ Office �4R .♦ J Lightlndustrial! - Ligh[lndustriaV >• -��W4VE o=M1 O i, m Mrn.eduse Reslde'nTal D(hCe Office z �♦ 'gay ♦♦ Z with Residential RP"�oy e 4 ♦.♦ Mz..d.1, Retail Residential .W '�� ♦♦ with "4eE 2 .♦♦♦Iteyll = Resid_tial Residential IQ d 5"'t'Mnsco � ♦♦. ■ iFirl�Piiti orlr9Pi'�R1la}S �7 RrLr �� S'tR■ SAH APoa :vnr F A-PM1BLu o.� k/ Ury tU154VE � o. UA rAU.0 WA, s 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 4 stories) A Plan Boundary Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (Up to6stories) wwv Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to 7 stories) Light Industrial/Office r. ri ra New Street I (up to 2 stories) �. New Pedestrian/Bike Path L:n of Mo Nrnmnu V..Terra Bella Vision Plan Mixed Use with Retailrj.��`ri Light Industrial/Office (up to4stories) �•„ Conceptual Public Open Space J�+ ' Actual location will be determined as projects come forward Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative 6 This alternative was developed by further refining the Revised Land Use Alternative discussed above. The highest residential density (up to seven -story Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 7 of 9 densities are reduced to medium -residential intensities (up to five stories) throughout the plan area, and the Medium -Density Residential Land Uses are reduced to lower -density residential (up to three stories) to the west of Shoreline Boulevard. A portion of the higher intensity office use (up to five stories) north of Terra Bella Avenue and South of 101 was changed to lower intensity office (up to three stories). With this lower intensity option the projected housing units are reduced to half, whereas the non-residential square footage has only slightly reduced. Figure 4: Revised Lower -Density Land Use Alternative 6 a OLD MIODLEFI ELD WAY � �Z m 3 a / a LA AVENIOA Z gOQIT �OgGAry t . ♦♦� • oft ■ � w ■ P r �. ReAdennal \� ,`♦♦r aaar�"rr"■r1♦♦111 ■ TfRd e Residential S Oyu. 6f ' ��''r�////%♦♦ ♦♦1 ♦` � � Mfice � Resadential ��� 1111♦ {y♦11 a ,� tight Indus 0,1; / ♦O .t/, ♦1 est �1 � � Office - ♦♦ (F'ei♦1♦ Orrice _ TEgRA SELLA AVE ♦. FSA ♦♦♦,� L-ghtlndusrw/ 4gEkiavE Light lntlustrial/ Rp 1 1 m Smidentlai z Orrice � as S°�ay ♦♦♦♦♦ j �Residential � +� MoH ems: 1♦1 MiY .ry,^-+.. Residential • 4� NE4VE ® § f i ♦♦♦ R O Residential ■¢ �2 ♦1 T _.._ gesidential Na sAN N°Agcasoe � ♦♦♦,�■ islR"fiffYlA rr�.G r.r ♦• n gWz vN Al. -14 sAN vnato oq � °p '�N1itISAVE j R yp s� g 2 SAN GPEI20 WAY O N �u■u� ` 0 250 500 1,000 Feet Residential (up to 3 stories) Office (up to 3 stories) Plan Boundary /■' iu■ui Residential (up to 5 stories) Office (up to 5 stories) wvw Neighborhood Transitions Residential (up to7stories)%/,/LightI dustrial/office ���I New Street Terra Bella Vision Plan �% (up t.-2 stories) New Pedestrian/Bike Path t:rtt or Moorttnm vrEw Mixed Use with Retail / Light Industrial /Office (up to4stories) Alilkj, Conceptual Public Open Space* "Actuallocation will bedetermined as projects come forward Alternatives Comparison A comparison chart has been prepared with estimates of several key factors to provide a comparison between existing conditions, the EPC recommended option, Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 8 of 9 and the two Land Use Alternatives discussed in this report. Chart 1 provides an estimate of the number of acres by land use; Chart 2 provides an estimate of the number of residents and employees and the amount of housing units and nonresidential square footage. Chart 1: Vision Option Land Use Mix Residential Housing Area 3(3%) 35(38%) 35(38%) 35(38%) Office Area 62(66%) 28(29%) 25(27%) 25 (27%) Light Industrial / Office Area 19(20%) 15(16%) 18(19%) 18(19%) Mixed Use/ Retail Area 1 (1%) 5(5%) 11(12%) 11(12%) Hotel Area 0 3(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Park / Open Space Area 0(0%) 5.1(5%) 4.6(5%) 4.6(5%) Institutional / Church 7(8%) 2.5(3%) 0(0%) 0(0%) Chart 2: Land Use Vision Options Comparison WResidents* 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 Housing Units 1.6 msf 1.8 msf (-3 ksf retail) Non -Residential SF (^73 ksf retail) Employees" -4,700 Jobs - Housing Mix *Assumes 2.1 residents per unit **Assumes 3 employees per 1,000 square feet "20 4,000 to 5,200 4,200 to 5,500 9 1,900 to 2,500 2,000 to 2,600 1.4 msf 1.6 msf 1.8 msf (-3 ksf retail) (-56 ksf retail) (^73 ksf retail) 4,200 -4,700 "5,400 O 0 0 2,700 to 3,200 1,300 to 1,500 1.7 msf ("73 ksf retail) -5,200 e oeo Better to worse Environmental Planning Commission Staff Report February 20, 2019 Page 9 of 9 In reviewing this information, the EPC should consider which alternative best represents their vision for Terra Bella Avenue. Elements within each alternative discussed can be mixed and matched. EPC Question No. 1: Which Land Use Vision Alternative does the EPC prefer for Terra Bella? CONCLUSION Staff recommends the EPC provide input to the City Council on Preferred Land Use Vision Alternatives. NEXT STEPS The City Council will review the EPC input and comments at their March 05, 2019 Study Session. After that, the project team will continue preparing the Draft Vision Plan. Staff will return to the Council in May 2019 with the public draft of the Vision Plan and discussion on next steps and gatekeeper project review process. Final adoption of the Plan is anticipated by summer 2019. Prepared by: Approved by: Diana Pancholi Martin Alkire Senior Planner Principal Planner DP/ 3/ CDD/ 807-02-20-19SR Exhibits: 1. Summary of Prior Meetings 2. Public Comment Exhibit 1 Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Summary of Prior Direction and Workshops Community Workshop No. 1— June 2, 2018 The first workshop was held at the City of Mountain View Senior Center with approximately 45 participants. The workshop introduced the project and engaged interested community members to get a sense of their vision for the area's future. The workshop included an overview of the Visioning process and introduction to the Plan area, a small group visioning discussion, and an individual mapping exercise for participants to share their preferred locations for various land uses and their character within the Plan area. Following the workshop, an online survey was conducted, which received 46 responses. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and Workshop Summary are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. 2 -SR. Key outcomes from Workshop No.1 outreach include: 1. Overall support for redevelopment in Terra Bella. Generally, low- to moderate - density development was envisioned. 2. Employment uses (office and light industrial) were still seen as key land uses in the area, but there was great acceptance for introducing more diverse uses —especially mixed-use, residential, and retail — to create a more vibrant and thriving district. 3. Support for redevelopment at higher intensities than currently exists; 4. Strong support for improvements to enhance the quality of life of the residents and workers, such as parks and shops. 5. Traffic congestion was a major concern for respondents, highlighting alternate modes and transit infrastructure as important future improvements. 6. Important to have good transitions in new development abutting existing residential development in the area. 7. Retail and mixed-use developments were identified as highly desirable along Shoreline Boulevard. 1 8. Open space was identified as a key missing amenity/ feature, and there was broad agreement on introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. Community Workshop No. 2 — August 25, 2018 The second workshop was held at Mountain View City Hall with approximately 62 participants. The workshop aimed to discuss ideas or elements for preferred land uses and transportation improvements in the area, and preferences for key policy questions related to community benefits, parks, and small businesses. The workshop included large -group discussion on various land use and policy topics, including guiding principles, land use Visioning Plans, building heights, parks and open space, transportation and street concepts, parking and transportation demand management (TDM), frontage character, community benefits, and small business support. The workshop presentation, visual preference survey, and workshop summary and additional materials are available on the project web page: https: / /www.mountainview.gov/ depts/comdev /planning/ activeprojects/ terrabella. asR. Key outcomes from Workshop No. 2 outreach include: 1. Most participants seemed to support Vision Alternative 1 (discussed later in the report), which proposed new public open space and a mix of office and residential uses both east and west of Shoreline Boulevard, as well additional mixed-use/retail along Shoreline Boulevard. Among the remaining participants, there was wide variation in the participants' vision for Terra Bella with some preferring higher densities and more mixed-use development than the proposed Visioning Plans and others favoring lower -density residential development with additional green space/buffers. 2. General support for the proposed transportation network for Terra Bella and concepts for key streets through the Plan area, with the exception to see protected or separated bike lanes on most streets over shared lanes. 3. Priority goals for the Plan are to promote diverse housing options, create neighborhoods with balanced and integrated land uses, and add new parks or open spaces. PJ 4. New development should provide transitions, particularly in height/ density, from existing single-family and multi -family homes. 5. Support for introducing new open space in the area with the east side being the preferred location. 6. Support for improving connections across Shoreline Boulevard, across Middlefield Road, across Route 101 to North Bayshore, and to Stevens Creek. 7. Creating a network that is safe for children to walk or bike to school is a priority. 8. The potential impacts of new development on traffic congestion and parking were major concerns for the community. 9. The majority of participants agreed that TDM measures should be included in the Plan, particularly shared parking between projects, bicycle parking/shower/ changing facilities, and car -share parking. 10. Preference for retail/shopfront frontages along Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue, and residential frontage types like stoops and door yards/porches along predominantly residential streets such as Linda Vista and San Rafael Avenues. 11. Support for requiring that new development provide community benefits and small business support. Stakeholder Meetings Apart from the community workshops to date, the Vision Plan team has met with over 20 stakeholders, including property owners, businesses, developers, public agencies, and other interested parties. A summary of key comments from these meetings is available on the project web page. Vision, Land Use, Guiding Principles and Other Policies The EPC and the City Council held Study Sessions on the vision, land use alternatives, guiding principles, and other policies for Terra Bella Visioning plan area in October and November 2018. In summary, the Council members were supportive of the addition of residential land use in the Plan area and envision a higher -intensity residential neighborhood with 3 greater retail services, the addition of open space, and improved multi -modal improvements and connections throughout. Fourteen (14) members of the public spoke at the meeting, including residents, property owners, developers, and existing business owners. Public speakers suggested a variety of topics for EPC and Council consideration, including, but not limited to, sensitive transition around single-family neighborhoods, the need for additional housing in the area, and preserving existing small businesses. The EPC staff report and the City Council Study Session Memo for these meetings can be found on the City Website. City Council direction included the following: 1 Vision and Guiding Principles Council supported the proposed vision and guiding rind les for the plan area. Council supported the EPC Preferred land use 2 Land Use alternatives alternative with certain changes discussed in the analysis section of this report. Council supported proposed transition strategies and suggested additional transition strategies 3 Neighborhood Transition Strategies along the Northwestern plan area boundary adjacent to existing residential developments (i.e. near Mor an Street and Rock Street). 4 Community Benefit Strategy Council supported the community benefit strategy 5 TDM Requirements Council supported strong TDM policy and re uirements for future developments in the area. Most of the Council members supported requiring 6 Other Strategies other strategies such as Job -housing balance and school strategies. al Exhibit 2 Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Diana, We live on Morgan Street, near the Terra Bella visioning plan area, and like many of our neighbors we are a dual -income working family with kids and have not had the free time to attend the workshop sessions that have been held. I wanted to send commentary ahead of the next round of reviews, after reviewing the latest proposals. We've notice that plans are calling for immediate transition from single -family -home zoning to 7 -story residential immediately adjacent to our neighborhood, which we've learned is not something that's been done in any other project like this. While we are not opposed to the conversion of light commercial zoning over to multi -story residential, this abrupt transition seems rather extreme and will significantly impact the character of our neighborhood. Three-story residential seems like a more reasonable limit that will still add a considerable amount of housing in a needed area. We recently remodeled our home to add a second story, and had a few learnings from that process which I wanted to make sure we shared with you. First, we were a borderline case with the EPA with regards to subfloor ventilation requirements due to our proximity to the groundwater plumes; the Terra Bella area is right on top of these and so there may be restrictions on residential building. Second, we learned through soil studies that the water table is already very high in our area, and the ground is at risk of liquefaction in an earthquake. For a two-story home, this required significant additions to our foundations in order to mitigate the risks, and limited our ability to dig. For dense multi -story construction, I can only imagine how much more would need to be done, and wonder if it is even possible to build dense residential of —7 stories (including what I'd expect to be underground parking for buildings of that size) with the local geology being what it is. It would be good to get these questions answered with a detailed study before too many conclusions are drawn regarding the size and height of buildings in the Terra Bella area. As frequent users of the Shoreline athletic facilities, we've also noticed the extreme traffic during the evening commute. As part of the development plans, I'd love to see both widening of the Shoreline Boulevard highway crossing, as well as addition of public transit from Terra Bella to the Shoreline office parks, in order to help ensure easy movement of traffic in and out of that area. The Terra Bella area will be highly desirable for tech workers to live there, and the current set of overpasses over 101 are really undersized for the amount of people that need to get in and out of that area every work day. Thanks for considering this input and we look forward to hearing more about the development plans. If the City has an e-mail interest list forming for the visioning plan, I'd be happy to be added. Thanks, Patrick Neschleba Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:46 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning - Input from Impacted Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We have recently been made aware of the plan for the redevelopment of the Terra Bella, Middlefield, Shoreline area. We have also become aware that only those areas whose residents speak up the loudest are being accommodated. Those of us who trusted the City to plan according to what is fair and right for the entire neighborhood are being ignored. Clearly our trust in the City has been misplaced. So here are our voices: WE VEHEMENTLY PROTEST THIS PLAN! 6 TO 7 STORY BUILDINGS TOWERING OVER OUR 1 STORY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! Linda and Michael Thomas Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:16 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Debbi Beauchesne; Chris Beauchesne; Sue Stabell; Sue Stabell-Work.Desk Subject: Terra Bella Vision - Morgan/Spring St. Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Diana, Thank you for taking the time to speak to us last night about the Terra Bella Vision Plan. It was good to hear about the plan first-hand from you. My Morgan Court neighbors and I felt we missed a good opportunity to add our input at last year's Vision Plan workshops, but we plan to be more vocal in the future. Anyway, in reviewing some of the information about the plan, I wanted to share some of my own thoughts with you. Hopefully better late than never... I counted about twenty Stierlin Estates 1 -story single-family residences, along San Pablo Drive area, bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. It sounded like that neighborhood was well represented at the previous Vision Plan Workshops. Unfortunately, my Morgan/Spring St neighborhood, was virtually unrepresented, partly because we have nothing resembling a homeowners association. We too have about twenty 1 -story single-family residences directly bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. I would hope that we would get equal consideration, just as the more organized Stierlin Estates homeowners did, when it comes to being mindful of the transition zones between our older 1 -story residences and the new construction. I personally feel that with the Terra Bella zone adjacent to so much residential, that 5-7 story buildings seem excessively high for most of the area. As I'm sure you've already been hearing from the Stierlin Estates residents, we in the Morgan/Spring St area also would like to see a thoughtful transition from our 1 -story homes to taller buildings. I'm thinking nothing more than 2-3 stories high adjacent to our residential properties would be acceptable, combined with a generous buffer space and perhaps a landscape screen or other consideration. Noise from our new neighbors should seriously be taken into consideration also. With that said, when I look at the proposal options, my thought would be to consider having the tallest buildings right along noisy/high traffic Shoreline Blvd, and perhaps along the freeways (they would make great sound walls!), all the while keeping them fairly far away from the existing single-family residences in the neighborhood. Taller buildings on Shoreline might make for a nice gateway into central Google, which could complement (or even copy) the beautiful new4-story Google building at the corner of Terra Bella &Shoreline. (Did I mention it's only 4 -stories?). I really think it would be best for us neighborhood residents to have the tallest buildings a minimum 1-2 blocks away from all the existing 1 -story residential. Thanks for listening and we look forward to hearing about future meetings on the topic. Please keep us posted with any developments and City Council dates on the matter. Sincerely, Eric Stabell Sent from my iPhone Pancholi, Diana From: Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:06 PM To: City.Council Cc: , City Manager, Pancholi, Diana; Tim Schrotenboer Subject: Terra Bella Visioning To Mayor Siegel, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Councilmembers, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Terra Bella area yesterday evening at the council meeting. It was clear that the council and staff have spent many hours working toward a plan for this area that considers the needs of the larger community as it grows and changes, as well as taking the time to consider the existing residents in the area, for which I personally am very grateful. I wanted to take a minute of your time to request again that this plan be moved forward through the Precise Plan process. As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the Precise Plan process was what we were told would be used when we attended the first vision planning meeting this past June, and I believe it is the only responsible way to allow development in this area that is outside of the current zoning and general plan allowances. I understand that this area is not one of those identified as a change area within the General Plan; however, it has become clear that this is an area of interest for developers. I credit the council for recognizing that when multiple projects started coming in for this area, a broader, more holistic approach was needed, and starting the visioning process. As the developer interest in this area has continued, and even increased, I ask that council continue to build on the work that staff has already started, and incorporate the environmental studies that accompany a Precise Plan, including traffic impact reports, to help inform the density thresholds that make sense for this area as a whole. While all of the vision is good, and I have been encouraged by the plan as it has morphed and changed over the past months, we don't yet have a clear picture of what the impacts of the type and scale of the envisioned development would have on the area. Beyond not having that clear picture, an additional concern with moving forward without a Precise Plan is that we end up with infrastructure that is not unified. As projects come through the gatekeeper process, the frontage improvements, building setbacks, utility sizes, etc. are all considered for that project individually. A precise plan allows for not only the vision of the what the area could be, but the studies to show that the vision will function well once constructed, and the requirements to actually construct it that way. This is helpful to both neighboring residents and to developers, as they know exactly what will be required when a project is constructed. Another major concern is the community benefits item, and how that is incorporated into the area. As a number of council members mentioned, having a "floating' park may mean that the park gets pushed onto a piece of land that doesn't make sense for the area, or worse yet, not included at all. I am concerned about how the community benefit approach will be put into practice without the "teeth" of the requirements that generally come from a Precise Plan. A Precise Plan can also include phasing, which would ensure that the community benefits are constructed in tandem with the developments, and not pushed to the end. As a public sector employee myself, I am acutely aware that staff resources must be considered here. My request is to recognize that this area is a priority for development, and to direct the resources to develop it properly through the creation of a Precise Plan. Alternatively (and this is not my personal preferred alternative), only allow projects to move forward that meet with the current General Plan and zoning for the area. Each project that comes in under the gatekeeper process requires a certain amount of staff resources. If the amount of staff time and resources spent on each gatekeeper project could be combined and focused up -front on a Precise Plan, we would end up with an area more likely to benefit all community members. Thank you again for your time, your service to our community, and your attention to this area. Sincerely, Attachment 3 Pancholi, Diana From: Eric Stabell Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 7:00 AM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Matichak, Lisa; Abe-Koga, Margaret; Hicks, Alison; Kamei, Ellen; Clark, Chris; Ramirez, Lucas; McAlister, John Subject: Terra Bella Vision EPC Meeting Feedback Attachments: EPC 2019-02-20 Item 6.1 Staff Report Addendum.pdf, EPC Study Session Memo 2019-03-05.pdf, Terra Bella Addendum Figure 6 -Alt 5.png To: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner From: Eric Stabell, Mountain View Homeowner Re: EPC Meeting - Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan Hello Diana, I'd like to give you some feedback from us homeowners in the neighborhoods surrounding Terra Bella regarding the recent Environmental Planning Commission meeting on Terra Bella Visioning. This includes many folks from both Stierlin Estates and the Morgan Street area. I was just reviewing your March 5 Study Session Memo "Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan - Land Use Alternatives", after you released the Addendum "Item 9.1 with Revised pages 11-13". It looks like corrections were made to the paragraph numbers, so they now match the numbers shown in Figure 6 /Alternative 5 Vision Map. For anyone else reading this, I want to first quote your PURPOSE statement that the Study Session Memo starts out with... "The purpose of this Study Session is to present revised land use alternatives for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan and summarize input from the February 20 Environmental Planning Commission meeting. Staff is seeking City Council input and policy direction on a preferred land use and next steps for the Terra Bella Visioning and Guiding Principles Plan." We want to state that, as a homeowners directly adjacent to the Terra Bella area, we felt that the EPC suggested many excellent visioning improvements for transitions to existing residential, but unfortunately many of the straw votes were deadlocked in a 3 to 3 tie. If they had all passed the EPC vote, I believe all the homeowners surrounding Terra Bella would have been very relieved and pleased to see the vision turn into something much more reasonable for the neighborhood. Myself and my neighbors would greatly appreciate if Planning Staff and the City Council could together consider implementing every one of the EPC suggestions into a new improved Vision Plan. Below is the list of the EPC's great suggestions, as copied directly from the Addendum of the March 5 Study Session Memo. I have underlined all the EPC suggestions that my neighbors and I are most in favor of. The accompanying Addendum Vision Figure 6/Alternative 5 map is included at the end. EPC Input At its February 2019 Study Session, the EPC did not reach a consensus on a preferred land alternative. The following summarizes the key topics where the EPC reached a 6 to 0 vote, as well as topics where they were evenly split. Topics with clear consensus: Mixed Use Areas: Future projects in the mixed-use area along Shoreline Boulevard should have a residential emphasis. 2. Transition Areas: EPC reaffirmed the importance of providing a sensitive transition between the Terra Bella area and existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Future projects in the plan area should be required to include those neighborhood transition strategies. Require future mixed-use proposal along Shoreline Boulevard to have a residential emphasis. Other topics with no clear EPC consensus are listed below. These topics indicate proposed changes to land use Alternative 5 as discussed by EPC, and are enumerated 3 through 10 on Figure 6 below to more easily reference the geographic location that the mixed -consensus topics refer to (refer to Figure 6—Areas of EPC discussion). 3. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Require a single story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote); some discussions also suggested 1 -up zoning along the northwestern plan area boundary. 4. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit office to a two story height limit adjacent to existing R1 -zoned properties along the northwestern plan area boundary (3-3 vote). 5. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change higher intensity residential (up to 7 stories) to lower -intensity residential (Lip to 3 stories) (3 to 3 vote). 6. West of Shoreline Boulevard, North of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office building height west of the bike/pedestrian pathway from up to 6 stories to up to 3 stories (3 to 3 vote). 7. West of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed office land use to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). 8. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Limit the proposed residential land use building height up to 2 stories immediately adjacent to existing RI -zoned property along the southeastern plan area boundary (3 to 3 vote). 9. East of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the proposed medium -intensity residential (uug to 5 stories) to lower -intensity residential (0 to 3 stories) south of Terra Bella Avenue between Linda Vista Avenue and San Leandro Avenue (4 to 2 vote). 10. East Side of Shoreline Boulevard, South of Terra Bella Avenue: Change the building height for mixed-use proposed east of Shoreline Boulevard and south of Terra Bella Avenue from up to 7 stories to Lip to 5 stories (4 to 2 vote). Change the proposed office land use between Terra Bella Avenue and Middlefield Road, west of Shoreline Boulevard, to lower -intensity residential (3 to 3 vote). Figure : Ares of EPC Discussion P OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY � ao ,0 w 00 00 W a ADCK sr �4S, ■ � i■ 1 �° '1** # Residential /+'' ' +4► 0 4 P Vjr 46 Mix -ad me with flffira R@s&ratial go ■atv n. *44 Rel i LightInclu! D C]€fice •t1•}� �Ffice F r 4P Q < Lige Ir #40A4oced Resi*nual *#4*# W with r#c co h1ix�puc "R�ek('i�l *■ Sara ARoc Wa,•r £qy r��A4F N Cl ? Soo 1,00c) reet Residential (up to 3 stories) Of Residential iupto 5 stories) Of Residential (up to 7 stories) 0' Lid Terra Bella Vision Plan cul r-'trr m Min rm LAIN VIFW Mixed Use with Retail I' "' , Li( (U II Thank You, Eric Stabell Homeowner - Morgan Court 0 PROMETHEUS March 27, 2019 Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan - City Council Study Session on April 2, 2019 Dear Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers: We are excited about the City's Vision for Terra Bella and see this area as a terrific opportunity to achieve the City's goals for a more intensive mix of commercial and residential land uses. Prometheus Real Estate Group owns 918-940 San Rafael Avenue, totaling approximately two acres (formerly El Camino Paving site) highlighted on the attached map. Our hope is to be able to add housing units to this area and offset the amount of jobs that already exist or that will be added nearby. We support the City's vision to create safer paths of travel and promote connectivity in this area for all modes of transportation. However, we do not think that the current plan alternatives offer the best way to accomplish this due to the following reasons: 1. Alterative Path Locations - During the Community Workshops for the plan, the public supported shared travel lanes or buffered bike lanes along Terra Bella, San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues (two slides from the Workshops are attached) - adding any additional paths would be duplicative for Terra Bella. 2. Compromised Site Plans - Vision alternatives provide for a bike and pedestrian path within private property, which compromises the site plan opportunities for narrow parcels. 3. Bike Path Safety - Bike paths through city blocks rather than around blocks create additional safety hazards for bikers and pedestrians because of reduced public visibility and added street crossings. 4. Increased Public Access - Public access across private property, as currently planned, brings public access adjacent to the backyards of the existing single family homes of Sterling Estates. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the plan discussion, and we look forward to the results. Sincerely, vl"�-J Jon Moss Executive Vice President, Partner Prometheus Real Estate Group CC: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner, City of Mountain View Adam McMichael, Development Manager, Prometheus Real Estate Group 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 150 - San Mateo, CA 94403 1650.931.3400 0 PROMETHEUS Prometheus Project Map 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 150 — San Mateo, CA 94403 1650.931.3400 , .n vi,n."..r, %,, Alm vm .............p,.... r...... SAN PAI 3 O= O O = O q7 O�� J�� z SAI` C, h `¢ 960 Feet Future Tra Legend Building Footprints r i Project Boundary I n Existing/Proposed Transit Existing/Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Facilities -0-VTA routes/stops Class I Path Mountain View Go Class II Bike Lane Future BRT line/stops •••••• Class III Route •••"° Class IV Protected Bike Lane Terra Bella Avenue - Proposed • Buffered bike lanes (Class II bikeway) • On -street parking �II and/or flexible curbside zone for �II� loading and pick- up/drop-off of7.1 9 , _ passengers .ei ra Bella Vision Plan I Mountain View San Rafael and Linda Vista Avenues — Proposed • Shared travel lane (Class III bikeway) • On -street parking and/or flexible curbside area on BOTH sides of the street for loading Ir and pick-up/drop-off of "09mm passengers Terra Bella Vision Plan I Mountain View EMBARCADERO REAL T Y S E R V I C E S March 27, 2019 Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan — Addition of Bike/ Pedestrian Path Dear Mayor Matichak and City Councilmembers: ECI Four San Rafael LLC owns the office building located at 909 San Rafael Ave. We are concerned because the location of the future bicycle/pedestrian path as depicted on the Draft Vision Plans looks like it encroaches on our private property resulting in the reduction of our lot size and property value. Also, due to public accessibility, it would create both security and maintenance issues for us. While we support the City's Vision to create safer paths of travel and promote connectivity in the Terra Bella Area, we think the City should provide bike paths within the existing public right of ways such as Middlefield Road, Terra Bella Ave and Linda Vista Ave, rather than through private property. We will not support any such public pathways which would encroach on our property. Thank you for the opportunity to voice our feedback to the Vision Plan and we look forward to more discussions. Sincerely, OWNER: ECI Four San Rafael LLC By: EMBARCADERO REALTY SERVICES LP, Its Managing Agent By. �QtV1 1L� M wr47tqh-'1 Name: Shanna Murtagh Title: Regional Operations Manager 2479 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 135, Palo Alto, CA 94303 • (650) 494-6113 embarcaderocapita Ipartners.com Pancholi, Diana From: Albert Jeans Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 5:07 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella housing capacity Attachments: Residential Analysis.doc Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Diana, With the extra time caused by the delay in the City Council Study Session, I've been working on trying to understand how much building is possible in the Terra Bella area. With the help of a CAD program, I'm able to show that using typical apartment buildings, even 5 story buildings covering the residential zones designated in the options would have a hard time housing even the scaled back population in Option 6. There simply isn't enough room with the open space requirements and existing long term owners. These buildings include I level of podium parking since underground parking is not feasible in the area. I believe the number of residents needs to be significantly scaled back if the Vision Plan is to come anywhere close to reality. I'm attaching a report of my findings. Sincerely, Albert Jeans Estimating the Residential Capacity of the Terra Bella Area by Albert Jeans March 20, 2019 Up until now, we've been dealing with the Terra Bella area in a somewhat abstract sense: a colored map with projected numbers of residents. S.5°NiyCrr , N MogC T '• I ■ ♦ o ■ • i 363 W Residentialar O ♦��... �#• ♦�1� 707 • 1sce 4b 41110 .� Mixeduse ' J •� �♦ �, with Office Residential 04b 4Y��♦ qP # Retail Light Industrial/ .46 2110 60 41* Office ♦♦♦ O��C 4.Office ,, - TERRA BELLA AVE •• F/F Office - �� ♦�� > _ Light Industrial/ ' Light Industrial/ ♦♦ 2� R� ♦� m Residential r Office Office ��' Mth W Mixeduse • o �gR9"t'O,p 3P♦*� Mix Z Retell 21 7 Residential Residential ■ R. 270 ksf 9 QPPW ♦♦.. 6 $2 �'• = Residential esi enha � MARCOS QR 3P •�.�■ � fY*� J 2 SAN AftpO WAY o SAN PA8L0 DR � � /[ O O ¢O SAN CARRIZO WAV The areas (in thousands of square feet, ksf) were calculated by entering the map into a CAD program. But in fact, how much building does the area permit, and how many people could live there? The floating green dots representing open space also need to be dealt with. The de facto standard seems to be 3 acres per 1000 people. If 3000 people are housed in the area, that comes out to 9 acres or 392 ksf, a significant portion of the area available. Besides land that needs to be reserved for open space, some areas have long- term occupants (the Korean Baptist Church (153 ksf) and the Church of Scientology) which are unlikely to move, and the block at 1001 N. Shoreline Blvd. is already committed to an existing project, Shoreline Gateway (341 ksf including the Church of Scientology). What's left comes out to 1466 ksf as shown below in yellow. 1 We can get a rough idea of the residential capacity by simply taking known apartment buildings and trying to arrange them on the map. I did this by entering the plans for the apartment complex under construction at 500 Ferguson Dr. into the same CAD program. One possible arrangement is shown below. Note that these buildings are 5 stories tall: 1 story of podium parking and 4 floors of apartments or condos. The actual buildings use underground parking, but this is not feasible in Terra Bella due to a high water table and soil contamination. Here I've placed 31/22 -building complexes in the larger residential areas and also put in 305 ksf of open space (bright green) which is still short of the 374 ksf needed by the 2867 residents (including 498 in Shoreline Gateway) in this configuration, but some of the "leftover" yellow areas could also serve as open space. In estimating the number of occupants, I assumed one person per bedroom except in the case of 1 bedroom 2 apartments where I used an average of 1.5 persons. Of course these buildings were not designed to fit these lots; nevertheless they do a reasonably good job of filling the area. Despite this density of 5 -story buildings, this configuration only slight exceeds the minimum number of people in Option 6 of 2700. Implementing acceptable transitions to the single -story homes in the neighboring communities would certainly significantly reduce the number of people that could be housed. A more detailed analysis taking into account the interdependency of open space, residents, and building area is given in Appendix 1. The result is slightly fewer people, 2737, 3.3 apartment complexes, and 358 ksf (82 acres) of open space. A portion of the land adjacent to Shoreline Blvd. has been designated as "mixed use" and there have been recommendations to include residential there. Perhaps the equivalent of one more building (half a complex) could be put there, increasing the resident count to around 3050, but again, without transitions. Transitioning, especially around Morgan St., would make meeting the 2800 person goal of Option 6 challenging at best, if not impossible. The question we have to ask ourselves is, do we even want a dense mass of 5 -story buildings in the Terra Bella area? Will the infrastructure even support it? If not, then the projected populations for the area need to be drastically scaled back. I hope this report will give the reader a better feeling for what kind of development is realistically possible in the Terra Bella area. Appendix 1 Symbols A = area of all apartment complexes A, = area of one apartment complex (2 buildings) AT = total available area =1466 ksf (Churches & 1001 N. Shoreline subtracted) AO =open space area P = number of people housed in apartment complexes P, = number of people in one apartment complex = 679 PT = total number of people PS = number of people in 1001 N. Shoreline = 498 n = number of apartment complexes a = open space ratio = 3 acres = 0.1307—ksf 1000 people person To calculate the number of apartment complexes that can be built, one need only divide the available area by the area of one apartment complex. However, the available area is reduced by the open space requirement, which in turn depends on the number of people to be housed plus those in 1001 N. Shoreline. Since the number of people to be housed depends on the number of apartment complexes, we have a system of simultaneous equations. Then, AT= A + AO PT=P+PS AO = aPT P=nP, A n=— A, We can combine the first and third equations to eliminate AO and the last two equations to eliminate n: AT = A + aPT P AP PT =P+PS Combine to eliminate A and PT and solve for P: M AT = PA, +a(P+P,) AT- aPS = P Pl +a) P -- `� -aPS = 2239 people A, + a P, Then PT= P + PS = 2737 people Aa = aPT = 358 ksf n =— = 3.3 complexes These calculations are easily implemented in a spreadsheet. November 7, 2018 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 SUBJECT: Terra Bella Visioning Study Session on November 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers: SummerHill Housing Group appreciates the City's effort to establish a vision and land uses for the Terra Bella area. To help alleviate the housing crisis, SummerHill advocates for a housing -focused approach that delivers a variety of housing types, densities and price points, along with neighborhood serving retail, parks and recreational amenity space. SummerHill controls approximately four acres of land in the Terra Bella area (highlighted in green on the map on next page) and we have participated in the City's two workshops. To effectively inform the gatekeeper process, the Guiding Principles should be clear. Given its proximity to jobs, transportation and open space, the Terra Bella area offers the potential for significant housing. Allowing higher density will help the City address its challenging housing goals - including more affordable housing - and meet the need for additional housing to balance the City's recent and continuing employment growth. As such, we suggest the Council consider combining the ideas from the east half of Option 3 and the west half of Option 1 in order to envision a clear residential focus that helps the City meet its housing goals. Encouraging a greater residential focus in the Terra Bella area will help the City achieve its housing goals by taking the pressure off other planned residential areas, since the City must make up for any shortfall in residential production on sites already designated for housing in the Housing Element. Striving for a greater residential density also helps the City generate more affordable housing opportunities. In addition, permitting more flexibility in height, such as allowing seven (7) stories in select areas, while providing two - to three-story maximum heights in buffer zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods, helps projects produce more open space areas, better address contextual issues, and accommodate desired circulation improvements such as bikeways and other urban design features such as wider sidewalks and parks. Finally, establishing a focused vision for a higher density neighborhood in the Terra Bella area is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element and Land Use policies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Terra Bella Vision Plan and we look forward to your discussion and guidance. Sincerely, �aiia l�q�as�csru/ Katia Kamangar Executive Vice President, Managing Director 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com SUMMERHILL COMMUNITIES OF HOUSING DISTINCTION GROUP November 7, 2018 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 SUBJECT: Terra Bella Visioning Study Session on November 13, 2018 Honorable Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers: SummerHill Housing Group appreciates the City's effort to establish a vision and land uses for the Terra Bella area. To help alleviate the housing crisis, SummerHill advocates for a housing -focused approach that delivers a variety of housing types, densities and price points, along with neighborhood serving retail, parks and recreational amenity space. SummerHill controls approximately four acres of land in the Terra Bella area (highlighted in green on the map on next page) and we have participated in the City's two workshops. To effectively inform the gatekeeper process, the Guiding Principles should be clear. Given its proximity to jobs, transportation and open space, the Terra Bella area offers the potential for significant housing. Allowing higher density will help the City address its challenging housing goals - including more affordable housing - and meet the need for additional housing to balance the City's recent and continuing employment growth. As such, we suggest the Council consider combining the ideas from the east half of Option 3 and the west half of Option 1 in order to envision a clear residential focus that helps the City meet its housing goals. Encouraging a greater residential focus in the Terra Bella area will help the City achieve its housing goals by taking the pressure off other planned residential areas, since the City must make up for any shortfall in residential production on sites already designated for housing in the Housing Element. Striving for a greater residential density also helps the City generate more affordable housing opportunities. In addition, permitting more flexibility in height, such as allowing seven (7) stories in select areas, while providing two - to three-story maximum heights in buffer zones to protect existing residential neighborhoods, helps projects produce more open space areas, better address contextual issues, and accommodate desired circulation improvements such as bikeways and other urban design features such as wider sidewalks and parks. Finally, establishing a focused vision for a higher density neighborhood in the Terra Bella area is consistent with the City's adopted Housing Element and Land Use policies. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Terra Bella Vision Plan and we look forward to your discussion and guidance. Sincerely, �aiia l�q�as�csru/ Katia Kamangar Executive Vice President, Managing Director 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com Cc: Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner / City Clerk 777 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 shhousinggroup.com ¢U¢ w w ¢ � Q W oo dow- Q� _ ¢�� w 9_ry — rwwU �U U �w 9 dU dU OdU dU zdU dU w w`�yvij �LL �LLo m``e Ua�y �y y a�LLo _ - od ada- ���m��So8��" o "r o Q o d oW. oa mw�z > ooo yaYw2aQ WQd � w oaw0'.w ooowo z o aa�w 5 o �wr w 000 ZW 0-0 w 0 �a0 oo2w --oowa aa- zYu a 1000 .,1 wz�LL rca� w ggW�gwoo aLLwaa- 0_ aad �m�o�moo�d W Z O a H U� W lu— a D 0 a r, D� J W u m � - a a z Iw U J � z J _ I W af11 _ af K -- EFE o w s - �� u v�F ao �ma`o SAN RAFAEL AVE - a D LarArr AS AS VL I AV I AV AV I VL o ' z� IIIT D SV L1. Q= J o o Oo LL D 0 0 d Pancholi, Diana From: Patrick Neschleba Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Diana, We live on Morgan Street, near the Terra Bella visioning plan area, and like many of our neighbors we are a dual -income working family with kids and have not had the free time to attend the workshop sessions that have been held. I wanted to send commentary ahead of the next round of reviews, after reviewing the latest proposals. We've notice that plans are calling for immediate transition from single -family -home zoning to 7 -story residential immediately adjacent to our neighborhood, which we've learned is not something that's been done in any other project like this. While we are not opposed to the conversion of light commercial zoning over to multi -story residential, this abrupt transition seems rather extreme and will significantly impact the character of our neighborhood. Three-story residential seems like a more reasonable limit that will still add a considerable amount of housing in a needed area. We recently remodeled our home to add a second story, and had a few learnings from that process which I wanted to make sure we shared with you. First, we were a borderline case with the EPA with regards to subfloor ventilation requirements due to our proximity to the groundwater plumes; the Terra Bella area is right on top of these and so there may be restrictions on residential building. Second, we learned through soil studies that the water table is already very high in our area, and the ground is at risk of liquefaction in an earthquake. For a two-story home, this required significant additions to our foundations in order to mitigate the risks, and limited our ability to dig. For dense multi -story construction, I can only imagine how much more would need to be done, and wonder if it is even possible to build dense residential of —7 stories (including what I'd expect to be underground parking for buildings of that size) with the local geology being what it is. It would be good to get these questions answered with a detailed study before too many conclusions are drawn regarding the size and height of buildings in the Terra Bella area. As frequent users of the Shoreline athletic facilities, we've also noticed the extreme traffic during the evening commute. As part of the development plans, I'd love to see both widening of the Shoreline Boulevard highway crossing, as well as addition of public transit from Terra Bella to the Shoreline office parks, in order to help ensure easy movement of traffic in and out of that area. The Terra Bella area will be highly desirable for tech workers to live there, and the current set of overpasses over 101 are really undersized for the amount of people that need to get in and out of that area every work day. Thanks for considering this input and we look forward to hearing more about the development plans. If the City has an e-mail interest list forming for the visioning plan, I'd be happy to be added. Thanks, Patrick Neschleba Pancholi, Diana From: Linda Thoma Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 5:46 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning - Input from Impacted Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged We have recently been made aware of the plan for the redevelopment of the Terra Bella, Middlefield, Shoreline area. We have also become aware that only those areas whose residents speak up the loudest are being accommodated. Those of us who trusted the City to plan according to what is fair and right for the entire neighborhood are being ignored. Clearly our trust in the City has been misplaced. So here are our voices: WE VEHEMENTLY PROTEST THIS PLAN! 6 TO 7 STORY BUILDINGS TOWERING OVER OUR 1 STORY NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE! Linda and Michael Thomas Pancholi, Diana From: Eric Stabell Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 3:16 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Cc: Debbi Beauchesne; Chris Beauchesne; Sue Stabell; Sue Stabell-Work.Desk Subject: Terra Bella Vision - Morgan/Spring St. Residents Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Diana, Thank you for taking the time to speak to us last night about the Terra Bella Vision Plan. It was good to hear about the plan first-hand from you. My Morgan Court neighbors and I felt we missed a good opportunity to add our input at last year's Vision Plan workshops, but we plan to be more vocal in the future. Anyway, in reviewing some of the information about the plan, I wanted to share some of my own thoughts with you. Hopefully better late than never... I counted about twenty Stierlin Estates 1 -story single-family residences, along San Pablo Drive area, bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. It sounded like that neighborhood was well represented at the previous Vision Plan Workshops. Unfortunately, my Morgan/Spring St neighborhood, was virtually unrepresented, partly because we have nothing resembling a homeowners association. We too have about twenty 1 -story single-family residences directly bordering the Terra Bella Vision zone. I would hope that we would get equal consideration, just as the more organized Stierlin Estates homeowners did, when it comes to being mindful of the transition zones between our older 1 -story residences and the new construction. I personally feel that with the Terra Bella zone adjacent to so much residential, that 5-7 story buildings seem excessively high for most of the area. As I'm sure you've already been hearing from the Stierlin Estates residents, we in the Morgan/Spring St area also would like to see a thoughtful transition from our 1 -story homes to taller buildings. I'm thinking nothing more than 2-3 stories high adjacent to our residential properties would be acceptable, combined with a generous buffer space and perhaps a landscape screen or other consideration. Noise from our new neighbors should seriously be taken into consideration also. With that said, when I look at the proposal options, my thought would be to consider having the tallest buildings right along noisy/high traffic Shoreline Blvd, and perhaps along the freeways (they would make great sound walls!), all the while keeping them fairly far away from the existing single-family residences in the neighborhood. Taller buildings on Shoreline might make for a nice gateway into central Google, which could complement (or even copy) the beautiful new4-story Google building at the corner of Terra Bella &Shoreline. (Did I mention it's only 4 -stories?). I really think it would be best for us neighborhood residents to have the tallest buildings a minimum 1-2 blocks away from all the existing 1 -story residential. Thanks for listening and we look forward to hearing about future meetings on the topic. Please keep us posted with any developments and City Council dates on the matter. Sincerely, Eric Stabell Sent from my iPhone March 11, 2019 Mayor Siegel and Councilmembers City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94039 RE: Terra Bella Vision Plan Dear Mayor Siegel and City Councilmembers: This letter is a response to the latest Vision Plan which depicts the location of a future bicycle/pedestrian path through the edge of my property at 915 Linda Vista. While I am excited to support Mountain View's growth, safer travel paths, and community connectivity — I am worried that this proposed path will reduce my privacy, security, and property value. The reduction of my lot size in favor of this path could potentially increase noise, theft, and need for maintenance. Please reconsider main thoroughfares such as Terra Bella or Middlefield Road, which have the size to accommodate a new and efficient bike path. I encourage the city council to consider using existing public right of ways, rather than private property. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Harry Cheung Pancholi, Diana From: Patti Schrotenboer Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:06 PM To: City.Council Cc: , City Manager; Pancholi, Diana; Tim Schrotenboer Subject: Terra Bella Visioning To Mayor Siegel, Vice Mayor Matichak, and Councilmembers, Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Terra Bella area yesterday evening at the council meeting. It was clear that the council and staff have spent many hours working toward a plan for this area that considers the needs of the larger community as it grows and changes, as well as taking the time to consider the existing residents in the area, for which I personally am very grateful. I wanted to take a minute of your time to request again that this plan be moved forward through the Precise Plan process. As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the Precise Plan process was what we were told would be used when we attended the first vision planning meeting this past June, and I believe it is the only responsible way to allow development in this area that is outside of the current zoning and general plan allowances. I understand that this area is not one of those identified as a change area within the General Plan; however, it has become clear that this is an area of interest for developers. I credit the council for recognizing that when multiple projects started coming in for this area, a broader, more holistic approach was needed, and starting the visioning process. As the developer interest in this area has continued, and even increased, I ask that council continue to build on the work that staff has already started, and incorporate the environmental studies that accompany a Precise Plan, including traffic impact reports, to help inform the density thresholds that make sense for this area as a whole. While all of the vision is good, and I have been encouraged by the plan as it has morphed and changed over the past months, we don't yet have a clear picture of what the impacts of the type and scale of the envisioned development would have on the area. Beyond not having that clear picture, an additional concern with moving forward without a Precise Plan is that we end up with infrastructure that is not unified. As projects come through the gatekeeper process, the frontage improvements, building setbacks, utility sizes, etc. are all considered for that project individually. A precise plan allows for not only the vision of the what the area could be, but the studies to show that the vision will function well once constructed, and the requirements to actually construct it that way. This is helpful to both neighboring residents and to developers, as they know exactly what will be required when a project is constructed. Another major concern is the community benefits item, and how that is incorporated into the area. As a number of council members mentioned, having a "floating" park may mean that the park gets pushed onto a piece of land that doesn't make sense for the area, or worse yet, not included at all. I am concerned about how the community benefit approach will be put into practice without the "teeth" of the requirements that generally come from a Precise Plan. A Precise Plan can also include phasing, which would ensure that the community benefits are constructed in tandem with the developments, and not pushed to the end. As a public sector employee myself, I am acutely aware that staff resources must be considered here. My request is to recognize that this area is a priority for development, and to direct the resources to develop it properly through the creation of a Precise Plan. Alternatively (and this is not my personal preferred alternative), only allow projects to move forward that meet with the current General Plan and zoning for the area. Each project that comes in under the gatekeeper process requires a certain amount of staff resources. If the amount of staff time and resources spent on each gatekeeper project could be combined and focused up -front on a Precise Plan, we would end up with an area more likely to benefit all community members. Thank you again for your time, your service to our community, and your attention to this area. Sincerely, Patti Schrotenboer Pancholi, Diana From: Edith Hugo Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:45 PM To: Pancholi, Diana Subject: Terra Bella Visioning meeting April 2, 2019 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Diana Please include this email in the packette which will go to the City Council for the April 2, 2019 Study Session To the Mountain View City Council: From: Mountain View Industrial Associates LLC owner/manager Edith Hugo Property location: 922 San Leandro Avenue This correspondence is to comment on the proposed Bike Path through properties connecting San Leandro Avenue and San Pablo Avenue with possible extensions. It appears from the site drawings that this Bike Path will go along the property line of 922 San Leandro Avenue and perhaps impact the property negatively by going into the property, past the property line, and using the area which is now permitted parking spaces. As the owners of this property have no desire to change the useage or sell this property, changing the property line and removing parking areas will not only reduce the value of the property, but limit it's useage. The property now falls within the desired usage of the proposed Vision Plan by providing small office and R and D space for people wishing to live and work in the Terra Bella Vision Area. Many of the tenants of this building now bike to work from their residences within the area and use the provided roadways to do so. Thus falling within the Vision Plan. As we fall within the Vision Plan, we would like to keep our property lines in tack. I propose that the City incorporate into the Vision, Bike Lanes within the now existing streets, which are already being used as "bike paths" to and from residences and the building. The proposed Bike Path between San Leandro and San Pablo is extraneous. There is also an advantage to having a bike lane in the existing streets as that is a preventative to habitational vehicles parking along the curbs and lining the street, causing issues of vagrancy and vandalism in the area. Having owned said property since 1982 I can attest to the fact that vandalism, crime and vagrancies have become a major problem in the area in the recent two years. To the point that I am now installing a fence and electronic gate to prevent negative impact on the property. A bike path as proposed would increase unwanted access to the property and encourage the same problems we are now encountering. I am therefore requesting the reconsideration of the placement of the proposed bike path. I proposed the Bike Path be placed as a lane on the existing City streets. Should you have any questions I will be present at the April 2nd meeting. Thank you, Edith G Hu o VIA Electronic Mail March 5, 2019 The Honorable Lisa Matichak Mayor City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94043 RE: Agenda Item 9.1—Terra Bella Visioning Dear Mayor Matichak and Council Members: Zappettini Investment Company (ZIC) owned and managed by the Zappettini Family is a longtime member of the Mountain View business community, with particularly deep roots in the Terra Bella neighborhood. We have enjoyed working with the City on the Terra Bella Visioning and look forward to our ongoing partnership throughout the process. The following are a few points for your consideration tonight. As you know, the Zappettini family is the majority stakeholder of property in the Terra Bella area on the west side of Shoreline Boulevard and first developed the properties in the 1970's. Our longtime holdings in this area provide us with the unique opportunity to deliver the City's ultimate vision for the western Terra Bella areaa complete ecosystem of residential, office, mixed-use, commercial, bicycle and pedestrian - friendly streets, open space, public spaces, and infrastructure—all knit together in a comprehensive way with appropriate densities that are sensitive to the neighboring conditions. First, as we have pointed out, we are sensitive to the transitional concerns expressed by single-family homeowners; therefore, we strongly believe that it makes sense to allow for higher, densities along W. Middlefield Road. As shown in the aerial below, W. Middlefield Road is at least 125 feet wide with a significant street median with mature tall redwood trees which serve as a buffer and transition that separates the two sides of the road from multi -family uses across the street (i.e. not single-family). Consequently, density along W. Middlefield Road not only makes sense in the Terra Bella Visioning context, but we believe it is where the density belongs, especially in light of the transition sensitivities. 235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 415, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 415 495 9222 1 WWW.ZAPPETTINI.COM 125 feet wide median + mature tall redwood trees which are a buffer and a transition Second, we would like to express our support for Alternative 5 as presented to the Environmental Planning Commission, with the optionality for higher densities of residential along West Middlefield and the potential for a hotel in the Mixed -Use with Retail location at the corner of Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue. As the City continues this visioning for the area, we believe it is critical to provide maximum flexibility for future uses while being sensitive to the edge conditions. These edge conditions can be treated through the various transition strategies emphasized in staff's Study Session Memo. Third, we understand that the City Council will consider whether to add a new Terra Bella Precise Plan as a priority project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 as a next step to the Visioning Plan adoption. Regardless of the City Council's decision on this point, The Zappettini family is prepared to put forth a comprehensive proposal for a gatekeeper to be a catalyst to redevelop a major portion of the west side of Terra Bella with a fully integrated, mixed-use community of which the city of Mountain View and its residents can be proud. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We appreciate the City's thoughtful deliberation on the future of the Terra Bella area. Sincerely, cc: Martin Alkire Diana Pancholi Aarti Shrivastava Thomas S. deRegt tpl r SV1 Kate Jorgensen 235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 41S, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 415 495 9222 1 WWW.ZAPPETTINI.COM .. � § z Lai CO2 S / 2/ : 2 , S II _ ( (p/)er> [ - t , o < \ -------------- 1 .. � § z S 2/ : 2 S ui q, I l TERRA BELLA FRONTAGE j Mwilmlikil wal s �I� a ' 5. TERRA BELLA AVE. -NORTH 8. RAFAEL AVE. - WEST 3. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS - NORTH 6. TERRA BELLA AVE. - SOUTH 9. SAN RAFAEL AVE. - EAST 7. TERRA BELLA AVE. - SOUTH 10. SAN RAFAEL AVE - EAST VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL Ervc NEER 112 IIe 600, ,4 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11 0 PARTNERSHIP 111 It" 4154334672 ❑ JoirvTTRErvcH corvsuLnrvc ERS 350 111t 111401 415 - 5850 1. TERRA BELLA & SAN RAFAEL PROPOSED OVERLAY 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT A0.3 Gross Building Area m 1 131,825 SF 14 114® 17,068 SF]6T�154 01 1ST FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA F --------------- NON Gross Building Area 31,542 SF 11 r r O2 2ND FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA 1 iii�� r °IIS Illi ����---— —■ Gross Building Area 21,841 SF �1 ® 4TH FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA Paving Area 211 SF F Gross Building Area 21,841 SF [5 5TH FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA Gross Building Area 1 21,841 SF 1 111 © 6TH FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA PROJECTDATA r Gross 13"ilding Areas SF d.dn covered S -IN [lodes rwercd parting Gr9Nrrdlbor 31,135 2nl Moor 31343 3rd Phar 21,194 nth Ilia 21,841 5 h fl— 21,841 6th flow, 23,841 i0[M 150.089 Usable Open Space SF G—rd level stoops orrft Ground — [o— 0 OOdiwn CCm W A3 nv4tCp space iE9 Otel 10A91 Residential Units Grouts Oaor 5 2ndNxr 13 3rd floor 22 @h Floor 13 5th flow 3 Gth flow 24 }vital 1d VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: ❑ CIVIL ENGINEER BIF ENGINEERS ""AR" IA 11112 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-1100 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ 3OINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 351 111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD STE III PALO ALTO CA R4303 PROJECT INFO AND DATA A0.4 TR" BELLAAVENUE + Ac * Y a R&D R&D OFFICE - OFFICE - dy 20'-0" TALL 20'-0" TALL Y . x•- ��,' R&D OFFICE - '.ti• 0 15'-0" TALL 1 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 1 DETAILED SITE PLAN TERRA BELLA AVENUE SITE PLAN KEY NOTES o�aRa��. o�EEti.a. 0 o.oa��P�Na o.o�wa.Ea�a 0 o o o� VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER BKF ENGINEERS to 600, 4084679100 El aNOEAPE ARCHITECT c—N 0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 El JONTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 111t S, 1401 415 — 5850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA DETAILED SITE PLAN A1.1 _.... waw b STREET VIEW FROM TERRA BELLA & SAN RAFAEL (P) Public Storage r J INC. AXON VIEW ABOVE TERRA BELLA I 1 � ruly- - E IT (P) Public Storage Im hi I • ❑ '' o ❑ - AERIAL VIEW ABOVE TERRA BELLA COMMUNITY ROOM SPILL OVER SPACE ON PODIUM PLAY AREA ON PODIUM OUTDOOR DINING SPACE AND TRELLIS VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: B11 ENGINEERS say°o=e��sss,�S���o El aNDSCAPEARCHITECT 0-110 PARTNERSHIP CA 4154334672 El JoNTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA P ALTA HOUSING 2595 E BAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 RENDERINGS A1.3 Mall� WWI w � II111 r. Owl RE 71 pm ME M�ft�& MMMO "N"Em M 10 jo k • Agoy (P) Public Storage AXON VIEW FROM NORTHEAST CORNER AXON VIEW FROM NORTHWEST CORNER Ttr Tir Tw (P) Public Storage COMMUNITY ROOM CONNECTION TO PODIUM AT NIGHT TERRA BELLA RESIDENTIAL STOOPS AT NIGHT VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER III ENGINE ERI 00, ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11D0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA P ALTA HOUSING 2595 E BAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 RENDERINGS A1.6 1 1ST FLOOR -DIAGRAM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER 11F ENGINE ERI 00, ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11D0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 FLOOR PLANS - 1ST FLOOR .1716 A2.0 I I ❑ ❑ ❑ El❑ ❑ El❑ 11 ❑ ❑-w ❑���„a o��„a ❑���„ DwN ❑,�„ ❑��„ p ❑,E El®' T IT F0_1 Imtt LT Q o a �® ® e a ❑❑ ❑ ❑�m,ae �❑o El FFIFul �E �P ❑ ❑ ❑ El .® ❑ ❑ ❑ o o x0` % I % f w % v ell j T X Q 0 fl © ® — I uN raE � I I I I I / I --------------------------------------------------------- 02 3RD FLOOR - DIAGRAM __—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__- I I I----Trrrtn---rrt I RAMP m� I Q1S N' D 4 — I 11L 1L — — — ® L_ 1L J_ L_ L_" o o , • I 1 I a r a r a r a g r I ,A o El ®� ®F El I ❑ o o I I I / I L------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0 2ND FLOOR -DIAGRAM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: ❑ CIVIL ENS NEER oaA�s, IA11112 ❑ I -ANDS APEAaCN,EC, 0-11 oo PARTNERSHIP ❑ oN„aENCN CONSULTING ERS 351 11,11,1411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING PALO ALTO CA -03 FLOOR PLANS - 2ND & 3RD FLOOR .1716 A2.1 I I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a, I El®❑ El ®,A ®❑ El ❑ ®,A ❑ ®FA -- - - ❑ ®FA ®❑ o r d F ❑ F❑ ,MEl ,o H ❑ o ❑ o El-- El LLr I I E.]❑ oFo ElE]a® ®e El ❑ ❑ I o o I I ' II / I L 02 5TH FLOOR - DIAGRAM F_—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—__- I I I I E:l El o KA El ED ®i - - o - I I o I E50 I ❑ ❑ ■a�v:�l �::�� ■a�v:� n■ I i � �"I eta®v�� ��®�� I_reoa�e:� '®- I o � I I I 47F "R I o I I � I I P ❑ I PODIUM BELOW ❑ ❑,®� 'tea ❑ ❑ ❑ I I I / I L---------- 1 4TH FLOOR -DIAGRAM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: ❑ CIVIL ENGINEER BIF ENGINE ERI oaA�s, IA11111 ❑ aHDEDaPEARCHITEDT 0-11 DD PARTNERSHIP ❑ OIHTTaEHDH DDHEGLTIHG ERS 351 11,11,1411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA lo2o TERRA -AVE ALTA HOUSING RD NG PALO ALTO CA R4303 FLOOR PLANS - 4TH & 5TH FLOORS A2.2 ..PP...... I I -- +-- +-- +-- +-- +-- +---------- -- -- -- -- ------------------------------------- ----------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----------------------- --.---.-- -_ _ -- -- — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- - — - -- --- --- --- --- ----- ----- --- ----------------------------------------- ------------- ---------------- -- -E.w� a �E -------------- — -- -- -- -- -- --------- I I ----------------------------------------- t ----- t ----- t ----- t ----- t ------------------------------ 0 ROOF -DIAGRAM F��—_, --__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—__- El RD ❑ ❑ EN ❑ ❑ ®,a rll­❑ 4AIISF ❑ ❑ L MF ❑❑ ❑o o o i I I I � o o ❑ ❑El i I I I I i / i 10 6TH FLOOR -DIAGRAM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: ❑ CIVIL ENGINE EN QllI,,, A „2 ��o ❑ allo=APE ARCHITECT 0-110 PARTNERSHIP 154334672 ❑ oNTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 111t S, 1401 415 - 5850 1020 TERRA BELLA FLOOR PLANS- 6TH FLOOR & ROOF A2.3 11''I 11 Ili 0I101-mIr• 1 11110e �WII 11 1 1,11 11 1 1 11'.11 1 11 II 1 ���11�:1 X11 1 1 1 X11 II 1 1 11� 11 1 1 11 11 - C 11 11 1 II 111 �I��I��I�F II 11 1 IIIE=11 1 1 11 11 mnnnnn.nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn + ............ �ill!!lllllllllh��; � � i'� lIIIIIIIIIII III! �lI1111111111i 1 �� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1aa�®__= ' �ll!lIIIIIIII�!III! �lII!�llllllllli���! _! p d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ism11eo 1 1 �iIIIIIIIIIQ""Illi lill""11111111111�;;;1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.l1! !!!!l���������!!!!!!m! ������ • � �® ���I��l.l� 1m o1 11--1� 1 11�r NO IPF ME- maw"m- iii-19i1I11— N /- --�- �- -- � � 5 KEY IMP L 1] BUILDING SECTION - EfVV E2 ] BUILDING SECTION - N/S 2 E3 ] BUILDING SECTION - N/S 1 A - AEP SPAN "METALLIC CHAMPAGNE" "I B - KELLY MOORE "VINTAGE COPPER" KM4407 C - KELLY MOORE "AGED TEAK" KM4491 D - KELLY MOORE "METAL CHI" KM4909 19 E - KELLY MOORE "THUNDER CAT" KM4873 1 - FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 2A -AEP DESIGN SPAN STANDING SEAM MATERIALS AND COLOR PALLETTES AEP STANDING SEAM HARDIE CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING * METALLIC CHAMPAGNE * KM VINTAGE COPPER PAINT * KM AGED TEAK PAINT ALUMINUM WINDOWS * KM METAL CHI PAINT * ALUMINUM FINISH * KM THUNDER CAT PAINT 4 - BOARD FORM CONCRETE MATERIALS AND COLOR PALLETTES AEP STANDING SEAM HARDIE CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING * METALLIC CHAMPAGNE * KM VINTAGE COPPER PAINT * KM AGED TEAK PAINT ALUMINUM WINDOWS * KM METAL CHI PAINT * ALUMINUM FINISH * KM THUNDER CAT PAINT BOARD FORM CONCRETE * UNPAINTED TEXTURED CONCRETE 5 -ALUMINUM WINDOWS VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENG NEER 1730 N F It St— to 600, 100 El LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-110 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 El JoNTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 111t S, 1401 415 — 5850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 COLORS AND MATERIALS .1716 A5.1 09 SITE SOLAR - WINTER 3PM © SITE SOLAR -EQUINOX 3PM [3 SITE SOLAR -SUMMER 3PM ® SITE SOLAR - WINTER 12PM O5 SITE SOLAR - EQUINOX 12PM 2 SITE SOLAR -SUMMER 12PM 07 SITE SOLAR - WINTER 9AM ® SITE SOLAR - EQUINOX 9AM 01 SITE SOLAR -SUMMER 9AM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER III ENGINE ERI 00, ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11 0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 SOLAR STUDY - BUILDING SHADOWS A6.Oa 0 5TH FLOOR -STORAGE C509 10 6TH FLOOR -STORAGE C635 09 6TH FLOOR -STORAGE C602 © 5TH FLOOR -STORAGE C502 0 4TH FLOOR -STORAGE C435 noQ O3 3RD FLOOR -STORAGE C335 O2 3RD FLOOR -STORAGE C309 ® 5TH FLOOR -STORAGE C535 �E ® 4TH FLOOR -STORAGE C409 10 2ND FLOOR - STORAGE C202 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: 11F ENGINEERS 00, IA 11112 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11D0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA 1 DID TERRA 'E AE .111 TA 11 .043 ALTA HOUSING 2595 E BAYSHORE RD STE III PALO ALTO CA 94303 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE DIAGRAMS A6.6 03 NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION -VIEW TRIANGLE OPENING _-_T -4 - ----------------------------- El 1ST FLOOR -DIAGRAM -VIEW TRIANGLE i .silo 02 VIEW TRIANGLE AXONOMETRIC TERRA BELLA AVENUE ----------------------------------------= - - - - -- - - _ VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER B "ENGINEERS S11-00 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0u 11 0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERB 350 111t S, 1401 415 — 5850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 VIEW TRIANGLE DIAGRAM A6.7 ti, tiw 101 01 14, PUBLIC STORAGE L (NOT A PART) F If P, PUBLIC STORAGE (NOT A PART) Lu 4m LU= ADJACENT SITE Q hi > (NOT A PART) ALTA HOUSING �LEGEND lr GRAPHIC SCALE iH) — __ — — -- — -- — (HI X - L— — - -- - ---------------------------- RRA BELLA - 7-71!171�— 771-- n t A"'V ENU - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - -- ----- - -- - -- - �LEGEND lr GRAPHIC SCALE 85 0 • tO'eIS _,,_1z 1 __].9' 3.5'_ 6] 44 7._O_- 10___3.9 t9l L6_6 _3 -_s. 0__?.�_ t6. ] - 166.30_._ h 11.1- _ >} _-11- _t_6 6= e.i_ 7] 90 PE h.3 6. ,.] z,: A ] ® ]� IPAGRMNG PARKING GARAGE 48 SPACES EARNING s 48 SPACES m.9 6 D PHOTOMETRICS —E! 3/a _ r-6• YAM Mt I tli WILLIAMS POLLACK 0 ❑ CNLL ENGINEER ENGINEERS 1730 N. Fl,st St—t — 6 4-67.9100 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHRECT Glll RGI 101 Gre_N, EtreetERSH 6,6433A672 F—dCA 9A 1 ❑ 3OINT TRENCH URBAN DESIGN CONSUL ENGINEERS 94�0]Ile415.658.5850 E EMERALD CITY ENGINEERS, INC 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSIN 2595 E. LAYSH RE RD. P— ALTO C� 94303 SITE LIGHTING E1.00 II—�®ISL JAI®I — pEI�+I�u I�+IEm ®�'L JAI®I pEI�+I�u I�+IEm— ` I®�'L „�� ■ �' u ®® ®®I u ® _ ' �' I•I 6w, ,•, � firDrDnDfirDrDrYaiEDrDrM �® IIS 1 � a � I � -f L� T n,w, Sr "� �J I� T m �J 1rn^^71rn^^7^^^^7 WYLLYLLY�IYYLLYLLYyIYYYYYYYY� �111� �.. ■ �lo����� .�. �I 'a f �,� m m � � L �---� � m � L � ... lug wwwir�sile�l�°� L. � I Ji�ii�IR��i �j I ui6' �� I� .m asl u�. ��o u m ���lig �iIArwjiwil�ri�{lwvl;iii�ltwlwil1iiii1ltwiw�wwwl JWrirwrlYYF -- — — — wl .� � III — _ , . �3ilPliaisl1lA1lEFiffASIEMENS' riilllliiiY nliwwww nrrlrlw ��II ::wrwirirrrrlrr.�„ ® �,,, � I!gli m m ®, � irifirwwrw rrirr�wrwrl�.��:�rr�rirrl w�wwwwwwwww- wwwwwwwwwww, PHOTOMETRICS —E! 3/a _ r-6• YAM Mt I tli WILLIAMS POLLACK 0 ❑ CNLL ENGINEER ENGINEERS 1730 N. Fl,st St—t — 6 4-67.9100 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHRECT Glll RGI 101 Gre_N, EtreetERSH 6,6433A672 F—dCA 9A 1 ❑ 3OINT TRENCH URBAN DESIGN CONSUL ENGINEERS 94�0]Ile415.658.5850 E EMERALD CITY ENGINEERS, INC 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSIN 2595 E. LAYSH RE RD. P— ALTO C� 94303 SITE LIGHTING E1.00 SITE PRECEDENT IMAGERY • Yoi 1AL r�dmlhj PODIUM PRECEDENT IMAGERY A t NATURALSTONES ACCENT PAVING PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ON RUBBERIZED SURFACE PLANTING PRECEDENT IMAGERY a men BRISBANE BOX TREE CRAPE MYRTLE SWAN HILL OLIVE PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR COAST LIVE OAK JAPANESE MAPLE PRINCESS FLOWER MANZANITA'HOWARD MCMINN' CAROLINA CHERRY NATIVE AND LOCALLY ADAPTED GARDENS VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACKILF : E] CNIL ENGINEER NGINEERG N. Hrsl Street Gutte 660, ElLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ,,, 433A612NC.4 94111 ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS 31565a5a56 A94t. 107I1e 409 GB_ZARDOSH i. PARTNERIP ISic. 1020 TERRA BELLA ® ALTA HOUSING 2595 E. BAYSPORE RD. MATERIALS AND LANDSCAPE IMAGERY 1-10 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN NATIVE GARDEN THEMATIC PLANTING WITH INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE STEPPING STONES GATHERING AREA WITH WOOC FENCE AND GATE ACCENT BOLLARD LIGHTS FLOWERING GARDEN DECK. SEAT WALLS, AND GATE AND ALONGSIDEWALH HEMATICPLANTINGWITH NATURAL STONES SEATS SCREEN FENCE AT RESIDENTIAL STOOP WITH INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE HEDGEAT TRANSFORMER ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE GATHERINGAREAWITH RESIDENTIALUNITS HEDGE AT RESIDENTIAL COMPOSE A UCONCRETEWAONE SEATS WAL RESIDENTIAL STOOPS RING AREA WITH ACCENT PAVING.3EAT WALLS, AND NATURAL STONE STATS SUCCGLENTGARDEN THEMATIC PLANTING WITH INTERPRETIVE NAGE RESIDENTIAL GIG STOOPS WITH ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE NAT RAL STONE SEATS STORMWATERTREATMENT PEA =AS FOCAL POINT, RAIN THEMATIC PLANTING WITH INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE SEATWALL ACCENT —I IAZAG AT ROOF OVEA`= BIKE SCREEN FENCE AT TRAFFICVISIBILITYAREA. PROPERTY LINE SEE NSSHEET� FENCEENCE All GATE ROOF OVERHHA �i LADDER PADS 5' CITY STANDARD — RETEWALK 5' PARK STRIP "'T" — STREET TREES NATURAL STONE SEATS ATELLAN UNDER 36' RALGKS, UNI , D DER EATS UNDER ND RAL STONE BIKE 36"IN HEIGHT S IN HEIGHT ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE RE 5 SAT ENTRY PLNA ACCENT PAVING \ E AT ENTRY PLAZA _ VAN mtitil WILLIAMS POLLACK: ...... ............ ..w ❑ CIVIL ENGINEER -ENGINEERS -- - - t7?0 N. E. Street. SN 600, San Jose, CA95112 40846]9100 W Q❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHNECT J .—ARD. PARTNERSHIP I � 94111 l.L 415.433.4672 CA ❑ JOINT TRENCH ' Z URBAN DESIGN CONSULTING Q ENGINEERS �- 350 TamsanE 1- 111141 San Francisco. CA 94107 4156555050 / -I I 1 _ L U ` - - __ _ _ AR PARTNERSHIP Nc. T— II t r X106 - ,ate 7 IITY IA"'-' \ 7 WALK _ TFAFFTCVIS IN •"^�• ^••••'m•••"•'�m••••'^• T E 'ALI RANKSTRPWTH T11 -11,v SBILITY - wTHGUYwRETOREMAIN AREA. SEE NOTE 70RNGtLtCTRICAL POLE AREASEE NOTE 'a II'' ISTREET TREES � --------Vv THIS SHEET Yv THIEEHEET TERRABELLAAVE GREMAN EXIALESTING ELECTRICAL N ------------------------------------------------ ___---------------------- 1------------------ .----- - POLE WITH GUY WIRE —_--_—___—_____—_—_—_—_—_^ NOTE: TraMC SafetySafety UaibilN�Prea W M1i0 MIs area nolM1ing shall be ended PIaLae, waelaa Pr allows m9mw avcaeem9 as raac is nal9nt wIM th,:ca N. ar saw v, las eP war a .MaI. 1020 TERRA BELLA 1020TERRABELIAAVE MOUNTAIN VIEW CA ® ALTA HOUSING LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN #1716 L-2.1 II � r- GGUNTER—OUTSIDE LAUNDRY OUTSIDE o y1`LI�I.. RAISED PLANTER WITH OMMUNAL DINING BARRIER RPJLING WIM EES PND TABLE ANO LOUNGE DECORATIVE GRAVEL WOOD BENCHES AREA UNDER TREWS FICIALUWITH DOWN LIGHTEAN0 DININGAREAW H GPME SPAGE RF FLEXIBLE HEATERS COUNTERTOP COMMUNALLOUNGE WOOD RENGH WITH AREA POTENTIAL STORAGEAREA-------VIEW --------- --- UNDERNEATHPDRGAMES AT POOIUMEDGEMBRELLA STRING LIGHTS FROM AND PLAY EQUIPMENT BUILDING TO TREWS TRELLIS WITH GOWN LIGHTS AND HEATERS WILLIAMS SIM i er_u «P 40846]9100 D LANDS CAPE ARCHNECT GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP 415.433.4672 CA 9411, D JOINTTRENCH URBAN DESIGN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 350 T—.— GA 94107N 4� 415.6555850 � GUZZARDO -- i PARTNERSHIVIP irvc. e rrrsu3� ri 1020 TERRA BELLA HUCTERRABELLAAVE S ALTA HOUSING LANDSCAPE PODIUM PLAN #iTie L-2.2 \� smee Beypn4 emiam ugm e-a Waotl Top BeuM1 Bgrontl nStreetscape at Terra Bella Ave & Corner Plaza Scale'. 1/4"=,'-0" S� tape at San Rafael Ave Fence and Planting Area 2 Scale: 114"=1' O" Srale: 1/4"=1'-0' ,-,Podium Section Y kale: l/4"-1'-0' ��l scale: 114"=I' 0" <EY MAP VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK"" C CNIL ENGINEea INI ENGINEERS N. "" Street Gutta — C LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT an 1— GA 84111 ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS Ile 4os Gl_ZARDO PARTNERSHIP tac. mgeie Elevation *eliw �lotlgme o41 �Ae1nG Dalt Pani Elevation Transformer Screen and Gate �3.-1e:112r =1w TERRA BELLA AVE 2-� Metal Picket Fence and Gate seeie ee NOlea Ll II III ee-ame 1�IIIIIII�omm.,aa.,ee�ade e��oi �i»RNs section Good Neighbor Fence 1020 TERRA BELLA © ALTA HOUSING HD 2595 E. BAYSHORE LANDSCAPE FENCE PLAN VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: E] CNIL E1GI-1 INI ENGINEERS N. Hrst Stres1 Gutte 600, ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ant— G4 84111 ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS Ile 4os 411.111.1110 GlRD PARTN_ZAERSOHIP Lac. THIS SHEET -----____ suer: r°.iaw ____----------------- i----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- E _L----- _------------- _------------------- _--------- _------------------- _--------- _------ _—_------- ___------ _____— _ _s —_- NOTNcSaicty Vlslblllty.4rc plalln ipl area notFing sM1all ba erected, placstl, plh h. oralla.ran aetling lght es wltb lcellples no lovrer tbenPsb.lesL 1020 TERRA BELLA © ALTA HOUSING 2595 E. BAYSHORE RD. PLANTING PLAN SITE L-4.1 PLANT PALETTE LANDSCAPE NOTES VAN METER SITE RUNOFF AND SURFACE FILTRATION NOTES: WILLIAMS Te vvlll be no sle PSloDs nslta. yslope vvlll be Bred toe dace ingltratlon 2, sellwlthc oma fore da All 11 Com st hall 1 mentlt aollat POLLACK`LI mantllhe he therat.. Intlleetetl by a loll enaysls Ste bring me sollergenl conleot fo e Mnlmum of 6%by tlN melght. CemDost sM1e1 be hal muIleM1 Isar cletl om lopcal. organlen�terlalsntl rtl Te g uran- g a 3.1N100%of e3fmulbh s m bensbN ih all planting areas.St.,.ureter treatment...sere m M1avegreuntl wvar Inv N - paces lisretl by C.NPC as invasive in the San Francisco Bay Area will not be planted. 6. Plenty eDPreprlete for me location In accordance crIth theapp.pN,te cllmete zone antl spa H. eke wntlltlens c,III shall not be Installetl. CNN ENGINEER o. Peau p g .aa ars to be bw-D,1 to it. planting areae m Promote on ani aamaaa mfiN.- III IRRIGATION NOTES: N. F ,t Street Surae W0. Irrlgatlon ti—h, N be eat R. evcld runoff by eDlltt12 fides to shorter tluretlone. 112 I i ti- systemtcmduaeameamerbasetl mnwlmr mat atlluet baaea on wealM1erwndNcns, a00.4ca'si540095 3.Irrlgatlon system to Indutle rain shut cff devices. 4.All planYng',.. 11 beIt. usetl Ie stp utlnsp,F letlngantl 0htrees to h—bubblers. El IANGSCAPE ARCHITECT Fmeetarva Iewretlucem willbei th- to mitigateb,,;— M1eatle. 7.Irrlgatlon — mnform to the City's urate, conservetlon In lentlscedn9 regulatlons. HIP S. acktlew tlevices wit bascreenetl wYF pmnting. ee Irtlgetlon notes sheet foradtllticnal Inrormetlon. ancm o GA 94111 th,tl off pm7ecr..yatam a16.433- 11. Irrlgatlons fi—awlll bare dad water ready. ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS 411.111.1110A 94107Ita 499 ra.�nr em.. xNl.a m stm.../10 t=i/z cwomrm xr,e snoax xole tutu.. L.ex. Irox I,— ; -I p r..spit €[e I — roto/es~i-rvt%iAto�e�nmmie�e Gvnsm IIIWI = m„ xomoromr. 111 _ _ C, Tree Staking ■Gt_ZARDOSH PARTNERIP I..1c. 1 .-. e. .Y . x . rcametn Crn. i G,N fin .t •a .n. m.unx Cue, xem g IUEI T= .. xnn i2� Shrub PlantingDetail�Nnt� Smla 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 F. DAYSHORE RD. ATE 2bo PALO A LTO. CA —03 LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES AND DETAILS L-4.3 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACKUP : C CNIL E1GI-1 INI ENGINEERS N. Hrs1 street Gutte 600, C LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT mn 1-0 4 94111 ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS Ile 409 Gl _ZAEO PARTNERSHIP Iac. TERRA BELLA AVE `-- --------------- ------------- ---- -------------- - TREE CANOPY TABLE AND LEGEND 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING E. RAYSHORE RD G TREECANOPY COVERAGE PLAN 1-71 TERRA BELLA AVE `-- --------------- ------------- ---- - VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK`L" E] — E1GI-1 INI ENGINEERS N. "" Street "' WO, J01OFISICO j ( ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HIP ( 615.633A0T2 GA 8411 5 ❑ JOINT TRENCH DESIGN CONSOLING ( URBAN SI11409 O l�F J -------------- LEGEND - LEGEND RIPTION 0- - eeemc r c . aMPlz1,11d O T111r, III nD —I ®^' 1eNIx9 I, r�U<PU Fei>O19n Q• T, 11 PLI TOIL NU1,1111 OI TIEES TO BE IE1101EO DIST11C TREES TO REMAIIJ ECITI3 DIS DV 59 4T P`OJEC- COUPFYJN D_sribei aN 2C, 2091 p,,p e0 by HNH.'CS) 1072203. eport.l HERITNGE TREES NIAY NOT BE REMO\'ED, UHLESSA BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION. GU_ZAADD PARTNERSHIP P. 1020 TERRA BELLA 1 D20A AVE 1011TAluvlE1 C.. OaOnE ALTA HOUSING 2595 E. EASTORPORE RD. TREE DISPOSITION PLAN I_R1 O BKF ENGINEERS MAP NOTES 1. CLIENT: STORAGE EQUITIES, INC 7M WESTERN AVE. GLENDALE, CA 91201 C. OWNERS: EXISTING LOT A: STORAGE EOUITES, INC. 701 WESTERN AVE. GLENDALE, CA 91201 EXISTING LOT B: TERRA BELLA I. LLC 725 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA BUT S EXISTING ASSESSOR'S EXISTING LOT A: 153-15-C3D & 1M -15 - PARCEL NUMBERS: (NUMBERS TO BE REVISED UNDER LOT MERGER) rc Exlsnuc EMT B. 1s3-1s-Dz1 -17E ADORES& 1020 &i 040 TERRA BELLA AVENUE MOUNTAOEM, CA 94C43 5 EXISTING LAND USE: EXISTING L07 A: STORAGE BUILDING EXISTING LOT B: RESIDENTIAL B.Z OPOSED LAND USE: LOT A1: G E BUILDING _ 3EE o - 1` LOT B1: HIGH DE GH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING LOT BI NL -LIMITED INDUSTRIAL 8: EXISTING 8 PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS: FROM 2 LOTS TO 2 LOTS 9.ACLSTED LOT AREAS LOT Al (GROFR): 1.241 LOTAl (NET): 3.773 ACRES3 LOT B1: 1.0.57 ACRES3 Q - Q TOTAL (GROSS): 5.284 ACRESP TOTAL (NET): 9... ACRE53 BASIS CE BEARINGS THE BEARING NES -48! W. OF THE MONUMENT LINE OF TERRA BELLA AVENUE, BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENT& WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS Of BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. THE BEARING NBB'4WM'W IS BASED ON NAD83 CCORDINATES WHICH HAS A ROTATION OF W 1'11'24' GOIINTERCLOCKVASE FROM THE BEARING N90W'00'E. TERRA BELLA AVENUE. VMICH IS` SH WN ON A RECORD Of SURVEY MAP FILED FOR RECORD ON DECEMBER 13. 1979 IN BOCK :0 - a 455 OF MAPS PACES B8 AND 57, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY. Z W a J GENERAL NOTES ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREDF.z LIJ y m r a:5 -co SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT J 7 p- I THIS PLOT VLAN WAS PREPARED Al ME OR UNDER My DIRECTION, D W < AT THE REQUEST Of STORAGE EQUITIES, INC. ON AUGUST 8, 2021. ` a F Q DRAFT - FOR REVIEW ------ J W Q vis NRNO. AN d J Or a DATE eR zo. zozl DATE e N J p -- LEGEND ..LMlNl LINE CC.FER LINE PIZcT�T17zr�Il�7dlrinm Pa TON 1. sEPAAA,a IN:,aMMENn A-- PARCEL NN.VNN RILAGS) tan- , caost o las) -u IAOST aq —111 at O x PLACE 0 AAFI AD—ffPLIAAE-ocA,IM, IT LE111-1 RI `s a J orNLLA-1 BKF NO. 2C191341-51 1 1 PUBLIC STORAGE WARE MMLCONIB Exhibit 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW po 1040 TERRA BELLA ROAD MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 00 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SEA19-0015-00 i - 03.04.2022 WARE MMLCONIB Exhibit 4 US "07 PA,� ��a��anoa BAySHpRFA�. "Vy TERRA BELLA AVE SITE PLAN LEGEND PROJECT DATA —<— CONSTRUCTION TYPE °G`aO1" OCCUPANCY GROUP -- FaisaosnwaswEan�sP.ca PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: I-B(FULLY SPRINKLERED) CURRENTZONE: MM S-1,B,R-3 PROPOSED ZONE: P CURRENT GEN. PLAN DESIGNATION: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES REDEVELOPMENT OF AI' EXISTING 4.3 ACRE SELF -STORAGE FACILITY IN TWO PHASES ALL EIGHTEEN EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND ONE 6 -STORY AND ONE 4 -STORY BUILDING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, AND NEW SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING. SITE DATA (AFTER LAND TRANSFER) LOT AREA 164,396 SF (3.77 ACRES) BUILDING 1 AREA 285,012 SF BUILDING 2 AREA 123,952 SF TOTAL NEW BUILDING AREA 408,9674 SF EXISTING BUILDING AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED 77,418 SF NET NEW BUILDING AREA 331,546 SF FAR PROPOSED (GROSS) 2.49 LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED 47.7% MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED 84'-7" FT BUILDING FOOTPRINT 78,490 SF LANDSCAPE AREA 24,303 SF LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 14% ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 153-015-030, 153-015-002 PARKING REQUIRED PERS.STORAGE 1/2000 SF 204 STALLS OFFICE 1/300 SF 3 STALLS RESIDENT MER. 2 STALLS TOTAL 209 STALLS PARKING PROVIDE TOTAL PROPOSED AUTO SPACES 75 STALLS@0.18/1000 GSF REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE 3 STALLS MAX. F.A.R.: MAX. COVERAGE: MAX. HEIGHT: BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT: PROPOSED FRONT SIDE: R EAR: LA N DS CAP E S ETBACKS: FRONT: SIDE: R EAR: LANDSCAPE REQ.: AREA REQ.: AREA PROVIDED: % PROVIDED: OFF-STREET PARKING: STANDARD: COMPACT: CO M PACT %: DRIVE AISLE: FIRE LANE: OVERHANG: 0.55 NONE ' 25 FT ' 20 FT 0 FT' OFT' 50% 10% 16,434 24,303 14% 8.5X18 N/A N/A 24 FT 26 FT ' 2' PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE 6 STALLS NOTES: PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS io pew zao mer ,p ��=•a=e so .m, FRONT 10 FT SIDE 10 FT ,.a.. aaw EAR 49 =� a= s =�,,,�__"__,�� 11121 1111RFT ^,.<...,..,.....A. M..,....,...,...._,.,.m... 25 TRANSIT -BIKE MAP LEGEND • aRS R,oP CEAs n PART T- euIE LANE UE n,—E—E TRANSIT -BIKE MAP OVERALL SITE PLAN AND PROJECT DATA PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE N4ALCONM 03.04.2022 PZE _7 7__ Pri oFrace 104' , � sTaIR f FIF7 'U f 1)' ELL PROP. FR E­LOBt SETBA — 0 N BUILDING 1 6 -STORY: 285,)12 SIF FOOTPRINT: 47,5D2 SF _ SEETADY1(OPEN STRSETS NG B siNESSSV - VVLSosVRE SEE D INI TRAIROCIRCUTATIONARROW IP. eY 1 14' T Z L 323' 255'MAXTRAVEL 152 MAX TRAVEL NENTUBULER STEEL iNONOOPEN "IT OR EnciNa PaoPEaTn OFFINEFN­ FLoo BUILDING Q (2,)2] SF) H Lo $ euaDlNc ea ZZ 1 -DER ND11T11 fl TERRA BELLA AVE "UGe _ RE ACCESS FENCE BUILDING BUILDING K2 — (12,7D2SF) (1,56)SF) BUILDING BUILDING J2 - (11,741 SF) ('-3,452 SF) BUILDING V W,4I5 SF) PARKING GARAGE (LEVELS 1 AND 2) LEGEND BUILDING F "IT OR (15,)41 SF) OFFINEFN­ FLoo BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: (2,)2] SF) —<-- UCKROUTE $ euaDlNc ea — — — — (13,)54 SF) SLITE AREA: FENCE 9 BUILDING D2 GROSS: (1756 SF) EXIST BLDG. AREA TO BE DENIO'0. OPENINGSNOCATED J S 164,396 OF TERRA BELLA AVE "UGe _ RE ACCESS FENCE BUILDING BUILDING K2 — (12,7D2SF) (1,56)SF) BUILDING BUILDING J2 - (11,741 SF) ('-3,452 SF) BUILDING V W,4I5 SF) PARKING GARAGE (LEVELS 1 AND 2) LEGEND BUILDING AREA: PROJECT DATA (PHASE I): MAX. F,A.R.: _�—FIRE TRUCK ROTTE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: I -B (FULLY SPRINKLERED) —<-- UCKROUTE OCCUPANCY GROUPS: S-1 B, R-3 — — — — ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SLITE AREA: FENCE EXIST. BLDG. AREA TO REMAIN MnmPwEDPC PAC, �USL GROSS: 3.77 AC EXIST BLDG. AREA TO BE DENIO'0. 52,610 SF 164,396 OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: CU RRENT ZON E: MM PRO POSED ZON E: P CURRENT GEN. PLAN DESIGNATION: G EN ERAL IN DO STRIAL u TiT'TLT�T— Y" w BUILDING AREA: 146 STALLS MAX. F,A.R.: 0.55 FOUNDATION EASEMENT BUILDING 1 (6 -STORY) 285,012 SF MAX, COVERAGE; NEW SECURITY TOTALAREA: 285,012 SF MAX. HEIGHT: NONE ' FENCE EXIST. BLDG. AREA TO REMAIN 24,8(8 SF BUILDING SETBACKS: 8.5X18 EXIST BLDG. AREA TO BE DENIO'0. 52,610 SF FRONT: 25 FT NET NEW BLDG. AREA(PHASE 1) 232,462 BE PROPOSED FRONT 10 FT TOTAL BU I WING AREA (PHASE I) 309,820 OF SIDE: OFT' BUILDING USE: 2 STALLS REAR: 0 FT ' PERS. STORAGE 283,312 SF OVERHANG: 2' '-'�� MANAGER'S APARTMENT 8003E LANDSCAPE SETBACKS: OFFICE ACT) SF FRONT: 50% ` FAR: 141-7 SIDE: EXISTING GROSS: (77,4161188,890) 0,41 REAR: TEMPORARY OFFICE PROPOSED CROSS(309,620l164,396) 1.88 TRAILER COVERAGE: LANDSCAPE REQ.: 10% GROSS: 44% AREA REQ.: 16,434 SINGLE STORY FOOTPRINT:))) -SF PARKING REQUIRED: VICINITY MAP�., AREA PROVIDED: 24,303 u TiT'TLT�T— Y" w PACE 3 PERS, STORAGE 112000 SF 146 STALLS %PROVIDED: 14% FOUNDATION EASEMENT RESIDENT MANAGER 2 STALLS NEW SECURITY OFFICE 1/300 S_F3 STALLS OFF-STREET PARKING: FENCE TOTAL 151 STALLS STANDARD: 8.5X18 PARKING PROVIDED: COMPACT: N/A AUTO: 27 STALLS COMPACT %: N/A @0.09/1000 GSF DRIVE AISLE: 24 FT REQ. ACCESSI6LE 2 STALLS FIRE LANE: 26 FT ' APN,(EXISTING): 153-015-030 OVERHANG: 2' '-'�� 153-015-002 NOTES: PROP. BLDG. HT. (BUILDING IJ (LO.P,) 1 141-7 Mom OOsr FENCE LOCAT ON 1PHASE CO.P_ 1ECURICATEWIENTRANCE 31 OPE DURNG SHEET A 6E 'OPEN W BUSINESS HOURS) ,.., eao- o,s..v Q LL VICINITY MAP�., CO 9 w•omnp I $ a exv BE s..e..MPaQ m o ,.'.�,..,.e„om a :` ..m..•p ...o.�we,: %,f ^.�.” i 1 e e r sa„ PHASE ONE SITE PLANFWAREA4ALCOA/fB PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW 03.04.2022 PACE 3 rzI "a! 6 -STORY: 285,012 SF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: FOOTPRINT: 47,502 SF ql- W-1 w"im CURRENTZONE: 255 MAX TRAVEL323' I � I S-1 goRlit P I SITE AREA (AFTER LAND TRANSFER): CURRENT GEN. PLAN DESIGNATION: "RE.PPuuTR—ELVERIN-PACE GROSS: 3.77 AC G EN E RAL IN D USTRIAL 164,396 SF BUILDING AREA: MAX. F.A.R.: 0.55 EXISTING BUILDING 1 285,012 SF MAX. COVERAGE: BUILDING 2 (4 -STORY) 123,952 SF MAX. HEIGHT: NONE ' TOTAL A R EA: VIII BUILDING 1 "a! 6 -STORY: 285,012 SF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: FOOTPRINT: 47,502 SF - CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 1-6 (FULLY SPRINKLERED) CURRENTZONE: 255 MAX TRAVEL323' _ 152'!.1AX TRAVEL AICrvC BCE E xm) TISE STEEL PEN .SEE US PATx �IRCBaTax 10), SITE PLAN LEGEND PROJECT DATA (PHASE III; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: LIL2 z .;. a —<— CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 1-6 (FULLY SPRINKLERED) CURRENTZONE: MM —CKxONTE OCCUPANCY GROUPS: S-1 PROPOSED ZONE: P ---- nccessla�e Roure SITE AREA (AFTER LAND TRANSFER): CURRENT GEN. PLAN DESIGNATION: "RE.PPuuTR—ELVERIN-PACE GROSS: 3.77 AC G EN E RAL IN D USTRIAL 164,396 SF BUILDING AREA: MAX. F.A.R.: 0.55 EXISTING BUILDING 1 285,012 SF MAX. COVERAGE: BUILDING 2 (4 -STORY) 123,952 SF MAX. HEIGHT: NONE ' TOTAL A R EA: 408,964 SF BUILDING SETBACKS: EXIST. BLDG. AREA TO BE DEMO'D. 24,808 SF FRONT:25 FT ' NET NEW BLDG. AREA (PHASE 11) 99,144 SF PROPOSED FRONT. 1OFT BUILDING USE: SIDE: 0 FT' PERS. STORAGE 123,952 SF REAR: 0 FT ' FAR: PROPOSED GROSS: (408,964/164,396) 2.49 LANDSCAPE SETBACKS: FRONT: 50% ixB COVERAGE. GROSS: 49% SIDE: PNMIRE-BBIBB xi �IUL 5' FI accEss oN" - 95.ELEC T,.. _ .I - 1 oT Blnc. Iti .R�,uBxoC 30' ad � uv 6 BUILDING 2 93' IxacnTEn 4 -STORY: 123;952SF FOOTPRINT. 30988 SF m x it 229'01 2M MAX TRAVEL PARKINGREQUIRED: (PHASE I & II) REAR: PERS. STORAGE 1/2000 SF 204 STALLS OFFICE 1/300 SF 3 STALLS LANDSCAPE REQ.: 10% RESIDENT MGR. 2 STALLS AREA REQ.: 16,434 TOTAL 209 STALLS AREA PROVIDED: 24,303 mmonTbx"-"_xr PARKING PROVIDED: %PROVIDED: 14% uEwnreuuRSTEEl EXISTING BUILDING 1 27 STALLS sec111TewrPROP. BUILDING 2 PARKING 48 STALLS OFF-STREET PARKING: TOTAL PROPOSED AUTO SPACES: 75 STALLS STANDARD: 8.5X18 �!WSrvs°unlBii�ausixt COMPACT: N/A @0.18/1000 GSF REQ. ACCESSIBLE 3STALLS COMPACT%: N/A APNS(EXISTING): 153-015-030 DRIVE AISLE: 24 FT 153-015-002 FIRE LANE: 26 FT ° OVERHANG: 2' PROP. BLDG HT. (BUILDING 2) (T.O.P.) 63'-3" NOTES: 25' oETpa.tunoe.I , �. �I LIL2 z .;. a 1 PARKING GARAGE i ALL 2 6 -STORY oP T _ U PROFPARCEN - — - .__.RESIb DG V-� ftg3tAeerE�) T - T TERRA BELLA AVE TRANSIT -BIKE MAP LEGEND • aus stop CLASS II PART TIME BIKE LANE CLASS ITT BIKE IOCTE IIAIS 11 EIKR LACE TRANSIT -BIKE MAP t , c -9 PHASE TWO SITE PLAN A�� �n PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WIACR 1VBTBI .COA/M 03.04.2022 PA41 Public Storage lop _41 1 VIEW LEGEND WARE MALCOMB 03.04.2022 PAGE 6 G ve Y L miseo�eepmal design isbased wo�av�enrni�ary revie,v ofeminernem req�ire,�e�r;�� dna on unverified dna pa4ibN Incomplete site dna/ar bullding In —fiian; dna Is PERSPECTIVE VIEW -NORTHEAST BLDG 2 7 intentletl merelL to assist in exploring M1mv tM1e project migM1t be tlevelopetl. Signage sn-1ism,111, eye pnmxser xnroena axes nxene<e��iq �eaeee mnnieipel sae -� PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW VIEW LEGEND WARE MALCOMB 03.04.2022 PAGE 6 Public Storage adz 4` .rte, "0 . iff �w. a i rrrr �� �g �,� rrrrrp �''�'... .. .?�': b .�, w�wwwww a ..,.. . ■�'i�i e�elrur;: III p ill Public Storage STREET SECTION VIEW - LINDA VISTA AVE P PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE MALCOMB oa.oa.2o22 a9ce NORTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" KEYNOTES O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 82'-9' TOP OF PARAPET 79,2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11' 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7' 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" ND FLOOR 18"-3" ____ FINISH FLOOR 3'-9" TOP OF PARAPET 82 9• TOP OF PARAPET 79' 2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11" 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7' 3RD FLOOR 28'-11' ND FLOOR 18"-3" _________ FINISH FLOOR_ 3'-9" BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM OSTOREFRONT: 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES OPAIN STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING 13 11" SPLIT FACE - O "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 82'-9' TOP OF PARAPET 79,2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11' 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7' 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" ND FLOOR 18"-3" ____ FINISH FLOOR 3'-9" TOP OF PARAPET 82 9• TOP OF PARAPET 79' 2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11" 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7' 3RD FLOOR 28'-11' ND FLOOR 18"-3" _________ FINISH FLOOR_ 3'-9" PAGE 10 CPPG1015i5 BE NGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT RACE - AGREYSTONE" GREYSTONE STRIP OPAIN HELIOTROPE 10 BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 OSTEEPLE WALLTBE DGRAYC 11 ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY SHOWCASEWINDOW P6 TO 14 O VISION GLAZING O A CENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMSARCHITECTURAL AMS PS ORANGE 12 MAPES LUMISHADE FRAME/RA CANOPY TO BE PSP UM O 4'6N X 39A2'E(177) SF. BUILDING 1: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 WARE A PAGE 10 I EAST ELEVATION -SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" KEYNOTES WEST ELEVATION (ALONG LINDA VISTA AVE) - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 TOP OF PARAPET 82'-9' TOP of PARAPET 79,2• 6TH FLOOR 60'-11' 5TH FLOOR 50'-3" 4TH FLOOR _____________ 39'-7" 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" END FLOOR 18 ____ FINISH FLOOR 3'-9" TOP OF PARAPET 82 9• TOP OF PARAPET 79' 2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11" 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7" 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" END FLOOR 18"-3" _______ FINISH FLOOR_ 3'-9" BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM OSTOREFRONT: 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES OPAIN STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING 13 11" SPLIT FACE - O "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK WEST ELEVATION (ALONG LINDA VISTA AVE) - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 TOP OF PARAPET 82'-9' TOP of PARAPET 79,2• 6TH FLOOR 60'-11' 5TH FLOOR 50'-3" 4TH FLOOR _____________ 39'-7" 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" END FLOOR 18 ____ FINISH FLOOR 3'-9" TOP OF PARAPET 82 9• TOP OF PARAPET 79' 2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11" 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7" 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" END FLOOR 18"-3" _______ FINISH FLOOR_ 3'-9" CPPG1015i5 BE NGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT RACE - AGREYSTONE" GREYSTONE STRIP OPAIN HELIOTROPE 10 BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 OSTEEPLE WALLTBE DGRAYC 11 ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY SHOWCASEWINDOW P6 TO 14 O VISION GLAZING O A CENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMSARCHITECTURAL AMS PS ORANGE 12 MAPES LUMISHADE FRAME/RA CANOPY TO BE PSP UM O 4'6N X 39A2'E(177) SF. BUILDING 1: EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW A WARE A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 NORTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3' TOP OF PARAPET 57'-5' 4TH FLOOR 39'-9" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" ND FLOOR 18"-5' -- - - - -. FIRST FLOOR_ 3'-11" KEYNOTES O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3' TOP OF PARAPET 57'-5' 4TH FLOOR 979" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' -- - -- - FIRST FLOOR 3'-11" BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM OSTOREFRONT: 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES OPAIN STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING 13 11" SPLIT FACE - O "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3' TOP OF PARAPET 57'-5' 4TH FLOOR 979" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' -- - -- - FIRST FLOOR 3'-11" PAGE 12 CPPG1015i5 BE NGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT RACE - AGREYSTONE" GREYSTONE STRIP OPAIN HELIOTROPE 10 BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 OSTEEPLE WALLTBE DGRAYC 11 ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY SHOWCASEWINDOW P6 TO 14 O VISION GLAZING O A CENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMSARCHITECTURAL AMS PS ORANGE 12 MAPES LUMISHADE FRAME/RA CANOPY TO BE PSP UM O 4'6N X 39A2'E(177) SF. BUILDING 2: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 WARE A PAGE 12 KEYNOTES EAST ELEVATION (ALONG SAN RAFAEL AVE.) - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 WEST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3" TOP OF PARAPET 4TH FLOOR 39'-9" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' -- - - - -- - FIRST FLOOR_ 3'-11" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3" TOP OF PARAPET 5]'-5" 4TH FLOOR 39'-9' RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' ____---FIRSTFLOOR_ 3'-11" BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM OSTOREFRONT: 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES OPAIN STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING 13 11" SPLIT FACE - O "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK EAST ELEVATION (ALONG SAN RAFAEL AVE.) - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 WEST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3" TOP OF PARAPET 4TH FLOOR 39'-9" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' -- - - - -- - FIRST FLOOR_ 3'-11" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3" TOP OF PARAPET 5]'-5" 4TH FLOOR 39'-9' RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' ____---FIRSTFLOOR_ 3'-11" PAGE 13 CPPG1015i5 BE NGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT RACE - AGREYSTONE" GREYSTONE STRIP OPAIN HELIOTROPE 10 BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 OSTEEPLE WALLTBE DGRAYC 11 ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY SHOWCASEWINDOW P6 TO 14 O VISION GLAZING O A CENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMSARCHITECTURAL AMS PS ORANGE 12 MAPES LUMISHADE FRAME/RA CANOPY TO BE PSP UM O 4'6N X 39A2'E(177) SF. BUILDING 2: EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 WARE A PAGE 13 1 TILL— 12 GLASS 3 CMU 14 ISTUCCO PAINT 5 METNL PANEL O6 METNL PANEL STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED 8" SPLIT FACE - PAINTED STUCCO METAL PANEL WITH METAL PANEL WITH BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM "CHAMPAGNE" BY WALL TO BE REVEALS AS SHOWN REVEALS AS SHOWN ALUMINUM MULLIONS WITH ANGELUS BLOCK PEGASUS- TO BE TORNADO- TOBEGRAYSTONE- MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING WITH GREYSTONE PPG1010-1 PPG1009-4 PPG 1009-4 VISION GLAZING AND STRIPE SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES D11-1-1 PAINT PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE HELIOTROPE - PPG1015-5 10 RIBCMU ANGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT FACE - "GREYSTONE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 REYSTONE STRIPE GREYSTONE STRIP WITH 8" SPLIT FACE "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK BUILDING MATERIAL REFERENCE BOARD 18 CTUCCO PAINT PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE STEEPLE GRAY- PPG1012-5 11 PAINT MAPES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO BE PS ORANGE 14 —Nn SHOWCASE WINDOW VISION GLAZING PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE MALCOMB DAINT ACCENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS - PS ORANGE 12 PAINT ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE FRAME TO BE PS PLUM (PURPLE RAIN PPG) 03.04.2022 PAGE 14 PHASE ONE PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME LOW PLANTING AT THE O- COUNT 32 PARKING LOT ENTRY �X 50'Hx2PW 50'Hx20'W 20'Hx12'W 3o'H—W I SHRUBS I GRASSES: 4 EACH I DFA M I LLEFOD U M BROADLEAFHINESELM) GREEN TREE (CHINESE ELM) STANDARD FLOWERING TREES LOW 1 C. 3'H— '22 (CRAPE MYRTLE) (TULIP TREE) LOW 1 C X — - BACKGROUND SHRUBS ALONG ECALLISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' F I STORMWATER - _ PROPERTVLINE TREATMENT PLANTER Cn TREATMENT PLANTER LOW 5GA LOW 1GA 10'HI0'W 3'H— 54 00 • • LOMANDRALONGIFODA'BREEZE' STORMWATER S Q 04 STORMWATER PLANTERS �O7 LOW 5GA 4'Hs4'W W1 GRASSES AND LOW PLANTING •l �V' z LOW 5GA DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES IN 7 [� O'fF ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA SPRINGTIME NOTE (E) ASTERISK SHOVVIN AT PLANT SPECIES J \ / STORMWATER 9TORMWATER BASINS (MAIDENH AIR TREE) 24 LST \ X — TREATMENT PLANTER i LOW 1GA@, PHASE ONE PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME / — O- COUNT 32 TULPTREE MAI DEV HAI R TREE CRAPE MYRTLE CHI NESE �X 50'Hx2PW 50'Hx20'W 20'Hx12'W 3o'H—W 5 0 5 SHRUBS I GRASSES: 4 EACH I DFA M I LLEFOD U M FLOWERING TREE LOW 1 C. 3'H— '22 O—CCHARS PILUIRIS'—N PEAKS' (TULIP TREE) LOW 1 C X — STORMWATER ECALLISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH LOW 5GA 3'Hs5'W TREATMENT PLANTER 31 TOUGH GRAY RUSH LOW 5GA LOW 1GA 10'HI0'W 3'H— 54 00 • • LOMANDRALONGIFODA'BREEZE' STORMWATER LOW 5GA 3'Hs3'W 04 EM UHLENBERGIA RGENS TREATMENT PLANTER LOW 5GA 4'Hs4'W 42 © NERUM OLEANDER' PETITE PINK' DWARF OLEANDER LOW 5GA 1 3o ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA SPRINGTIME NOTE (E) ASTERISK SHOVVIN AT PLANT SPECIES INDIAN HA—ORN ACCEPTED BY SANTA CLARA WATER BUILDING 1 I x 24 LST I SHORE JUNIPER LOW 1GA@, IL 2,2]2 SF I L — 29 STORM WATER EXISTING TREE CANOPY EXI STINGTREES TREATMENT PLAN TERTTLLF TO BE REMOVED PHASE ONE PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME WATER USE —COLS SIZE MATURE SIZE COUNT LIRODENDRON TULIPIFERA *GINKGO BILOBA'FAIRMOUNT'(MALE) LAGERSTROEMIA'BILOXI'(STANDARD) ULMUS PARVIFODA TREE GREEN TULPTREE MAI DEV HAI R TREE CRAPE MYRTLE CHI NESE PER 15GA PER 15GA LOW 15GA PER 15GA 50'Hx2PW 50'Hx20'W 20'Hx12'W 3o'H—W 5 0 5 SHRUBS I GRASSES: 4 EACH I DFA M I LLEFOD U M COM M ON YARROW LOW 1 C. 3'H— '22 O—CCHARS PILUIRIS'—N PEAKS' DWARF COYOTE BUSH LOW 1 C 2'H— A3 ECALLISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH LOW 5GA 3'Hs5'W 30 EHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA EJUNCUS PATENS TOUGH GRAY RUSH LOW 5GA LOW 1GA 10'HI0'W 3'H— 54 00 • • LOMANDRALONGIFODA'BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH LOW 5GA 3'Hs3'W 04 EM UHLENBERGIA RGENS DEER GRASS LOW 5GA 4'Hs4'W 42 © NERUM OLEANDER' PETITE PINK' DWARF OLEANDER LOW 5GA 5'Hs0'W 43 ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA SPRINGTIME NOTE (E) ASTERISK SHOVVIN AT PLANT SPECIES INDIAN HA—ORN ACCEPTED BY SANTA CLARA WATER LOW 5GA DISTRICT STORM 5'H— WATER PLANT 24 LST GROUND COVERS: _ JUNIPERUSIONFERTA'BLUE PACIFIC SHORE JUNIPER LOW 1GA@, 30"0G 10"H,GW 2,2]2 SF GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATER -CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A2" LAVER OF GRAVEL MULCH DRESSING. T. concept.. l...... is based upon. prellminaryre�Iew otentitlement requirements .na .� e�iaea .na Po�iery lneomPlete s¢, -/tl b.ILting inft—t— ; .na is lublic StorageIntentletl mereN to assist In exploring 11, the M1111t mlgM be tlevelopetl. Signage =sown is mr. u.staeVe P.rposes onry.na a.er not nece�riry reaeet m.meiP.I sae compliance . au calors snows are for representative P.ryoses .nA RIP11 t. material sampler m�.em.I eolo' —,"Lo' BLDG.T 0 BLDG E BLDG. F [.j BLDG. 2 BLDG. BLDG B1r777D2 Iii77-- - - -- - ---- - ---- - ----II BLDG.V ) BLDG. K2 1 w I c Lj J Q I Ll I z F L I � T lJ ' -- � GRAPH]C SCALE PHASE ONE LANDSCAPE PLAN WARE A PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 PacE 15 PHASE TWO PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: WATERUSE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME —COLS SIZE MATURE SIZE COUNT LIRIOOENORON TULIOPERA TULIP TREE MED 15 GA 50'Hs20'W 5 %LAGERSTROEMIA *GINKGO BILOBA'FAIRMOUNT'(MALE) MAIDENHAIR TREE MED 15 GA 50'Hx20'W 11 'BILOXI'(STANDARD) CRAPEMYRTLE LOW 15 GA 20'Hx12W 1 UERCUS WSLZENI INTERIORLIVE OAK LOW 15 GA 30'Hx30'W 13 LMUS PARVIFOLIA TREE GREENCHINESE ELM MED 15 GA 30'Hx20'W 10 SHRUBSIGRASSES: •—HILLEA MILLEFOLUM COMMON YARROW LOW 1 G 3'Hx31 BO ®—CCHARI S PILULARIS TMN PEAKS' DWARF COYOTE BUSH LOW 1 C. 2'Hx0'W 200 —LISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH LOW 5 C 3'Hx5'W 100 —TEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOUGH LOW 5 C 10'Hs10'W 03 -NCUS PATENS GRAY RUSH LOW 1 G 3'Hx3'W 207 O LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA' BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH LOW 5 C 3'Hx3'W 203 ® *M UHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS LOW 5 C 4'Hs4'W 137 NERIUM OLEANDER' PETITE PINK' DWARF OLEANDER LOW 5 C 5'Hx0'W 07 ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA' SPRINGTIME' INDIAN HAWTHORN LOW 5 C 5'Hx5'W 47 NOTE (*) ASTERISK SHOAMN AT PLANT SPECIES ACCEPTED BY SANTA CLARA WATER DISTRICT STORMWATER PLANT LST GROUND COVERS: JUNIPERUS CONFERTS, BLUE PACIFIC' SHORE JUNIPER LOW 1GA@30"0 C. 18"HX4B"W 5,507 SF STORM WATER TREATM ENT PLANTER BUILDING 2 STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANTER GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATERCONSERVINGIRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2. ALL PLANTI NG AN EAS SH ALL RECEI VE A 2"LAYER .0F GRAVEL MULCH DRESSING. W OPV TREES IN BASINS (MAIDENHAIR TREE) BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (INTERIOR LIVE OAK) STORM WATER TREATMENT PLPNTER BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (CHINESE ELM) LOW PLANTING AT THE ,PARKING LOT ENTRY 0 PHASE TWO LANDSCAPE PLAN PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW STORMWATER TREATM ENT PLANTER LLI a J LLI LaL z Q LOW PLANTING AT THE E GKA NLF RAPHIC SCALE PARKING LOT ENTRY I 1Y BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (CHINESE ELM) STANDARD FLOWERING TREES 16 (CRAPE MYRTLE) �� BACKGROUND SHRU BS ALONG F S ORMWATER _PROPERTY LINE TREATMENT PLANTER f� �V Q �O7 WI GRASSES AND LOW PLANTING •l �V'7 z w / \ / DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES IN STCRMWATERBASINS(MAIDENHAIRTREE) STORMWATER [� O'fF / % - TREATMENT RANTER i - - Fx L FLOWERING TREE (TULIPTREE) X C/ 4 - _ STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANTER STORMWATER 31 TREATMENT PLANTER _ STORMWATER PLANTER TREATMENT 3o BUILDING 1 x/ 29 I STORMWATER EXISTING TREE CANOPY EXISTING TREES TREATMENT PLANTER T - TO BE REMOVED PHASE TWO PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: WATERUSE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME —COLS SIZE MATURE SIZE COUNT LIRIOOENORON TULIOPERA TULIP TREE MED 15 GA 50'Hs20'W 5 %LAGERSTROEMIA *GINKGO BILOBA'FAIRMOUNT'(MALE) MAIDENHAIR TREE MED 15 GA 50'Hx20'W 11 'BILOXI'(STANDARD) CRAPEMYRTLE LOW 15 GA 20'Hx12W 1 UERCUS WSLZENI INTERIORLIVE OAK LOW 15 GA 30'Hx30'W 13 LMUS PARVIFOLIA TREE GREENCHINESE ELM MED 15 GA 30'Hx20'W 10 SHRUBSIGRASSES: •—HILLEA MILLEFOLUM COMMON YARROW LOW 1 G 3'Hx31 BO ®—CCHARI S PILULARIS TMN PEAKS' DWARF COYOTE BUSH LOW 1 C. 2'Hx0'W 200 —LISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH LOW 5 C 3'Hx5'W 100 —TEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOUGH LOW 5 C 10'Hs10'W 03 -NCUS PATENS GRAY RUSH LOW 1 G 3'Hx3'W 207 O LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA' BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH LOW 5 C 3'Hx3'W 203 ® *M UHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS LOW 5 C 4'Hs4'W 137 NERIUM OLEANDER' PETITE PINK' DWARF OLEANDER LOW 5 C 5'Hx0'W 07 ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA' SPRINGTIME' INDIAN HAWTHORN LOW 5 C 5'Hx5'W 47 NOTE (*) ASTERISK SHOAMN AT PLANT SPECIES ACCEPTED BY SANTA CLARA WATER DISTRICT STORMWATER PLANT LST GROUND COVERS: JUNIPERUS CONFERTS, BLUE PACIFIC' SHORE JUNIPER LOW 1GA@30"0 C. 18"HX4B"W 5,507 SF STORM WATER TREATM ENT PLANTER BUILDING 2 STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANTER GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATERCONSERVINGIRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2. ALL PLANTI NG AN EAS SH ALL RECEI VE A 2"LAYER .0F GRAVEL MULCH DRESSING. W OPV TREES IN BASINS (MAIDENHAIR TREE) BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (INTERIOR LIVE OAK) STORM WATER TREATMENT PLPNTER BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (CHINESE ELM) LOW PLANTING AT THE ,PARKING LOT ENTRY 0 PHASE TWO LANDSCAPE PLAN PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW STORMWATER TREATM ENT PLANTER LLI a J LLI LaL z Q E GKA NLF RAPHIC SCALE W211\E " CO" 03.04.2022 PAGE 16 URIODENDRON TULIPIFERA GINKGO BILOBA (MALE) LAGERSTROEM IA'BILOXI' (STANDARD) __ i ULMUS PARVIFOLIA SHRUBS: (TULIP TREE) (MAIDENHAIR TREE) CRAPE MYRTLE) (CHINESE ELM) L� N Yt �. YM f F �- AA ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM BACCHARIS PILULARIS'TWIN PEA KS' CALLISTEMON'LITTLE JOHN' HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (COMMON YARROW) (DWARF COYOTE BUSH) (DWARF BOTTLEBUSH) (TOYON) JUNCUS PATENS (GRAY RUSH) �.•f ;7 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA'BREEZE' (MAT RUSH) GROUND COVERS: MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS (DEER GRASS) RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICASPRINGTIME JUNIPERUS CONFERTA'BLUE PACIFIC' (INDIAN HAWTHORN) (SHORE JUNIPER) TM1i...... tal tlesign is based upona preliminary review otentitlement requirements tilic Storageera o� e��aea era po��eN ��eoTplet.Re inUntletl mereN t assist in exploring 11, to project I gM1t be tlevelopetl. Signage .now �. mr uUnae�e pUrpx.�x�Ive'd do...ot ..e�rlN �eaeet TU��o�pel sae compliance. All color..M1mm are Ur ,prerentative purpose. only. Rew t Ta 1-1 _pier m�eetei eom�� , f, t_. NERIUM OLEANDER'PETITE PINK (DWARF OLEANDER) PHASE ONE LANDSCAPE PLAN WARE A PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R MZi ,COMB 03.04.2022 PAG SITE VICINITY MAP �e Attachment 4 Wwi� na I in WILLIAMS POLLACKLLF : 4�t � Ict tElaNDECAPE ARCHITECT t; �r etHP 18 4 334672 ❑JO NT TRENCH �r Jj J 3 corvsuLTlNc ,.�1 JI!1 ttl1S / xERS 09 'i , �,o, 1 / f ,3 1 'i"—op 1, X11If rl 1 U IJ ! 11 �j i a SITE LOCATION AND CONNECTIVITY e 54 I lit F 3 uli,if6idlyage ( ed�lopm�t,t1020 TERRA BELLA 1020 TERRA L—AAE l ALTA HOUSING YKVJECI VICINITY A0.2 q, I l TERRA BELLA FRONTAGE j Mwilmlikil wal s �I� a ' 5. TERRA BELLA AVE. -NORTH 8. RAFAEL AVE. - WEST 3. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS - NORTH 6. TERRA BELLA AVE. - SOUTH 9. SAN RAFAEL AVE. - EAST 7. TERRA BELLA AVE. - SOUTH 10. SAN RAFAEL AVE - EAST VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL Ervc NEER 112 IIe 600, ,4 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11 0 PARTNERSHIP 111 It" 4154334672 ❑ JoirvTTRErvcH corvsuLnrvc ERS 350 111t 111401 415 - 5850 1. TERRA BELLA & SAN RAFAEL PROPOSED OVERLAY 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT A0.3 Gross Building Area m 1 131,825 SF 14 114® 17,068 SF]6T�154 01 1ST FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA F --------------- NON Gross Building Area 31,542 SF 11 r r O2 2ND FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA 1 iii�� r °IIS Illi ����---— —■ Gross Building Area 21,841 SF �1 ® 4TH FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA Paving Area 211 SF F Gross Building Area 21,841 SF [5 5TH FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA Gross Building Area 1 21,841 SF 1 111 © 6TH FLOOR GROSS FLOOR AREA PROJECTDATA r Gross 13"ilding Areas SF d.dn covered S -IN [lodes rwercd parting Gr9Nrrdlbor 31,135 2nl Moor 31343 3rd Phar 21,194 nth Ilia 21,841 5 h fl— 21,841 6th flow, 23,841 i0[M 150.089 Usable Open Space SF G—rd level stoops orrft Ground — [o— 0 OOdiwn CCm W A3 nv4tCp space iE9 Otel 10A91 Residential Units Grouts Oaor 5 2ndNxr 13 3rd floor 22 @h Floor 13 5th flow 3 Gth flow 24 }vital 1d VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: ❑ CIVIL ENGINEER BIF ENGINEERS ""AR" IA 11112 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-1100 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ 3OINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 351 111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD STE III PALO ALTO CA R4303 PROJECT INFO AND DATA A0.4 TR" BELLAAVENUE + Ac * Y a R&D R&D OFFICE - OFFICE - dy 20'-0" TALL 20'-0" TALL Y . x•- ��,' R&D OFFICE - '.ti• 0 15'-0" TALL 1 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 1 DETAILED SITE PLAN TERRA BELLA AVENUE SITE PLAN KEY NOTES o�aRa��. o�EEti.a. 0 o.oa��P�Na o.o�wa.Ea�a 0 o o o� VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER BKF ENGINEERS to 600, 4084679100 El aNOEAPE ARCHITECT c—N 0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 El JONTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 111t S, 1401 415 — 5850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA DETAILED SITE PLAN A1.1 _.... waw b STREET VIEW FROM TERRA BELLA & SAN RAFAEL (P) Public Storage r J INC. AXON VIEW ABOVE TERRA BELLA I 1 � ruly- - E IT (P) Public Storage Im hi I • ❑ '' o ❑ - AERIAL VIEW ABOVE TERRA BELLA COMMUNITY ROOM SPILL OVER SPACE ON PODIUM PLAY AREA ON PODIUM OUTDOOR DINING SPACE AND TRELLIS VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: B11 ENGINEERS say°o=e��sss,�S���o El aNDSCAPEARCHITECT 0-110 PARTNERSHIP CA 4154334672 El JoNTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA P ALTA HOUSING 2595 E BAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 RENDERINGS A1.3 Mall� WWI w � II111 r. Owl RE 71 pm ME M�ft�& MMMO "N"Em M 10 jo k • Agoy (P) Public Storage AXON VIEW FROM NORTHEAST CORNER AXON VIEW FROM NORTHWEST CORNER Ttr Tir Tw (P) Public Storage COMMUNITY ROOM CONNECTION TO PODIUM AT NIGHT TERRA BELLA RESIDENTIAL STOOPS AT NIGHT VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER III ENGINE ERI 00, ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11D0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA P ALTA HOUSING 2595 E BAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 RENDERINGS A1.6 1 1ST FLOOR -DIAGRAM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER 11F ENGINE ERI 00, ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11D0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 FLOOR PLANS - 1ST FLOOR .1716 A2.0 I I ❑ ❑ ❑ El❑ ❑ El❑ 11 ❑ ❑-w ❑���„a o��„a ❑���„ DwN ❑,�„ ❑��„ p ❑,E El®' T IT F0_1 Imtt LT Q o a �® ® e a ❑❑ ❑ ❑�m,ae �❑o El FFIFul �E �P ❑ ❑ ❑ El .® ❑ ❑ ❑ o o x0` % I % f w % v ell j T X Q 0 fl © ® — I uN raE � I I I I I / I --------------------------------------------------------- 02 3RD FLOOR - DIAGRAM __—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__- I I I----Trrrtn---rrt I RAMP m� I Q1S N' D 4 — I 11L 1L — — — ® L_ 1L J_ L_ L_" o o , • I 1 I a r a r a r a g r I ,A o El ®� ®F El I ❑ o o I I I / I L------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0 2ND FLOOR -DIAGRAM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: ❑ CIVIL ENS NEER oaA�s, IA11112 ❑ I -ANDS APEAaCN,EC, 0-11 oo PARTNERSHIP ❑ oN„aENCN CONSULTING ERS 351 11,11,1411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING PALO ALTO CA -03 FLOOR PLANS - 2ND & 3RD FLOOR .1716 A2.1 I I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a, I El®❑ El ®,A ®❑ El ❑ ®,A ❑ ®FA -- - - ❑ ®FA ®❑ o r d F ❑ F❑ ,MEl ,o H ❑ o ❑ o El-- El LLr I I E.]❑ oFo ElE]a® ®e El ❑ ❑ I o o I I ' II / I L 02 5TH FLOOR - DIAGRAM F_—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—__- I I I I E:l El o KA El ED ®i - - o - I I o I E50 I ❑ ❑ ■a�v:�l �::�� ■a�v:� n■ I i � �"I eta®v�� ��®�� I_reoa�e:� '®- I o � I I I 47F "R I o I I � I I P ❑ I PODIUM BELOW ❑ ❑,®� 'tea ❑ ❑ ❑ I I I / I L---------- 1 4TH FLOOR -DIAGRAM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: ❑ CIVIL ENGINEER BIF ENGINE ERI oaA�s, IA11111 ❑ aHDEDaPEARCHITEDT 0-11 DD PARTNERSHIP ❑ OIHTTaEHDH DDHEGLTIHG ERS 351 11,11,1411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA lo2o TERRA -AVE ALTA HOUSING RD NG PALO ALTO CA R4303 FLOOR PLANS - 4TH & 5TH FLOORS A2.2 ..PP...... I I -- +-- +-- +-- +-- +-- +---------- -- -- -- -- ------------------------------------- ----------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----------------------- --.---.-- -_ _ -- -- — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- - — - -- --- --- --- --- ----- ----- --- ----------------------------------------- ------------- ---------------- -- -E.w� a �E -------------- — -- -- -- -- -- --------- I I ----------------------------------------- t ----- t ----- t ----- t ----- t ------------------------------ 0 ROOF -DIAGRAM F��—_, --__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—_____—__—__—__—__—__—__- El RD ❑ ❑ EN ❑ ❑ ®,a rll­❑ 4AIISF ❑ ❑ L MF ❑❑ ❑o o o i I I I � o o ❑ ❑El i I I I I i / i 10 6TH FLOOR -DIAGRAM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: ❑ CIVIL ENGINE EN QllI,,, A „2 ��o ❑ allo=APE ARCHITECT 0-110 PARTNERSHIP 154334672 ❑ oNTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 111t S, 1401 415 - 5850 1020 TERRA BELLA FLOOR PLANS- 6TH FLOOR & ROOF A2.3 11''I 11 Ili 0I101-mIr• 1 11110e �WII 11 1 1,11 11 1 1 11'.11 1 11 II 1 ���11�:1 X11 1 1 1 X11 II 1 1 11� 11 1 1 11 11 - C 11 11 1 II 111 �I��I��I�F II 11 1 IIIE=11 1 1 11 11 mnnnnn.nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn + ............ �ill!!lllllllllh��; � � i'� lIIIIIIIIIII III! �lI1111111111i 1 �� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1aa�®__= ' �ll!lIIIIIIII�!III! �lII!�llllllllli���! _! p d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ism11eo 1 1 �iIIIIIIIIIQ""Illi lill""11111111111�;;;1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.l1! !!!!l���������!!!!!!m! ������ • � �® ���I��l.l� 1m o1 11--1� 1 11�r NO IPF ME- maw"m- iii-19i1I11— N /- --�- �- -- � � 5 KEY IMP L 1] BUILDING SECTION - EfVV E2 ] BUILDING SECTION - N/S 2 E3 ] BUILDING SECTION - N/S 1 A - AEP SPAN "METALLIC CHAMPAGNE" "I B - KELLY MOORE "VINTAGE COPPER" KM4407 C - KELLY MOORE "AGED TEAK" KM4491 D - KELLY MOORE "METAL CHI" KM4909 19 E - KELLY MOORE "THUNDER CAT" KM4873 1 - FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 2A -AEP DESIGN SPAN STANDING SEAM MATERIALS AND COLOR PALLETTES AEP STANDING SEAM HARDIE CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING * METALLIC CHAMPAGNE * KM VINTAGE COPPER PAINT * KM AGED TEAK PAINT ALUMINUM WINDOWS * KM METAL CHI PAINT * ALUMINUM FINISH * KM THUNDER CAT PAINT 4 - BOARD FORM CONCRETE MATERIALS AND COLOR PALLETTES AEP STANDING SEAM HARDIE CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING * METALLIC CHAMPAGNE * KM VINTAGE COPPER PAINT * KM AGED TEAK PAINT ALUMINUM WINDOWS * KM METAL CHI PAINT * ALUMINUM FINISH * KM THUNDER CAT PAINT BOARD FORM CONCRETE * UNPAINTED TEXTURED CONCRETE 5 -ALUMINUM WINDOWS VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENG NEER 1730 N F It St— to 600, 100 El LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-110 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 El JoNTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 111t S, 1401 415 — 5850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 COLORS AND MATERIALS .1716 A5.1 09 SITE SOLAR - WINTER 3PM © SITE SOLAR -EQUINOX 3PM [3 SITE SOLAR -SUMMER 3PM ® SITE SOLAR - WINTER 12PM O5 SITE SOLAR - EQUINOX 12PM 2 SITE SOLAR -SUMMER 12PM 07 SITE SOLAR - WINTER 9AM ® SITE SOLAR - EQUINOX 9AM 01 SITE SOLAR -SUMMER 9AM VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER III ENGINE ERI 00, ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11 0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 SOLAR STUDY - BUILDING SHADOWS A6.Oa 0 5TH FLOOR -STORAGE C509 10 6TH FLOOR -STORAGE C635 09 6TH FLOOR -STORAGE C602 © 5TH FLOOR -STORAGE C502 0 4TH FLOOR -STORAGE C435 noQ O3 3RD FLOOR -STORAGE C335 O2 3RD FLOOR -STORAGE C309 ® 5TH FLOOR -STORAGE C535 �E ® 4TH FLOOR -STORAGE C409 10 2ND FLOOR - STORAGE C202 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: 11F ENGINEERS 00, IA 11112 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0-11D0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERS 350 1111 111411 415 6585850 1020 TERRA BELLA 1 DID TERRA 'E AE .111 TA 11 .043 ALTA HOUSING 2595 E BAYSHORE RD STE III PALO ALTO CA 94303 RESIDENTIAL STORAGE DIAGRAMS A6.6 03 NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION -VIEW TRIANGLE OPENING _-_T -4 - ----------------------------- El 1ST FLOOR -DIAGRAM -VIEW TRIANGLE i .silo 02 VIEW TRIANGLE AXONOMETRIC TERRA BELLA AVENUE ----------------------------------------= - - - - -- - - _ VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: El CIVIL ENGINEER B "ENGINEERS S11-00 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0u 11 0 PARTNERSHIP 4154334672 ❑ JOINTTRENCH E=DESIGN CONSULTING ERB 350 111t S, 1401 415 — 5850 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 E LAYSHORE RD PALO ALTO CA R4303 VIEW TRIANGLE DIAGRAM A6.7 ti, tiw 101 01 14, PUBLIC STORAGE L (NOT A PART) F If P, PUBLIC STORAGE (NOT A PART) Lu 4m LU= ADJACENT SITE Q hi > (NOT A PART) ALTA HOUSING �LEGEND lr GRAPHIC SCALE iH) — __ — — -- — -- — (HI X - L— — - -- - ---------------------------- RRA BELLA - 7-71!171�— 771-- n t A"'V ENU - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - -- ----- - -- - -- - �LEGEND lr GRAPHIC SCALE 85 0 • tO'eIS _,,_1z 1 __].9' 3.5'_ 6] 44 7._O_- 10___3.9 t9l L6_6 _3 -_s. 0__?.�_ t6. ] - 166.30_._ h 11.1- _ >} _-11- _t_6 6= e.i_ 7] 90 PE h.3 6. ,.] z,: A ] ® ]� IPAGRMNG PARKING GARAGE 48 SPACES EARNING s 48 SPACES m.9 6 D PHOTOMETRICS —E! 3/a _ r-6• YAM Mt I tli WILLIAMS POLLACK 0 ❑ CNLL ENGINEER ENGINEERS 1730 N. Fl,st St—t — 6 4-67.9100 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHRECT Glll RGI 101 Gre_N, EtreetERSH 6,6433A672 F—dCA 9A 1 ❑ 3OINT TRENCH URBAN DESIGN CONSUL ENGINEERS 94�0]Ile415.658.5850 E EMERALD CITY ENGINEERS, INC 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSIN 2595 E. LAYSH RE RD. P— ALTO C� 94303 SITE LIGHTING E1.00 II—�®ISL JAI®I — pEI�+I�u I�+IEm ®�'L JAI®I pEI�+I�u I�+IEm— ` I®�'L „�� ■ �' u ®® ®®I u ® _ ' �' I•I 6w, ,•, � firDrDnDfirDrDrYaiEDrDrM �® IIS 1 � a � I � -f L� T n,w, Sr "� �J I� T m �J 1rn^^71rn^^7^^^^7 WYLLYLLY�IYYLLYLLYyIYYYYYYYY� �111� �.. ■ �lo����� .�. �I 'a f �,� m m � � L �---� � m � L � ... lug wwwir�sile�l�°� L. � I Ji�ii�IR��i �j I ui6' �� I� .m asl u�. ��o u m ���lig �iIArwjiwil�ri�{lwvl;iii�ltwlwil1iiii1ltwiw�wwwl JWrirwrlYYF -- — — — wl .� � III — _ , . �3ilPliaisl1lA1lEFiffASIEMENS' riilllliiiY nliwwww nrrlrlw ��II ::wrwirirrrrlrr.�„ ® �,,, � I!gli m m ®, � irifirwwrw rrirr�wrwrl�.��:�rr�rirrl w�wwwwwwwww- wwwwwwwwwww, PHOTOMETRICS —E! 3/a _ r-6• YAM Mt I tli WILLIAMS POLLACK 0 ❑ CNLL ENGINEER ENGINEERS 1730 N. Fl,st St—t — 6 4-67.9100 ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHRECT Glll RGI 101 Gre_N, EtreetERSH 6,6433A672 F—dCA 9A 1 ❑ 3OINT TRENCH URBAN DESIGN CONSUL ENGINEERS 94�0]Ile415.658.5850 E EMERALD CITY ENGINEERS, INC 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSIN 2595 E. LAYSH RE RD. P— ALTO C� 94303 SITE LIGHTING E1.00 SITE PRECEDENT IMAGERY • Yoi 1AL r�dmlhj PODIUM PRECEDENT IMAGERY A t NATURALSTONES ACCENT PAVING PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ON RUBBERIZED SURFACE PLANTING PRECEDENT IMAGERY a men BRISBANE BOX TREE CRAPE MYRTLE SWAN HILL OLIVE PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR COAST LIVE OAK JAPANESE MAPLE PRINCESS FLOWER MANZANITA'HOWARD MCMINN' CAROLINA CHERRY NATIVE AND LOCALLY ADAPTED GARDENS VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACKILF : E] CNIL ENGINEER NGINEERG N. Hrsl Street Gutte 660, ElLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ,,, 433A612NC.4 94111 ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS 31565a5a56 A94t. 107I1e 409 GB_ZARDOSH i. PARTNERIP ISic. 1020 TERRA BELLA ® ALTA HOUSING 2595 E. BAYSPORE RD. MATERIALS AND LANDSCAPE IMAGERY 1-10 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN NATIVE GARDEN THEMATIC PLANTING WITH INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE STEPPING STONES GATHERING AREA WITH WOOC FENCE AND GATE ACCENT BOLLARD LIGHTS FLOWERING GARDEN DECK. SEAT WALLS, AND GATE AND ALONGSIDEWALH HEMATICPLANTINGWITH NATURAL STONES SEATS SCREEN FENCE AT RESIDENTIAL STOOP WITH INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE HEDGEAT TRANSFORMER ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE GATHERINGAREAWITH RESIDENTIALUNITS HEDGE AT RESIDENTIAL COMPOSE A UCONCRETEWAONE SEATS WAL RESIDENTIAL STOOPS RING AREA WITH ACCENT PAVING.3EAT WALLS, AND NATURAL STONE STATS SUCCGLENTGARDEN THEMATIC PLANTING WITH INTERPRETIVE NAGE RESIDENTIAL GIG STOOPS WITH ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE NAT RAL STONE SEATS STORMWATERTREATMENT PEA =AS FOCAL POINT, RAIN THEMATIC PLANTING WITH INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE SEATWALL ACCENT —I IAZAG AT ROOF OVEA`= BIKE SCREEN FENCE AT TRAFFICVISIBILITYAREA. PROPERTY LINE SEE NSSHEET� FENCEENCE All GATE ROOF OVERHHA �i LADDER PADS 5' CITY STANDARD — RETEWALK 5' PARK STRIP "'T" — STREET TREES NATURAL STONE SEATS ATELLAN UNDER 36' RALGKS, UNI , D DER EATS UNDER ND RAL STONE BIKE 36"IN HEIGHT S IN HEIGHT ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE RE 5 SAT ENTRY PLNA ACCENT PAVING \ E AT ENTRY PLAZA _ VAN mtitil WILLIAMS POLLACK: ...... ............ ..w ❑ CIVIL ENGINEER -ENGINEERS -- - - t7?0 N. E. Street. SN 600, San Jose, CA95112 40846]9100 W Q❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHNECT J .—ARD. PARTNERSHIP I � 94111 l.L 415.433.4672 CA ❑ JOINT TRENCH ' Z URBAN DESIGN CONSULTING Q ENGINEERS �- 350 TamsanE 1- 111141 San Francisco. CA 94107 4156555050 / -I I 1 _ L U ` - - __ _ _ AR PARTNERSHIP Nc. T— II t r X106 - ,ate 7 IITY IA"'-' \ 7 WALK _ TFAFFTCVIS IN •"^�• ^••••'m•••"•'�m••••'^• T E 'ALI RANKSTRPWTH T11 -11,v SBILITY - wTHGUYwRETOREMAIN AREA. SEE NOTE 70RNGtLtCTRICAL POLE AREASEE NOTE 'a II'' ISTREET TREES � --------Vv THIS SHEET Yv THIEEHEET TERRABELLAAVE GREMAN EXIALESTING ELECTRICAL N ------------------------------------------------ ___---------------------- 1------------------ .----- - POLE WITH GUY WIRE —_--_—___—_____—_—_—_—_—_^ NOTE: TraMC SafetySafety UaibilN�Prea W M1i0 MIs area nolM1ing shall be ended PIaLae, waelaa Pr allows m9mw avcaeem9 as raac is nal9nt wIM th,:ca N. ar saw v, las eP war a .MaI. 1020 TERRA BELLA 1020TERRABELIAAVE MOUNTAIN VIEW CA ® ALTA HOUSING LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN #1716 L-2.1 II � r- GGUNTER—OUTSIDE LAUNDRY OUTSIDE o y1`LI�I.. RAISED PLANTER WITH OMMUNAL DINING BARRIER RPJLING WIM EES PND TABLE ANO LOUNGE DECORATIVE GRAVEL WOOD BENCHES AREA UNDER TREWS FICIALUWITH DOWN LIGHTEAN0 DININGAREAW H GPME SPAGE RF FLEXIBLE HEATERS COUNTERTOP COMMUNALLOUNGE WOOD RENGH WITH AREA POTENTIAL STORAGEAREA-------VIEW --------- --- UNDERNEATHPDRGAMES AT POOIUMEDGEMBRELLA STRING LIGHTS FROM AND PLAY EQUIPMENT BUILDING TO TREWS TRELLIS WITH GOWN LIGHTS AND HEATERS WILLIAMS SIM i er_u «P 40846]9100 D LANDS CAPE ARCHNECT GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP 415.433.4672 CA 9411, D JOINTTRENCH URBAN DESIGN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 350 T—.— GA 94107N 4� 415.6555850 � GUZZARDO -- i PARTNERSHIVIP irvc. e rrrsu3� ri 1020 TERRA BELLA HUCTERRABELLAAVE S ALTA HOUSING LANDSCAPE PODIUM PLAN #iTie L-2.2 \� smee Beypn4 emiam ugm e-a Waotl Top BeuM1 Bgrontl nStreetscape at Terra Bella Ave & Corner Plaza Scale'. 1/4"=,'-0" S� tape at San Rafael Ave Fence and Planting Area 2 Scale: 114"=1' O" Srale: 1/4"=1'-0' ,-,Podium Section Y kale: l/4"-1'-0' ��l scale: 114"=I' 0" <EY MAP VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK"" C CNIL ENGINEea INI ENGINEERS N. "" Street Gutta — C LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT an 1— GA 84111 ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS Ile 4os Gl_ZARDO PARTNERSHIP tac. mgeie Elevation *eliw �lotlgme o41 �Ae1nG Dalt Pani Elevation Transformer Screen and Gate �3.-1e:112r =1w TERRA BELLA AVE 2-� Metal Picket Fence and Gate seeie ee NOlea Ll II III ee-ame 1�IIIIIII�omm.,aa.,ee�ade e��oi �i»RNs section Good Neighbor Fence 1020 TERRA BELLA © ALTA HOUSING HD 2595 E. BAYSHORE LANDSCAPE FENCE PLAN VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK: E] CNIL E1GI-1 INI ENGINEERS N. Hrst Stres1 Gutte 600, ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ant— G4 84111 ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS Ile 4os 411.111.1110 GlRD PARTN_ZAERSOHIP Lac. THIS SHEET -----____ suer: r°.iaw ____----------------- i----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- E _L----- _------------- _------------------- _--------- _------------------- _--------- _------ _—_------- ___------ _____— _ _s —_- NOTNcSaicty Vlslblllty.4rc plalln ipl area notFing sM1all ba erected, placstl, plh h. oralla.ran aetling lght es wltb lcellples no lovrer tbenPsb.lesL 1020 TERRA BELLA © ALTA HOUSING 2595 E. BAYSHORE RD. PLANTING PLAN SITE L-4.1 PLANT PALETTE LANDSCAPE NOTES VAN METER SITE RUNOFF AND SURFACE FILTRATION NOTES: WILLIAMS Te vvlll be no sle PSloDs nslta. yslope vvlll be Bred toe dace ingltratlon 2, sellwlthc oma fore da All 11 Com st hall 1 mentlt aollat POLLACK`LI mantllhe he therat.. Intlleetetl by a loll enaysls Ste bring me sollergenl conleot fo e Mnlmum of 6%by tlN melght. CemDost sM1e1 be hal muIleM1 Isar cletl om lopcal. organlen�terlalsntl rtl Te g uran- g a 3.1N100%of e3fmulbh s m bensbN ih all planting areas.St.,.ureter treatment...sere m M1avegreuntl wvar Inv N - paces lisretl by C.NPC as invasive in the San Francisco Bay Area will not be planted. 6. Plenty eDPreprlete for me location In accordance crIth theapp.pN,te cllmete zone antl spa H. eke wntlltlens c,III shall not be Installetl. CNN ENGINEER o. Peau p g .aa ars to be bw-D,1 to it. planting areae m Promote on ani aamaaa mfiN.- III IRRIGATION NOTES: N. F ,t Street Surae W0. Irrlgatlon ti—h, N be eat R. evcld runoff by eDlltt12 fides to shorter tluretlone. 112 I i ti- systemtcmduaeameamerbasetl mnwlmr mat atlluet baaea on wealM1erwndNcns, a00.4ca'si540095 3.Irrlgatlon system to Indutle rain shut cff devices. 4.All planYng',.. 11 beIt. usetl Ie stp utlnsp,F letlngantl 0htrees to h—bubblers. El IANGSCAPE ARCHITECT Fmeetarva Iewretlucem willbei th- to mitigateb,,;— M1eatle. 7.Irrlgatlon — mnform to the City's urate, conservetlon In lentlscedn9 regulatlons. HIP S. acktlew tlevices wit bascreenetl wYF pmnting. ee Irtlgetlon notes sheet foradtllticnal Inrormetlon. ancm o GA 94111 th,tl off pm7ecr..yatam a16.433- 11. Irrlgatlons fi—awlll bare dad water ready. ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS 411.111.1110A 94107Ita 499 ra.�nr em.. xNl.a m stm.../10 t=i/z cwomrm xr,e snoax xole tutu.. L.ex. Irox I,— ; -I p r..spit €[e I — roto/es~i-rvt%iAto�e�nmmie�e Gvnsm IIIWI = m„ xomoromr. 111 _ _ C, Tree Staking ■Gt_ZARDOSH PARTNERIP I..1c. 1 .-. e. .Y . x . rcametn Crn. i G,N fin .t •a .n. m.unx Cue, xem g IUEI T= .. xnn i2� Shrub PlantingDetail�Nnt� Smla 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING 2595 F. DAYSHORE RD. ATE 2bo PALO A LTO. CA —03 LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES AND DETAILS L-4.3 VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACKUP : C CNIL E1GI-1 INI ENGINEERS N. Hrs1 street Gutte 600, C LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT mn 1-0 4 94111 ❑ JOINT TRENCH NGINEDESIGN CONSULTING ERS Ile 409 Gl _ZAEO PARTNERSHIP Iac. TERRA BELLA AVE `-- --------------- ------------- ---- -------------- - TREE CANOPY TABLE AND LEGEND 1020 TERRA BELLA ALTA HOUSING E. RAYSHORE RD G TREECANOPY COVERAGE PLAN 1-71 TERRA BELLA AVE `-- --------------- ------------- ---- - VAN METER WILLIAMS POLLACK`L" E] — E1GI-1 INI ENGINEERS N. "" Street "' WO, J01OFISICO j ( ❑ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HIP ( 615.633A0T2 GA 8411 5 ❑ JOINT TRENCH DESIGN CONSOLING ( URBAN SI11409 O l�F J -------------- LEGEND - LEGEND RIPTION 0- - eeemc r c . aMPlz1,11d O T111r, III nD —I ®^' 1eNIx9 I, r�U<PU Fei>O19n Q• T, 11 PLI TOIL NU1,1111 OI TIEES TO BE IE1101EO DIST11C TREES TO REMAIIJ ECITI3 DIS DV 59 4T P`OJEC- COUPFYJN D_sribei aN 2C, 2091 p,,p e0 by HNH.'CS) 1072203. eport.l HERITNGE TREES NIAY NOT BE REMO\'ED, UHLESSA BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION. GU_ZAADD PARTNERSHIP P. 1020 TERRA BELLA 1 D20A AVE 1011TAluvlE1 C.. OaOnE ALTA HOUSING 2595 E. EASTORPORE RD. TREE DISPOSITION PLAN I_R1 O BKF ENGINEERS MAP NOTES 1. CLIENT: STORAGE EQUITIES, INC 7M WESTERN AVE. GLENDALE, CA 91201 C. OWNERS: EXISTING LOT A: STORAGE EOUITES, INC. 701 WESTERN AVE. GLENDALE, CA 91201 EXISTING LOT B: TERRA BELLA I. LLC 725 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA BUT S EXISTING ASSESSOR'S EXISTING LOT A: 153-15-C3D & 1M -15 - PARCEL NUMBERS: (NUMBERS TO BE REVISED UNDER LOT MERGER) rc Exlsnuc EMT B. 1s3-1s-Dz1 -17E ADORES& 1020 &i 040 TERRA BELLA AVENUE MOUNTAOEM, CA 94C43 5 EXISTING LAND USE: EXISTING L07 A: STORAGE BUILDING EXISTING LOT B: RESIDENTIAL B.Z OPOSED LAND USE: LOT A1: G E BUILDING _ 3EE o - 1` LOT B1: HIGH DE GH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING LOT BI NL -LIMITED INDUSTRIAL 8: EXISTING 8 PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS: FROM 2 LOTS TO 2 LOTS 9.ACLSTED LOT AREAS LOT Al (GROFR): 1.241 LOTAl (NET): 3.773 ACRES3 LOT B1: 1.0.57 ACRES3 Q - Q TOTAL (GROSS): 5.284 ACRESP TOTAL (NET): 9... ACRE53 BASIS CE BEARINGS THE BEARING NES -48! W. OF THE MONUMENT LINE OF TERRA BELLA AVENUE, BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENT& WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS Of BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY. THE BEARING NBB'4WM'W IS BASED ON NAD83 CCORDINATES WHICH HAS A ROTATION OF W 1'11'24' GOIINTERCLOCKVASE FROM THE BEARING N90W'00'E. TERRA BELLA AVENUE. VMICH IS` SH WN ON A RECORD Of SURVEY MAP FILED FOR RECORD ON DECEMBER 13. 1979 IN BOCK :0 - a 455 OF MAPS PACES B8 AND 57, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY. Z W a J GENERAL NOTES ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREDF.z LIJ y m r a:5 -co SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT J 7 p- I THIS PLOT VLAN WAS PREPARED Al ME OR UNDER My DIRECTION, D W < AT THE REQUEST Of STORAGE EQUITIES, INC. ON AUGUST 8, 2021. ` a F Q DRAFT - FOR REVIEW ------ J W Q vis NRNO. AN d J Or a DATE eR zo. zozl DATE e N J p -- LEGEND ..LMlNl LINE CC.FER LINE PIZcT�T17zr�Il�7dlrinm Pa TON 1. sEPAAA,a IN:,aMMENn A-- PARCEL NN.VNN RILAGS) tan- , caost o las) -u IAOST aq —111 at O x PLACE 0 AAFI AD—ffPLIAAE-ocA,IM, IT LE111-1 RI `s a J orNLLA-1 BKF NO. 2C191341-51 1 1 Attachment 5 PUBLIC STORAGE WARE MMLCONIB MOUNTAIN VIEW po 1040 TERRA BELLA ROAD MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 00 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SEA19-0015-00 03.04.2022 WARE MMLCONIB US "07 PA,� ��a��anoa BAySHpRFA�. "Vy TERRA BELLA AVE SITE PLAN LEGEND PROJECT DATA —<— CONSTRUCTION TYPE °G`aO1" OCCUPANCY GROUP -- FaisaosnwaswEan�sP.ca PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: I-B(FULLY SPRINKLERED) CURRENTZONE: MM S-1,B,R-3 PROPOSED ZONE: P CURRENT GEN. PLAN DESIGNATION: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES REDEVELOPMENT OF AI' EXISTING 4.3 ACRE SELF -STORAGE FACILITY IN TWO PHASES ALL EIGHTEEN EXISTING BUILDINGS WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND ONE 6 -STORY AND ONE 4 -STORY BUILDING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, AND NEW SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING. SITE DATA (AFTER LAND TRANSFER) LOT AREA 164,396 SF (3.77 ACRES) BUILDING 1 AREA 285,012 SF BUILDING 2 AREA 123,952 SF TOTAL NEW BUILDING AREA 408,9674 SF EXISTING BUILDING AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED 77,418 SF NET NEW BUILDING AREA 331,546 SF FAR PROPOSED (GROSS) 2.49 LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED 47.7% MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED 84'-7" FT BUILDING FOOTPRINT 78,490 SF LANDSCAPE AREA 24,303 SF LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 14% ACCESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 153-015-030, 153-015-002 PARKING REQUIRED PERS.STORAGE 1/2000 SF 204 STALLS OFFICE 1/300 SF 3 STALLS RESIDENT MER. 2 STALLS TOTAL 209 STALLS PARKING PROVIDE TOTAL PROPOSED AUTO SPACES 75 STALLS@0.18/1000 GSF REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE 3 STALLS MAX. F.A.R.: MAX. COVERAGE: MAX. HEIGHT: BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT: PROPOSED FRONT SIDE: R EAR: LA N DS CAP E S ETBACKS: FRONT: SIDE: R EAR: LANDSCAPE REQ.: AREA REQ.: AREA PROVIDED: % PROVIDED: OFF-STREET PARKING: STANDARD: COMPACT: CO M PACT %: DRIVE AISLE: FIRE LANE: OVERHANG: 0.55 NONE ' 25 FT ' 20 FT 0 FT' OFT' 50% 10% 16,434 24,303 14% 8.5X18 N/A N/A 24 FT 26 FT ' 2' PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE 6 STALLS NOTES: PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS io pew zao mer ,p ��=•a=e so .m, FRONT 10 FT SIDE 10 FT ,.a.. aaw EAR 49 =� a= s =�,,,�__"__,�� 11121 1111RFT ^,.<...,..,.....A. M..,....,...,...._,.,.m... 25 TRANSIT -BIKE MAP LEGEND • aRS R,oP CEAs n PART T- euIE LANE UE n,—E—E TRANSIT -BIKE MAP OVERALL SITE PLAN AND PROJECT DATA PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE N4ALCONM 03.04.2022 PZE _7 7__ Pri oFrace 104' , � sTaIR f FIF7 'U f 1)' ELL PROP. FR E­LOBt SETBA — 0 N BUILDING 1 6 -STORY: 285,)12 SIF FOOTPRINT: 47,5D2 SF _ SEETADY1(OPEN STRSETS NG B siNESSSV - VVLSosVRE SEE D INI TRAIROCIRCUTATIONARROW IP. eY 1 14' T Z L 323' 255'MAXTRAVEL 152 MAX TRAVEL NENTUBULER STEEL iNONOOPEN "IT OR EnciNa PaoPEaTn OFFINEFN­ FLoo BUILDING Q (2,)2] SF) H Lo $ euaDlNc ea ZZ 1 -DER ND11T11 fl TERRA BELLA AVE "UGe _ RE ACCESS FENCE BUILDING BUILDING K2 — (12,7D2SF) (1,56)SF) BUILDING BUILDING J2 - (11,741 SF) ('-3,452 SF) BUILDING V W,4I5 SF) PARKING GARAGE (LEVELS 1 AND 2) LEGEND BUILDING F "IT OR (15,)41 SF) OFFINEFN­ FLoo BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: (2,)2] SF) —<-- UCKROUTE $ euaDlNc ea — — — — (13,)54 SF) SLITE AREA: FENCE 9 BUILDING D2 GROSS: (1756 SF) EXIST BLDG. AREA TO BE DENIO'0. OPENINGSNOCATED J S 164,396 OF TERRA BELLA AVE "UGe _ RE ACCESS FENCE BUILDING BUILDING K2 — (12,7D2SF) (1,56)SF) BUILDING BUILDING J2 - (11,741 SF) ('-3,452 SF) BUILDING V W,4I5 SF) PARKING GARAGE (LEVELS 1 AND 2) LEGEND BUILDING AREA: PROJECT DATA (PHASE I): MAX. F,A.R.: _�—FIRE TRUCK ROTTE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: I -B (FULLY SPRINKLERED) —<-- UCKROUTE OCCUPANCY GROUPS: S-1 B, R-3 — — — — ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SLITE AREA: FENCE EXIST. BLDG. AREA TO REMAIN MnmPwEDPC PAC, �USL GROSS: 3.77 AC EXIST BLDG. AREA TO BE DENIO'0. 52,610 SF 164,396 OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: CU RRENT ZON E: MM PRO POSED ZON E: P CURRENT GEN. PLAN DESIGNATION: G EN ERAL IN DO STRIAL u TiT'TLT�T— Y" w BUILDING AREA: 146 STALLS MAX. F,A.R.: 0.55 FOUNDATION EASEMENT BUILDING 1 (6 -STORY) 285,012 SF MAX, COVERAGE; NEW SECURITY TOTALAREA: 285,012 SF MAX. HEIGHT: NONE ' FENCE EXIST. BLDG. AREA TO REMAIN 24,8(8 SF BUILDING SETBACKS: 8.5X18 EXIST BLDG. AREA TO BE DENIO'0. 52,610 SF FRONT: 25 FT NET NEW BLDG. AREA(PHASE 1) 232,462 BE PROPOSED FRONT 10 FT TOTAL BU I WING AREA (PHASE I) 309,820 OF SIDE: OFT' BUILDING USE: 2 STALLS REAR: 0 FT ' PERS. STORAGE 283,312 SF OVERHANG: 2' '-'�� MANAGER'S APARTMENT 8003E LANDSCAPE SETBACKS: OFFICE ACT) SF FRONT: 50% ` FAR: 141-7 SIDE: EXISTING GROSS: (77,4161188,890) 0,41 REAR: TEMPORARY OFFICE PROPOSED CROSS(309,620l164,396) 1.88 TRAILER COVERAGE: LANDSCAPE REQ.: 10% GROSS: 44% AREA REQ.: 16,434 SINGLE STORY FOOTPRINT:))) -SF PARKING REQUIRED: VICINITY MAP�., AREA PROVIDED: 24,303 u TiT'TLT�T— Y" w PACE 3 PERS, STORAGE 112000 SF 146 STALLS %PROVIDED: 14% FOUNDATION EASEMENT RESIDENT MANAGER 2 STALLS NEW SECURITY OFFICE 1/300 S_F3 STALLS OFF-STREET PARKING: FENCE TOTAL 151 STALLS STANDARD: 8.5X18 PARKING PROVIDED: COMPACT: N/A AUTO: 27 STALLS COMPACT %: N/A @0.09/1000 GSF DRIVE AISLE: 24 FT REQ. ACCESSI6LE 2 STALLS FIRE LANE: 26 FT ' APN,(EXISTING): 153-015-030 OVERHANG: 2' '-'�� 153-015-002 NOTES: PROP. BLDG. HT. (BUILDING IJ (LO.P,) 1 141-7 Mom OOsr FENCE LOCAT ON 1PHASE CO.P_ 1ECURICATEWIENTRANCE 31 OPE DURNG SHEET A 6E 'OPEN W BUSINESS HOURS) ,.., eao- o,s..v Q LL VICINITY MAP�., CO 9 w•omnp I $ a exv BE s..e..MPaQ m o ,.'.�,..,.e„om a :` ..m..•p ...o.�we,: %,f ^.�.” i 1 e e r sa„ PHASE ONE SITE PLANFWAREA4ALCOA/fB PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW 03.04.2022 PACE 3 rzI "a! 6 -STORY: 285,012 SF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: FOOTPRINT: 47,502 SF ql- W-1 w"im CURRENTZONE: 255 MAX TRAVEL323' I � I S-1 goRlit P I SITE AREA (AFTER LAND TRANSFER): CURRENT GEN. PLAN DESIGNATION: "RE.PPuuTR—ELVERIN-PACE GROSS: 3.77 AC G EN E RAL IN D USTRIAL 164,396 SF BUILDING AREA: MAX. F.A.R.: 0.55 EXISTING BUILDING 1 285,012 SF MAX. COVERAGE: BUILDING 2 (4 -STORY) 123,952 SF MAX. HEIGHT: NONE ' TOTAL A R EA: VIII BUILDING 1 "a! 6 -STORY: 285,012 SF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: FOOTPRINT: 47,502 SF - CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 1-6 (FULLY SPRINKLERED) CURRENTZONE: 255 MAX TRAVEL323' _ 152'!.1AX TRAVEL AICrvC BCE E xm) TISE STEEL PEN .SEE US PATx �IRCBaTax 10), SITE PLAN LEGEND PROJECT DATA (PHASE III; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: LIL2 z .;. a —<— CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 1-6 (FULLY SPRINKLERED) CURRENTZONE: MM —CKxONTE OCCUPANCY GROUPS: S-1 PROPOSED ZONE: P ---- nccessla�e Roure SITE AREA (AFTER LAND TRANSFER): CURRENT GEN. PLAN DESIGNATION: "RE.PPuuTR—ELVERIN-PACE GROSS: 3.77 AC G EN E RAL IN D USTRIAL 164,396 SF BUILDING AREA: MAX. F.A.R.: 0.55 EXISTING BUILDING 1 285,012 SF MAX. COVERAGE: BUILDING 2 (4 -STORY) 123,952 SF MAX. HEIGHT: NONE ' TOTAL A R EA: 408,964 SF BUILDING SETBACKS: EXIST. BLDG. AREA TO BE DEMO'D. 24,808 SF FRONT:25 FT ' NET NEW BLDG. AREA (PHASE 11) 99,144 SF PROPOSED FRONT. 1OFT BUILDING USE: SIDE: 0 FT' PERS. STORAGE 123,952 SF REAR: 0 FT ' FAR: PROPOSED GROSS: (408,964/164,396) 2.49 LANDSCAPE SETBACKS: FRONT: 50% ixB COVERAGE. GROSS: 49% SIDE: PNMIRE-BBIBB xi �IUL 5' FI accEss oN" - 95.ELEC T,.. _ .I - 1 oT Blnc. Iti .R�,uBxoC 30' ad � uv 6 BUILDING 2 93' IxacnTEn 4 -STORY: 123;952SF FOOTPRINT. 30988 SF m x it 229'01 2M MAX TRAVEL PARKINGREQUIRED: (PHASE I & II) REAR: PERS. STORAGE 1/2000 SF 204 STALLS OFFICE 1/300 SF 3 STALLS LANDSCAPE REQ.: 10% RESIDENT MGR. 2 STALLS AREA REQ.: 16,434 TOTAL 209 STALLS AREA PROVIDED: 24,303 mmonTbx"-"_xr PARKING PROVIDED: %PROVIDED: 14% uEwnreuuRSTEEl EXISTING BUILDING 1 27 STALLS sec111TewrPROP. BUILDING 2 PARKING 48 STALLS OFF-STREET PARKING: TOTAL PROPOSED AUTO SPACES: 75 STALLS STANDARD: 8.5X18 �!WSrvs°unlBii�ausixt COMPACT: N/A @0.18/1000 GSF REQ. ACCESSIBLE 3STALLS COMPACT%: N/A APNS(EXISTING): 153-015-030 DRIVE AISLE: 24 FT 153-015-002 FIRE LANE: 26 FT ° OVERHANG: 2' PROP. BLDG HT. (BUILDING 2) (T.O.P.) 63'-3" NOTES: 25' oETpa.tunoe.I , �. �I LIL2 z .;. a 1 PARKING GARAGE i ALL 2 6 -STORY oP T _ U PROFPARCEN - — - .__.RESIb DG V-� ftg3tAeerE�) T - T TERRA BELLA AVE TRANSIT -BIKE MAP LEGEND • aus stop CLASS II PART TIME BIKE LANE CLASS ITT BIKE IOCTE IIAIS 11 EIKR LACE TRANSIT -BIKE MAP t , c -9 PHASE TWO SITE PLAN A�� �n PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WIACR 1VBTBI .COA/M 03.04.2022 PA41 Public Storage lop _41 1 VIEW LEGEND WARE MALCOMB 03.04.2022 PAGE 6 G ve Y L miseo�eepmal design isbased wo�av�enrni�ary revie,v ofeminernem req�ire,�e�r;�� dna on unverified dna pa4ibN Incomplete site dna/ar bullding In —fiian; dna Is PERSPECTIVE VIEW -NORTHEAST BLDG 2 7 intentletl merelL to assist in exploring M1mv tM1e project migM1t be tlevelopetl. Signage sn-1ism,111, eye pnmxser xnroena axes nxene<e��iq �eaeee mnnieipel sae -� PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW VIEW LEGEND WARE MALCOMB 03.04.2022 PAGE 6 Public Storage adz 4` .rte, "0 . iff �w. a i rrrr �� �g �,� rrrrrp �''�'... .. .?�': b .�, w�wwwww a ..,.. . ■�'i�i e�elrur;: III p ill Public Storage STREET SECTION VIEW - LINDA VISTA AVE P PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE MALCOMB oa.oa.2o22 a9ce NORTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" KEYNOTES O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 82'-9' TOP OF PARAPET 79,2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11' 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7' 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" ND FLOOR 18"-3" ____ FINISH FLOOR 3'-9" TOP OF PARAPET 82 9• TOP OF PARAPET 79' 2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11" 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7' 3RD FLOOR 28'-11' ND FLOOR 18"-3" _________ FINISH FLOOR_ 3'-9" BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM OSTOREFRONT: 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES OPAIN STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING 13 11" SPLIT FACE - O "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 82'-9' TOP OF PARAPET 79,2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11' 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7' 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" ND FLOOR 18"-3" ____ FINISH FLOOR 3'-9" TOP OF PARAPET 82 9• TOP OF PARAPET 79' 2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11" 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7' 3RD FLOOR 28'-11' ND FLOOR 18"-3" _________ FINISH FLOOR_ 3'-9" PAGE 10 CPPG1015i5 BE NGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT RACE - AGREYSTONE" GREYSTONE STRIP OPAIN HELIOTROPE 10 BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 OSTEEPLE WALLTBE DGRAYC 11 ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY SHOWCASEWINDOW P6 TO 14 O VISION GLAZING O A CENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMSARCHITECTURAL AMS PS ORANGE 12 MAPES LUMISHADE FRAME/RA CANOPY TO BE PSP UM O 4'6N X 39A2'E(177) SF. BUILDING 1: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 WARE A PAGE 10 I EAST ELEVATION -SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" KEYNOTES WEST ELEVATION (ALONG LINDA VISTA AVE) - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 TOP OF PARAPET 82'-9' TOP of PARAPET 79,2• 6TH FLOOR 60'-11' 5TH FLOOR 50'-3" 4TH FLOOR _____________ 39'-7" 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" END FLOOR 18 ____ FINISH FLOOR 3'-9" TOP OF PARAPET 82 9• TOP OF PARAPET 79' 2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11" 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7" 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" END FLOOR 18"-3" _______ FINISH FLOOR_ 3'-9" BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM OSTOREFRONT: 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES OPAIN STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING 13 11" SPLIT FACE - O "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK WEST ELEVATION (ALONG LINDA VISTA AVE) - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 TOP OF PARAPET 82'-9' TOP of PARAPET 79,2• 6TH FLOOR 60'-11' 5TH FLOOR 50'-3" 4TH FLOOR _____________ 39'-7" 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" END FLOOR 18 ____ FINISH FLOOR 3'-9" TOP OF PARAPET 82 9• TOP OF PARAPET 79' 2' 6TH FLOOR 60'-11" 5TH FLOOR 50'-3' 4TH FLOOR 39'-7" 3RD FLOOR 28'-11" END FLOOR 18"-3" _______ FINISH FLOOR_ 3'-9" CPPG1015i5 BE NGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT RACE - AGREYSTONE" GREYSTONE STRIP OPAIN HELIOTROPE 10 BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 OSTEEPLE WALLTBE DGRAYC 11 ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY SHOWCASEWINDOW P6 TO 14 O VISION GLAZING O A CENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMSARCHITECTURAL AMS PS ORANGE 12 MAPES LUMISHADE FRAME/RA CANOPY TO BE PSP UM O 4'6N X 39A2'E(177) SF. BUILDING 1: EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW A WARE A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 NORTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3' TOP OF PARAPET 57'-5' 4TH FLOOR 39'-9" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" ND FLOOR 18"-5' -- - - - -. FIRST FLOOR_ 3'-11" KEYNOTES O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3' TOP OF PARAPET 57'-5' 4TH FLOOR 979" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' -- - -- - FIRST FLOOR 3'-11" BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM OSTOREFRONT: 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES OPAIN STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING 13 11" SPLIT FACE - O "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 SOUTH ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3' TOP OF PARAPET 57'-5' 4TH FLOOR 979" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' -- - -- - FIRST FLOOR 3'-11" PAGE 12 CPPG1015i5 BE NGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT RACE - AGREYSTONE" GREYSTONE STRIP OPAIN HELIOTROPE 10 BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 OSTEEPLE WALLTBE DGRAYC 11 ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY SHOWCASEWINDOW P6 TO 14 O VISION GLAZING O A CENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMSARCHITECTURAL AMS PS ORANGE 12 MAPES LUMISHADE FRAME/RA CANOPY TO BE PSP UM O 4'6N X 39A2'E(177) SF. BUILDING 2: NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 WARE A PAGE 12 KEYNOTES EAST ELEVATION (ALONG SAN RAFAEL AVE.) - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 WEST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3" TOP OF PARAPET 4TH FLOOR 39'-9" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' -- - - - -- - FIRST FLOOR_ 3'-11" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3" TOP OF PARAPET 5]'-5" 4TH FLOOR 39'-9' RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' ____---FIRSTFLOOR_ 3'-11" BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM OSTOREFRONT: 1 MULLIONS WITH VISION GLAZING AND SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES OPAIN STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM O MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING 13 11" SPLIT FACE - O "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK EAST ELEVATION (ALONG SAN RAFAEL AVE.) - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" O PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE PEGASUS - PPG1010-1 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE TORNADO - PPG1009-4 O METAL PANEL WITH REVEALS AS SHOWN TO BE GRAY STONE - PPG1009-4 WEST ELEVATION - SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3" TOP OF PARAPET 4TH FLOOR 39'-9" 3RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' -- - - - -- - FIRST FLOOR_ 3'-11" TOP OF PARAPET 63'-3" TOP OF PARAPET 5]'-5" 4TH FLOOR 39'-9' RD FLOOR 29'-1" END FLOOR 18"-5' ____---FIRSTFLOOR_ 3'-11" PAGE 13 CPPG1015i5 BE NGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT RACE - AGREYSTONE" GREYSTONE STRIP OPAIN HELIOTROPE 10 BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 OSTEEPLE WALLTBE DGRAYC 11 ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY SHOWCASEWINDOW P6 TO 14 O VISION GLAZING O A CENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMSARCHITECTURAL AMS PS ORANGE 12 MAPES LUMISHADE FRAME/RA CANOPY TO BE PSP UM O 4'6N X 39A2'E(177) SF. BUILDING 2: EAST & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 WARE A PAGE 13 1 TILL— 12 GLASS 3 CMU 14 ISTUCCO PAINT 5 METNL PANEL O6 METNL PANEL STOREFRONT: BLACK ANODIZED 8" SPLIT FACE - PAINTED STUCCO METAL PANEL WITH METAL PANEL WITH BLACK ANODIZED ALUMINUM "CHAMPAGNE" BY WALL TO BE REVEALS AS SHOWN REVEALS AS SHOWN ALUMINUM MULLIONS WITH ANGELUS BLOCK PEGASUS- TO BE TORNADO- TOBEGRAYSTONE- MULLIONS WITH SPANDREL GLAZING WITH GREYSTONE PPG1010-1 PPG1009-4 PPG 1009-4 VISION GLAZING AND STRIPE SLIDING DOORS AT ENTRIES D11-1-1 PAINT PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE HELIOTROPE - PPG1015-5 10 RIBCMU ANGELUS 7 RIB SPLIT FACE - "GREYSTONE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK 13 REYSTONE STRIPE GREYSTONE STRIP WITH 8" SPLIT FACE "CHAMPAGNE" BY ANGELUS BLOCK BUILDING MATERIAL REFERENCE BOARD 18 CTUCCO PAINT PAINTED STUCCO WALL TO BE STEEPLE GRAY- PPG1012-5 11 PAINT MAPES ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE CANOPY TO BE PS ORANGE 14 —Nn SHOWCASE WINDOW VISION GLAZING PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW WARE MALCOMB DAINT ACCENTS SHOWN TO BE SHERWIN WILLIAMS - PS ORANGE 12 PAINT ARCHITECTURAL LUMISHADE FRAME TO BE PS PLUM (PURPLE RAIN PPG) 03.04.2022 PAGE 14 PHASE ONE PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME LOW PLANTING AT THE O- COUNT 32 PARKING LOT ENTRY �X 50'Hx2PW 50'Hx20'W 20'Hx12'W 3o'H—W I SHRUBS I GRASSES: 4 EACH I DFA M I LLEFOD U M BROADLEAFHINESELM) GREEN TREE (CHINESE ELM) STANDARD FLOWERING TREES LOW 1 C. 3'H— '22 (CRAPE MYRTLE) (TULIP TREE) LOW 1 C X — - BACKGROUND SHRUBS ALONG ECALLISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' F I STORMWATER - _ PROPERTVLINE TREATMENT PLANTER Cn TREATMENT PLANTER LOW 5GA LOW 1GA 10'HI0'W 3'H— 54 00 • • LOMANDRALONGIFODA'BREEZE' STORMWATER S Q 04 STORMWATER PLANTERS �O7 LOW 5GA 4'Hs4'W W1 GRASSES AND LOW PLANTING •l �V' z LOW 5GA DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES IN 7 [� O'fF ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA SPRINGTIME NOTE (E) ASTERISK SHOVVIN AT PLANT SPECIES J \ / STORMWATER 9TORMWATER BASINS (MAIDENH AIR TREE) 24 LST \ X — TREATMENT PLANTER i LOW 1GA@, PHASE ONE PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME / — O- COUNT 32 TULPTREE MAI DEV HAI R TREE CRAPE MYRTLE CHI NESE �X 50'Hx2PW 50'Hx20'W 20'Hx12'W 3o'H—W 5 0 5 SHRUBS I GRASSES: 4 EACH I DFA M I LLEFOD U M FLOWERING TREE LOW 1 C. 3'H— '22 O—CCHARS PILUIRIS'—N PEAKS' (TULIP TREE) LOW 1 C X — STORMWATER ECALLISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH LOW 5GA 3'Hs5'W TREATMENT PLANTER 31 TOUGH GRAY RUSH LOW 5GA LOW 1GA 10'HI0'W 3'H— 54 00 • • LOMANDRALONGIFODA'BREEZE' STORMWATER LOW 5GA 3'Hs3'W 04 EM UHLENBERGIA RGENS TREATMENT PLANTER LOW 5GA 4'Hs4'W 42 © NERUM OLEANDER' PETITE PINK' DWARF OLEANDER LOW 5GA 1 3o ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA SPRINGTIME NOTE (E) ASTERISK SHOVVIN AT PLANT SPECIES INDIAN HA—ORN ACCEPTED BY SANTA CLARA WATER BUILDING 1 I x 24 LST I SHORE JUNIPER LOW 1GA@, IL 2,2]2 SF I L — 29 STORM WATER EXISTING TREE CANOPY EXI STINGTREES TREATMENT PLAN TERTTLLF TO BE REMOVED PHASE ONE PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMONNAME WATER USE —COLS SIZE MATURE SIZE COUNT LIRODENDRON TULIPIFERA *GINKGO BILOBA'FAIRMOUNT'(MALE) LAGERSTROEMIA'BILOXI'(STANDARD) ULMUS PARVIFODA TREE GREEN TULPTREE MAI DEV HAI R TREE CRAPE MYRTLE CHI NESE PER 15GA PER 15GA LOW 15GA PER 15GA 50'Hx2PW 50'Hx20'W 20'Hx12'W 3o'H—W 5 0 5 SHRUBS I GRASSES: 4 EACH I DFA M I LLEFOD U M COM M ON YARROW LOW 1 C. 3'H— '22 O—CCHARS PILUIRIS'—N PEAKS' DWARF COYOTE BUSH LOW 1 C 2'H— A3 ECALLISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH LOW 5GA 3'Hs5'W 30 EHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA EJUNCUS PATENS TOUGH GRAY RUSH LOW 5GA LOW 1GA 10'HI0'W 3'H— 54 00 • • LOMANDRALONGIFODA'BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH LOW 5GA 3'Hs3'W 04 EM UHLENBERGIA RGENS DEER GRASS LOW 5GA 4'Hs4'W 42 © NERUM OLEANDER' PETITE PINK' DWARF OLEANDER LOW 5GA 5'Hs0'W 43 ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA SPRINGTIME NOTE (E) ASTERISK SHOVVIN AT PLANT SPECIES INDIAN HA—ORN ACCEPTED BY SANTA CLARA WATER LOW 5GA DISTRICT STORM 5'H— WATER PLANT 24 LST GROUND COVERS: _ JUNIPERUSIONFERTA'BLUE PACIFIC SHORE JUNIPER LOW 1GA@, 30"0G 10"H,GW 2,2]2 SF GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATER -CONSERVING IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A2" LAVER OF GRAVEL MULCH DRESSING. T. concept.. l...... is based upon. prellminaryre�Iew otentitlement requirements .na .� e�iaea .na Po�iery lneomPlete s¢, -/tl b.ILting inft—t— ; .na is lublic StorageIntentletl mereN to assist In exploring 11, the M1111t mlgM be tlevelopetl. Signage =sown is mr. u.staeVe P.rposes onry.na a.er not nece�riry reaeet m.meiP.I sae compliance . au calors snows are for representative P.ryoses .nA RIP11 t. material sampler m�.em.I eolo' —,"Lo' BLDG.T 0 BLDG E BLDG. F [.j BLDG. 2 BLDG. BLDG B1r777D2 Iii77-- - - -- - ---- - ---- - ----II BLDG.V ) BLDG. K2 1 w I c Lj J Q I Ll I z F L I � T lJ ' -- � GRAPH]C SCALE PHASE ONE LANDSCAPE PLAN WARE A PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R A4ALCOMB 03.04.2022 PacE 15 PHASE TWO PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: WATERUSE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME —COLS SIZE MATURE SIZE COUNT LIRIOOENORON TULIOPERA TULIP TREE MED 15 GA 50'Hs20'W 5 %LAGERSTROEMIA *GINKGO BILOBA'FAIRMOUNT'(MALE) MAIDENHAIR TREE MED 15 GA 50'Hx20'W 11 'BILOXI'(STANDARD) CRAPEMYRTLE LOW 15 GA 20'Hx12W 1 UERCUS WSLZENI INTERIORLIVE OAK LOW 15 GA 30'Hx30'W 13 LMUS PARVIFOLIA TREE GREENCHINESE ELM MED 15 GA 30'Hx20'W 10 SHRUBSIGRASSES: •—HILLEA MILLEFOLUM COMMON YARROW LOW 1 G 3'Hx31 BO ®—CCHARI S PILULARIS TMN PEAKS' DWARF COYOTE BUSH LOW 1 C. 2'Hx0'W 200 —LISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH LOW 5 C 3'Hx5'W 100 —TEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOUGH LOW 5 C 10'Hs10'W 03 -NCUS PATENS GRAY RUSH LOW 1 G 3'Hx3'W 207 O LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA' BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH LOW 5 C 3'Hx3'W 203 ® *M UHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS LOW 5 C 4'Hs4'W 137 NERIUM OLEANDER' PETITE PINK' DWARF OLEANDER LOW 5 C 5'Hx0'W 07 ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA' SPRINGTIME' INDIAN HAWTHORN LOW 5 C 5'Hx5'W 47 NOTE (*) ASTERISK SHOAMN AT PLANT SPECIES ACCEPTED BY SANTA CLARA WATER DISTRICT STORMWATER PLANT LST GROUND COVERS: JUNIPERUS CONFERTS, BLUE PACIFIC' SHORE JUNIPER LOW 1GA@30"0 C. 18"HX4B"W 5,507 SF STORM WATER TREATM ENT PLANTER BUILDING 2 STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANTER GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATERCONSERVINGIRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2. ALL PLANTI NG AN EAS SH ALL RECEI VE A 2"LAYER .0F GRAVEL MULCH DRESSING. W OPV TREES IN BASINS (MAIDENHAIR TREE) BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (INTERIOR LIVE OAK) STORM WATER TREATMENT PLPNTER BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (CHINESE ELM) LOW PLANTING AT THE ,PARKING LOT ENTRY 0 PHASE TWO LANDSCAPE PLAN PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW STORMWATER TREATM ENT PLANTER LLI a J LLI LaL z Q LOW PLANTING AT THE E GKA NLF RAPHIC SCALE PARKING LOT ENTRY I 1Y BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (CHINESE ELM) STANDARD FLOWERING TREES 16 (CRAPE MYRTLE) �� BACKGROUND SHRU BS ALONG F S ORMWATER _PROPERTY LINE TREATMENT PLANTER f� �V Q �O7 WI GRASSES AND LOW PLANTING •l �V'7 z w / \ / DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES IN STCRMWATERBASINS(MAIDENHAIRTREE) STORMWATER [� O'fF / % - TREATMENT RANTER i - - Fx L FLOWERING TREE (TULIPTREE) X C/ 4 - _ STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANTER STORMWATER 31 TREATMENT PLANTER _ STORMWATER PLANTER TREATMENT 3o BUILDING 1 x/ 29 I STORMWATER EXISTING TREE CANOPY EXISTING TREES TREATMENT PLANTER T - TO BE REMOVED PHASE TWO PROPOSED PLANT LIST TREES: WATERUSE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME —COLS SIZE MATURE SIZE COUNT LIRIOOENORON TULIOPERA TULIP TREE MED 15 GA 50'Hs20'W 5 %LAGERSTROEMIA *GINKGO BILOBA'FAIRMOUNT'(MALE) MAIDENHAIR TREE MED 15 GA 50'Hx20'W 11 'BILOXI'(STANDARD) CRAPEMYRTLE LOW 15 GA 20'Hx12W 1 UERCUS WSLZENI INTERIORLIVE OAK LOW 15 GA 30'Hx30'W 13 LMUS PARVIFOLIA TREE GREENCHINESE ELM MED 15 GA 30'Hx20'W 10 SHRUBSIGRASSES: •—HILLEA MILLEFOLUM COMMON YARROW LOW 1 G 3'Hx31 BO ®—CCHARI S PILULARIS TMN PEAKS' DWARF COYOTE BUSH LOW 1 C. 2'Hx0'W 200 —LISTEMON'LITTLEJOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH LOW 5 C 3'Hx5'W 100 —TEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOUGH LOW 5 C 10'Hs10'W 03 -NCUS PATENS GRAY RUSH LOW 1 G 3'Hx3'W 207 O LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA' BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH LOW 5 C 3'Hx3'W 203 ® *M UHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS LOW 5 C 4'Hs4'W 137 NERIUM OLEANDER' PETITE PINK' DWARF OLEANDER LOW 5 C 5'Hx0'W 07 ® RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA' SPRINGTIME' INDIAN HAWTHORN LOW 5 C 5'Hx5'W 47 NOTE (*) ASTERISK SHOAMN AT PLANT SPECIES ACCEPTED BY SANTA CLARA WATER DISTRICT STORMWATER PLANT LST GROUND COVERS: JUNIPERUS CONFERTS, BLUE PACIFIC' SHORE JUNIPER LOW 1GA@30"0 C. 18"HX4B"W 5,507 SF STORM WATER TREATM ENT PLANTER BUILDING 2 STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANTER GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATERCONSERVINGIRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2. ALL PLANTI NG AN EAS SH ALL RECEI VE A 2"LAYER .0F GRAVEL MULCH DRESSING. W OPV TREES IN BASINS (MAIDENHAIR TREE) BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (INTERIOR LIVE OAK) STORM WATER TREATMENT PLPNTER BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (CHINESE ELM) LOW PLANTING AT THE ,PARKING LOT ENTRY 0 PHASE TWO LANDSCAPE PLAN PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW STORMWATER TREATM ENT PLANTER LLI a J LLI LaL z Q E GKA NLF RAPHIC SCALE W211\E " CO" 03.04.2022 PAGE 16 URIODENDRON TULIPIFERA GINKGO BILOBA (MALE) LAGERSTROEM IA'BILOXI' (STANDARD) __ i ULMUS PARVIFOLIA SHRUBS: (TULIP TREE) (MAIDENHAIR TREE) CRAPE MYRTLE) (CHINESE ELM) L� N Yt �. YM f F �- AA ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM BACCHARIS PILULARIS'TWIN PEA KS' CALLISTEMON'LITTLE JOHN' HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (COMMON YARROW) (DWARF COYOTE BUSH) (DWARF BOTTLEBUSH) (TOYON) JUNCUS PATENS (GRAY RUSH) �.•f ;7 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA'BREEZE' (MAT RUSH) GROUND COVERS: MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS (DEER GRASS) RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICASPRINGTIME JUNIPERUS CONFERTA'BLUE PACIFIC' (INDIAN HAWTHORN) (SHORE JUNIPER) TM1i...... tal tlesign is based upona preliminary review otentitlement requirements tilic Storageera o� e��aea era po��eN ��eoTplet.Re inUntletl mereN t assist in exploring 11, to project I gM1t be tlevelopetl. Signage .now �. mr uUnae�e pUrpx.�x�Ive'd do...ot ..e�rlN �eaeet TU��o�pel sae compliance. All color..M1mm are Ur ,prerentative purpose. only. Rew t Ta 1-1 _pier m�eetei eom�� , f, t_. NERIUM OLEANDER'PETITE PINK (DWARF OLEANDER) PHASE ONE LANDSCAPE PLAN WARE A PUBLIC STORAGE: MOUNTAIN VIEW `1C y` R MZi ,COMB 03.04.2022 PAG Attachment 6 February 22, 2022 Mr. Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner Planning Division Community Development Department City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Re: Transmittal of Material requested for Study Sessions Public Storage Redevelopment of Existing Facility 1040 Terra Bella Avenue PL2021-170& 171 Dear Mr. Maravilla: As requested, this letter includes information, documents and background related to the direction we are seeking from the EPC and City Council on the following topics: • Approval to move forward with the current design of one 4 story building and one 6 story building in lieu of two 5 story buildings • Support for current architectural design • Land contribution and Community Benefit valuation • Confirmation of Housing fee waiver • Development Agreement basic terms Proiect Background On August 25, 2020, the Mountain View City Council authorized staff to consider the joint application for redevelopment of the Public Storage (PS) self -storage facility and construction of an Alta Housing (AH) affordable housing facility at 1020-1040 Terra Bella Avenue. The project site includes an existing 188,890 SF self -storage facility owned by Public Storage (PS) and a 20,618 SF property owned by Alta Housing (AH). The proposed project would include Public Storage's contribution of a portion of their existing property with a net site area of 24,531 SF to AH. The additional property will allow AH to increase the number of affordable housing units from 56 units to 108 units and to provide a significant community benefit. The land identified for contribution by PS contains valuable frontage on Terra Bella. By facilitating residential development along the street -frontage, PS and AH will help foster a pedestrian -friendly environment within the Terra Bella neighborhood. The PS project would be located behind the AH project and adjacent to the freeway, with the PS project creating an attractive buffer between the freeway effects and the future residents of the AH project. See Attachment 1 for an updated Project Description and Attachment 2 for the existing and proposed site areas. Justification for change in building heights On April 19, 2021, with AH, a joint informal application was submitted for rezoning, a General Plan designation change, a General Plan text amendment as well as individual applications for Planned Community Permits. This informal application and the consequent full application submittal on August 23, 2021, depicted a revised design of one 6 story building and one 4 story building from the gatekeeper reviewed design of two 5 story buildings. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 14- 701 Westem Avenue Glendale CA 92101 publicstorage.com Public Storage Mountain View cont'd On September 23, 2021, PS received staff comments on the full submittal. At that point, meetings with staff were set up to clarify the comments including discussions on the architectural design. On November 11, 2021, a meeting was held with City staff and PS was informed that design of one 6 story building and one 4 story building is different than the originally approved Gatekeeper with two 5 story buildings and that direction from the EPC and City Council would be needed before proceeding. In order to maintain storage units for existing customers and facilitate the land transfer, Public Storage has always proposed that the project would be built in two Phases. Phase I would demolish the existing office and storage buildings on the land to be donated along with a portion of the storage buildings on the remaining property. Building 1 will be constructed on the cleared property, then when Building 1 is fully occupied, and depending on market conditions, the remaining existing storage units will be demolished, and the second new Building 2 constructed. After a detailed study of this process, Public Storage determined that the only option to make the phases economically feasible is to construct a larger six story Building 1 on the west side of the property in Phase I, and a smaller four-story Building 2 on the east side of the property in Phase II, instead of two five story buildings as originally presented at Gatekeeper. This is for several reasons. About two-thirds of the existing eighteen fully occupied self -storage buildings need to be demolished for the land transfer to AH and construction of Building 1. To offset that loss in income to PS and because of site configuration and access available to each portion of the property, Phase I Building 1 was increased in area, and Building 2 in Phase II was consequently reduced in size. As shown below, the total area for the PS project will be slightly smaller and the FAR slightly reduced from the drawings proposed at Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper Current proposal Total building area 441,185 SF 408,964 SF Maximum height of buildings 69' 63'-3" and 84'-7" Number of stories 5 story/ 5 story 4 story/6 story FAR 2.63 2.49 We believe that the revised plan is consistent with the gatekeeper proposal and compatible with the Terra Bella neighborhood. Proiect Architecture During the past year, Public Storage has been working with staff in response to extensive comments on the building architecture. The current proposal has significantly more design features, varied materials, glass, and change in horizontal and vertical projections than the gatekeeper proposal. Although it is a warehouse building with no windows to the interior except at the ground floor retail office, customer lobbies and manager's apartment, the revised architecture will attractively blend with the surrounding industrial, office, and residential buildings. Only one short facade of each building has frontage on a public street. The longest fagade of each building is against the elevated freeway ramp. Please see the drawing package included with this submittal. Although sign approval is not part of Mountain View's entitlement process, signage is an important part of the proposed project for Public Storage. Subsequent to the property transfer, PS will no longer have frontage along Terra Bella Avenue and the new buildings will be located behind the Alta Housing Project. Due to the layout, signs for PS are crucial. Areas for signs have been identified on the buildings. PS will submit a sign application at the appropriate time. Development Agreement Public Storage originally requested approval of a ten-year Development Agreement in order to lengthen 2 Public Storage Mountain View cont'd the entitlement period beyond the allowed entitlement length of two years. The longer time period allows for development of the new self -storage facility in two phases. After entitlement approval, the Phase I six story Building 1 construction documents will be completed and permitted, and the building constructed. Building 1 will become occupied, then the Phase II four story Building 2 construction documents will be completed, permitted and the building constructed, with exact timing based on market conditions. At staff's request, the proposed entitlement length has been shortened from a proposed ten years to seven years. In addition, staff has requested that a public benefit fee be paid to process the Development Agreement. In order to proceed with the project, Public Storage requests confirmation of the basic terms of the Development Agreement. A draft term sheet and sample Development Agreement are included in Attachment 5. Community Benefit and Land Donation Valuation Staff has requested that the community benefits of the project and the land donation valuation be provided in detail. See Attachment 3 for more information. Housing Fee Waiver The Mountain View Municipal Code provides for a waiver of the Housing fee. Please see Attachment 4 for details on how the proposed project is eligible for the waiver. Thank you for your time and consideration reviewing this request for a study session. We are excited about the opportunity to provide new affordable housing and redevelopment in the Terra Bella community and the City of Mountain View. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call or e-mail Bryan Miranda, bmiranda@publicstorage.com, (714) 338-1262 x3158, or Rose Bacinski, Bacinski & Associates, (760)757-7673. Sincerely, 1 Bryan Miranda, Regional Vice President Public Storage Enclosures Attachment 1: Public Storage Project Description Attachment 2: Land exchange Attachment 3: Land Donation background valuation Attachment 4: Housing Impact fee waiver eligibility Attachment 5: Draft Development Agreement Term Sheet and sample agreement Cc: Stephanie Williams, City of Mountain View Rebecca Shapiro, City of Mountain View Ellis M. Berns, E Berns Consulting, LLC Rose Bacinski, Bacinski & Associates Public Storage Mountain View cont'd Attachment 1 Public Storage Proiect Description Revised 2.10.22 Summary Alta Housing (AH) and Public Storage (PS) own adjacent properties on Terra Bella Avenue and have agreed to a property transfer to facilitate more robust residential and industrial development. PS currently owns approximately 4.3 Acres and AH owns approximately .5 AC. PS has agreed to transfer approximately .5 acres of land to AH, which will result in an increase in affordable housing units from fifty-six units to 108 units that provide a significant community benefit. PS plans to demolish the existing eighteen single story storage buildings totaling 77,418 SF and redevelop the remaining 3.77 AC personal storage facility. The project will include construction of two buildings (six and four stories) totaling 408,964 SF in two phases, approximately sixty-three and eighty-five feet in height, with all new site improvements and landscaping. The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of the completed project (Phase I and Il) would be approximately 2.49. This property transfer between PS and AH will help foster a pedestrian friendly environment within the Terra Bell neighborhood. The PS project will be located behind the AH project and adjacent to the freeway with the PS project creating an attractive aesthetic and noise buffer between the freeway and the future residents of the AH project. These benefits cannot be achieved through the current property configuration, only through this unique collaborative venture proposed by AH and PS. PS Existing Facility The proposed project includes redevelopment of an existing, 188,890 SF, four and one-third acre, Public Storage facility built in 1982. The existing self -storage facility includes 77,418 SF in eighteen single story drive -up buildings including a rental office. Current access to the property, including the rental office, is on Terra Bella Avenue. An emergency only access is located on Linda Vista Avenue. All the existing buildings and site improvements will remain occupied until building permits are issued. The site currently has two employees, including one onsite manager. The rental office is open Mon -Fri 9:30am to 6:00pm and Sat -Sun 9:30am to 5:00pm. Customer access hours are Mon -Sun 6:00am to 9:00pm. The existing facility is well maintained and managed, and provides self -storage services, primarily to the residents and businesses of Mountain View. Public Storage will continue to own and operate this property for the long term and is interested in a significant reinvestment in this location that would modernize and improve the self -storage product offering. Proposed Proiect The 101 freeway runs along the entire north side of the proposed PS project, San Rafael drive is to the east, and the new Alta Housing project will be to the south of Building 2. Various industrial uses are adjacent to the west side of Building 1 and the south side of Building 2. Linda Vista Avenue runs along the west side of Building 1. After PS transfers over 20,000 S.F. of land area to AH, the PS property will be reduced to 164,396 SF(3.77 AC). The proposed PS project consists of two self -storage buildings to be constructed in two Phases. Phase I will include Building 1, on the west portion of the property. It is a six -story, approximately 285,012 SF building including a new approximately 1,000 SF rental office. Access to the new building will be from Linda Vista Avenue. Approximately 52,610 SF of the existing single story 4 Public Storage Mountain View cont'd self -storage buildings will be demolished to make room for Phase 1 and to clear the land to be transferred to Alta Housing. The remaining self -storage buildings on the east side (Phase 2) of the property will remain and be occupied by the existing tenants. During construction of Phase 1 the existing units will be accessed from San Rafael Avenue and after Phase 1 is open the entire facility will be accessed from Linda Vista Avenue where the new rental office is located. Phase II will include demolition of the remaining 24,808 SF of existing self -storage units and construction of Building 2 on the east side of the property. Building 2 will be four stories and approximately 123,952 SF. Phase II construction will begin one to three years after Phase I is complete. This will allow time to fully occupy Building 1 (Phase 1). The total proposed building area after both phases are complete will be 408,964 SF. However, if market conditions change, and the demand for storage declines, it is possible that PS may not build Phase II. A new locked, trash/recycling enclosure will be located adjacent to Building 1 that will accommodate trash for both Building 1 and eventually Building 2. The trash and recycling bins are only available to Public Storage office staff. Customers are required to remove their own debris from the facility. Since the existing PS rental office is located on the property that will be transferred to AH, a temporary office trailer will be erected on PS property near the San Rafael Avenue entrance while Building 1 is being constructed. The temporary office trailer will be removed as soon as Building 1 is approved for occupancy. AH will provide an apartment within the affordable housing project for the PS on-site manager to replace the manager's unit that is being demolished. If AH funding sources will not allow a unit to be occupied by the PS on-site manager, the PS drawings currently include an 800 SF manager's apartment in Building 1. If the apartment in Building 1 is not needed, this area will be constructed as self -storage units. PS Operations Customers will access the new buildings and their storage spaces through secured lobbies in each building, using an individual key code. At completion of the project, all the storage units in the new buildings will be internally accessed and climate controlled, to better serve customers in Mountain View. Customers will visit the rental office to inquire about rental space, pay rent, or purchase packing supplies such as boxes or tape. The proposed rental office hours are 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and customer access hours will be from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. Once Phase I and II are completed, one to four employees per shift will staff the facility. Based on market conditions, the office and customer hours may be revised after opening. Parking At completion of both Phases, PS will provide total of 75 parking spaces. PS is seeking a parking reduction of 134 spaces. This reduction is based on the operation and experience of other PS facilities in the area as well as previous PS parking studies. Parking is available adjacent to the rental office, and additional parking spaces and loading areas will be located adjacent to each of the customer lobbies. Zoning The site and all the adjacent properties are zoned MM — General Industrial. PS and AH are seeking a rezoning of the entire site to P (Planned Community), a General Plan designation change for the housing site to High Density Residential (36 to 80 dwelling units per acre), a Lot Line Adjustment, and a General Public Storage Mountain View cont'd Plan text amendment to allow greater industrial intensity under the General Industrial designation. Desien and Sustainabilitv The new buildings have a contemporary architectural design and will include various exterior materials, including plaster, split face CMU, showcase windows, spandrel glass, metal panels and storefront glass. Vertical and horizontal changes in the building massing as well as color and material changes will visually break up the building facades. Public Storage projects are energy efficient and will meet or exceed the City of Mountain View Green Building standards and the CalGreen code, as well as be LEED Certified. All PS climate -controlled projects are only heated if interior temperatures reach approximately 55 F and cooled only when interior temperatures reach approximately 85F. All the interior lights, except for emergency lights, are operated via motion detector, so are completely off most of the time. A minimum of 50% of the roof of the buildings will include solar panels. Benefits In addition to the contribution of approximately .5 acres to AH, we believe this redevelopment will provide several near-term and long-term benefits to the community. Public Storage requires very little in the way of public services, creates no school impacts, and would not affect the jobs/housing ratio of the city. Public Storage provides an ideal buffer between the freeway and the proposed affordable housing project as well as other surrounding uses. The design and use are appropriate for this property, are complimentary to the neighborhood, adjoining uses, and the Terra Bella community. The PS project also provides construction jobs and will significantly increase property taxes. Public Storage has experienced significant growing demand for storage services in the community. With the residential and commercial projects currently being contemplated and processed at the City of Mountain View, we anticipate the demand will continue to increase. Public Storage believes they are best suited to meet this increased need with this proposed modern, safe, and secure storage facility. 0 ATTACHMENT 2 - LAND EXCHANGE LANDS OF STORAGE EQUITIES, INC. DEED DOC. NO. 7393508 APN: 153-015-030 115,906± SQ. FT. 2.66± ACRES 1040 TERRA BELLA AVENUE LEGEND PROPERTY LINE SQ. FT. SQUARE FEET NOTE: LAND INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT IS BASED ON TWO SEPARATE ALTAS: • THE ALTA FOR 1040 TERRA BELLA AVENUE PREPARED BY BKF ENGINEERS DATED 12/24/2019. • THE ALTA FOR 1020 TERRA BELLA AVENUE PREPARED BY LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING DATED 05/22/2017. LANDS ( EQUI" DEED DOC. APN: 1: 72,982 1.68: I 1040 TERRA APN: 153-015-021 �I 20,618± SQ. FT. 0.47± ACRES 1020 TERRA BELLA AVENUE I TERRA BELLA AVENUE I K:\2019\191341_Mt_View_Terra_Bella\ENG\EXHIBITS\03 Easement Study\1040TB_ExhB_8.5x11.dwg W Z W > a J W LLL Z N EXHIBIT "A" BOUNDARY EXHIBIT 1730 N. FIRST STREET Subject LAND SWAP PLAN SUITE 600 1040 TERRA BELLA AVENUE SAN JOSE, CA 95112 Job No, 20191341 BKF 408-467-9100 By JH Date 04 16 2021Chkd. TN ENGINEERS . SURVEYORS. PLANNERS www•bkf.com SHEET 1 OF 3 LU Z LU L L r— N > L D Z J 0 0 II "wry \ I LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED — m TRANSFER PARCEL TO AH LJJ 32,805± SQ. FT. 0.75± ACRES t 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE AFTER ADJUSTMENT LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED AH ALTA HOUSING PS PUBLIC STORAGE SQ. FT. SQUARE FEET NOTE: LAND INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT IS BASED ON TWO SEPARATE ALTAS: • THE ALTA FOR 1040 TERRA BELLA AVENUE PREPARED BY BKF ENGINEERS DATED 12/24/2019. • THE ALTA FOR 1020 TERRA BELLA AVENUE PREPARED BY LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING DATED 05/22/2017. i I TRANSFER PARCEL TO PS 8,274± SQ. FT. 0.19± ACRES LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED I NEW LOT LINE TERRA BELLA AVENUE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT DATA* LOT REF. EXISTING AREA ADJUSTED AREA DELTA AH PARCEL 20,618± SQ. FT. 45,180± SQ. FT. +24,562± SQ. F- PS PARCEL 188,890± SQ. FT. 164,396± SQ. FT. -24,494± SQ. F' LU n 2 LU L J LU LLL Ix Z N *NOTE: THERE IS A 35± SQ. FT. DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT ALTA'S USED. EXHIBIT "B" K:\2019\191341_Mt—View_Terra_Bella\ENG\EXHIBITS\03 Easement Study\1040TB_ExhC_8.5x11.dwg LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT EXHIBIT O+1730 R SSAN IYOEARS ENGINEERS . SURVEYORS. PLANNERS N. FIRST STREET SUITE 600 JOSE, CA 95112 408-467-9100 www•bkf.com Subject Job No, By JH LAND SWAP PLAN 1040 TERRA BELLA AVENUE 20191341 Date 04 16 2021 Chkd . TN SHEET 2 OF 3 id "wry \ LEGEND AH PS SQ. FT PROPERTY LINE ALTA HOUSING PUBLIC STORAGE SQUARE FEET ADJUSTED PARCEL (PS) 164,396± SQ. FT. I 3.77± ACRES ADJUSTED PARCEL (AH) 45,180± SQ. FT. 1.04± ACRES TERRA BELLA AVENUE I y —L—� 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET K:\2019\191341_Mt_View_Terra_Bella\ENG\EXHIBITS\03 Easement Study\1040TB_ExhD_8.5x11.dwg W M 2 LU Q J W Q LL Q Z N EXHIBIT "C" AFTER LAND DONATION O+1730 R SSAN IYOEARS ENGINEERS . SURVEYORS. PLANNERS N. FIRST STREET SUITE 600 JOSE, CA 95112 408-467-9100 www•bkf.com Subject Job No, By JB LAND SWAP PLAN 1040 TERRA BELLA AVENUE 20191341 Date 04 16 2021 hkd. PC SHEET 3 OF 3 Attachment 3 Land Contribution and Community Benefit valuation from Public Storage to ALTA Housing for Redevelopment of 1040 Terra Bella Valuation As of March 8, 2022 Public Storage (PS) is proposing to transfer .56 net AC (24,531 SF) of land to ALTA Housing (AH) as a Community Benefit for the project. Following is a revised estimate of the Community Benefit value of the land contribution. In conclusion, it is estimated that the total value of the land contribution as a community benefit is valued at approximately $10.2 M. COMMUNITY BENEITS In the original Gatekeeper letter, March 2, 2020, the PS donation of land was valued at $9 million. We recently reviewed that value and determined that the current Community Benefit value is closer to a total of $10.2 million. This value is based on comparable land sales between 2017- 2022 in Mountain View and Palo Alto that ranged in size from .367 AC to 2.53 AC and value from $315/sq. ft to $490/sq. ft. which resulted in an estimated value of $415/s.f. for Medium to High Density Multifamily residential development. PS is seeking an increase in the FAR from .56 to 2.49 FAR. To achieve this higher FAR, projects may propose community benefits that are proportional to the project's building square footage in excess of the Base FAR as allowed by the City Council. One of the allowed community benefits is the provision of affordable housing. PS contribution of .56 AC of land to AH will allow them to add an additional 54 units to the project. In addition, following are other community benefits of this contribution for consideration: • Achieves one of the City's goals to offer a variety of housing types at varying income levels • Doubles the number of AH affordable housing units from 54 to approximately 108 units. An increase of 54 additional units. • Creates a 100% affordable, family housing community with one, two- and three- bedroom units. • Improves layout, quality, and design of the affordable housing project. • PS is prepared to relinquish frontage on Terra Bella and place their project behind the AH project. This proposed layout buffers the AH project from the freeway and creates a more pedestrian friendly environment on Terra Bella Avenue. • PS has one manager residential unit that would be incorporated into the AH project. • Increase in number of bedrooms from 101 to approximately 220. • Increase in the number of extremely low- and low-income individuals housed from less than 150 to over 320. PUBLIC STORAGE Trusted nationwide since 1977" 701 Western Avenue Glendale CA 92101 publicstorage.com 10 Public Storage Mountain View cont'd Attachment 4 Housing impact fee waiver eliiibility Rev 2.11.22 PS is seeking a Housing Fee Waiver pursuant to City Code Section 36.40.65 (d)(3) "Commercial and industrial development: Housing Impact Fee Program — Adjustment, reduction or waiver." If the nonresidential development project is constructed for a specific use involving no employees or fewer than one (1) employee per two thousand (2, 000) square feet of gross floor area, the project may be eligible for a waiver of the fees. To be eligible for a waiver, the building must be designed and built such that it cannot be converted to a use capable of housing a larger number of employees except by major reconstruction. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant. If a waiver is granted, a "notice of conditional waiver of housing impact fee"shall be recorded in the Santa Clara County Office of the Recorder. If a subsequent change in the use or structure of the building occurs which involves additional employees, the waiver granted herein shall be deemed revoked, subject to a hearing before the zoning administrator, who shall make a recommendation on the revocation to the city council. The decision of the city council shall be final. Mountain View Municipal Code, Section 36.40.65(d)(3) Currently the existing self -storage facility has been in operation since 1982 and includes 77,418 SF in eighteen single story drive -up buildings including a rental office. The site currently has two employees, including a manager living onsite. The existing facility provides self -storage services, primarily to the residents and businesses of Mountain View. Public Storage will continue to own and operate this property for the long term and is planning to make a significant reinvestment in this location that would modernize and improve the self -storage product offering. The proposed redevelopment of the PS site at 1040 Terra Bella for Phases I and II includes 408,964 SF of building area. The proposed project will have two to four employees including one manager that will either live in an apartment in the adjacent Alta Housing project or onsite in an apartment provided by Public Storage. The increase in employees at the site due to the proposed project will be zero to two. The number of employees is significantly below the waiver threshold of one employee per two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area. Further, the PS buildings are highly specialized and only designed as a storage facility. The building will not have any windows to the interior except at the first -floor rental office, customer lobbies, and manager's apartment. All windows on the upper floors will be spandrel glass or showcase windows only. The building will include utilities only for a few single occupancy restrooms, limited HVAC, motion detection lighting, and no natural gas. It will not have infrastructure or facilities that are capable of being converted to a facility of another use that could house a larger number of employees unless the project is completely reconstructed. In addition, as part of the proposed project, PS is donating land in order to construct affordable housing. PS understands that if a waiver is granted a "notice of conditional waiver of housing impact fee" shall be recorded in the Santa Clara County Office of the Recorder. Thank you for considering this request for a Housing Fee Waiver. 11 Public Storage Mountain View cont'd Attachment 5 Public Storage Development Agreement Term Sheet and Sample Agreement Revised 2.22.22 • Example Agreement - 600 Ellis Street Project (February 12, 2021) with SI 33, LLC (attached). • Parties: City of Mountain View ("City") and Storage Equities, Inc, a California corporation ("PS") (see title report). • Property: 4.3 acres with a street address of 1040 Terra Bella Avenue, Mountain View, CA see title report). • Project: PS proposes to redevelop the Property with a new 4 to 6 story self-service storage facility (the "PS Project). The PS Project is currently anticipated to be developed in two phases, the northwest portion of the property will be Phase I and the southeast portion will be Phase IL It is anticipated that Phase I will consist of the development of a structure consisting of approximately 285,012 gross square feet of space, and the Phase II will consist of the development of a structure consisting of an additional approximately 123,952 gross square feet of space. Affordable Housing Land Contribution: As part of the PS Project, PS intends to process a lot line adjustment (the "PS LLA") that will enable PS to convey to Alta Housing, a California nonprofit corporation ("Alta") an approximately 24,531 square foot portion of the PS Property (the "PS Contribution Parcel"). The conveyance of the PS Contribution Parcel to Alta will allow AH to increase the number of affordable housing units Alta can develop on its property (located at 1020 Terra Bella) from 56 to approximately 108 units ("Alta Affordable Housing Project"), while also buffering such affordable housing units from US Highway 101 with the reconfigured parcel of land owned by PS and the new PS Project. • Public Benefit Fee. $1.54/SF for gross building area, paid within 20 days of entitlement approval including appeal period. • Entitlements: It is anticipated that the applications for the PS Project and the Alta Affordable Housing Project will be submitted separately but reviewed and considered concurrently with a joint analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act. It is anticipated that the following entitlements will be required for the PS Project, in addition to CEQA: (1) General Plan amendment, (2) Planned Development/rezoning, (3) Planned Community Permit, (4) Development Review Permit, (5) Tree Removal Permit, and (6) PS LLA. • Term: In order to provide sufficient certainty to commit to the PS LLA and allow for the completion of both phases, PS requests a 7 -year term. • Vesting. In order to provide sufficient certainty to commit to the PS LLA and allow for the completion of both phases, PS requests vesting of the Entitlements for the full term, under substantially similar terms as the 600 Ellis DA. 12 Public Storage Mountain View cont'd Fees. To allow for budgeting certainty to support the PS LLA, PS requests that no new fees (or other exactions) apply after the Effective Date, but PS is willing to pay the rate of existing fees at the rate in effect as of the date of the building permit. Other Provisions. With the exception of the necessary changes to the parry, property and project information, the terms above - and the deletion of the TDR and East Whisman fee provisions - PS accepts and requests the general format and terms in the 600 Ellis Development Agreement. • Legal Counsel. PS understands it is the City's standard procedure to retain outside counsel to draft and finalize the Development Agreement. PS's counsel for negotiation would be Tamsen Plume with Holland & Knight who assisted with the review of the 600 Ellis Development Agreement (tamsen.plumekhklaw.com) Attachment. 600 Ellis Development Agreement 13 Public Storage sample development agreement FIMIAmedcontitle k umnoe Company Escrow Recording Requested by and Please Return to: City Clerk City of Mountain View P.O. Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 This Instrument Benefits City Only. No Fee Required. Gov. C. 27383 MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG "This document was electronically submitted to Santa Clara County for recording" 25003505 Regina Alcomendras Santa Clara County - Clerk -Recorder 06/22/2021 10:39 AM Titles:1 Pages:36 Fees: $0.00 Tax: $'0 Total: $0.00 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND SI 33, LLC FOR THE 600 ELLIS STREET AND 636 ELLIS STREET PROJECT February 12, 2021 DOC #25003505 Page 2 of 36 ARTICLE I PROPERTY AND TERM.......................................................................5 1.1 Property Subject to the Development Agreement.....................................5 1.2 Term of Development Agreement and Effective Date ..............................5 1.3 Expiration Date................................................................................................5 ARTICLE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY...............................................5 2.1 Project Development......................................................................................5 6.1 2.2 Right to Develop.............................................................................................5 6.2 2.3 Subsequent Approvals...................................................................................6 6.3 2.4 Permitted Uses.................................................................................................6 2.5 Development Timing and Restrictions........................................................6 2.6 Development Fees, Assessments, Exactions, and Dedications ................8 2.7 Mitigation Measures and Conditions...........................................................9 2.8 Applicable Codes............................................................................................9 2.9 Floor Area Ratio............................................................................................10 ARTICLE III PUBLIC BENEFITS...............................................................................10 3.1 Public Benefit to be Provided by Owner...................................................10 ARTICLE IV OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES....................................................12 4.1 Owner.............................................................................................................12 4.2 City..................................................................................................................12 ARTICLE V DEFAULT, REMEDIES, TERMINATION.........................................13 5.1 Remedies for Breach.....................................................................................13 5.2 Notice of Breach............................................................................................13 5.3 Applicable Law.............................................................................................14 ARTICLE VI ANNUAL REVIEW, PERMITTED DELAYS, AND MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 4- AMENDMENTS...................................................................................14 6.1 Annual Review..............................................................................................14 6.2 Changes in State or Federal Law................................................................14 6.3 Permitted Delays...........................................................................................14 6.4 Certain Waivers.............................................................................................15 6.5 Life Safety and Related Matters..................................................................16 6.6 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws................16 6.7 Amendment by Mutual Consent................................................................16 6.8 City Costs for Review...................................................................................16 6.9 Minor Amendments.....................................................................................16 6.10 Amendment of Approvals...........................................................................17 6.11 Alternative Approvals..................................................................................18 6.12 Cancellation by Mutual Consent................................................................18 MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 4- DOC #25003505 Page 3 of 36 ARTICLE VII COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION..................................18 7.1 Cooperation...................................................................................................18 7.2 City Processing..............................................................................................18 7.3 Other Governmental Permits......................................................................19 ARTICLE VIII TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS.................................................19 8.1 Transfers and Assignments.........................................................................19 8.2 Covenants Run with the Land....................................................................19 ARTICLE IX MORTGAGE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE ........ 20 9.1 Mortgage Protection.....................................................................................20 9.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated............................................................................20 9.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee...................................................................21 ARTICLE X GENERAL PROVISIONS....................................................................21 10.1 Project is a Private Undertaking..............................................................21 10.2 Intentionally Omitted................................................................................21 10.3 Notices, Demands, and Communications between the Parties ..........21 10.4 No Joint Venture or Partnership..............................................................22 10.5 Severability..................................................................................................22 10.6 Section Headings........................................................................................22 10.7 Entire Agreement.......................................................................................22 10.8 Estoppel Certificate....................................................................................23 10.9 Statement of Intention...............................................................................23 10.10 Indemnification and Hold Harmless......................................................23 10.11 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge ....... 24 10.12 Intentionally Omitted................................................................................25 10.13 Recordation.................................................................................................25 10.14 No Waiver of Police Powers or Rights....................................................25 10.15 City Representations and Warranties.....................................................25 10.16 Owner Representations and Warranties................................................26 10.17 Counterparts...............................................................................................26 10.18 Waivers........................................................................................................26 10.19 Time is of the Essence................................................................................27 10.20 Venue...........................................................................................................27 10.21 Surviving Provisions.................................................................................27 10.22 Construction of Agreement......................................................................27 EXHIBIT A —Legal Description EXHIBIT B —Property Diagram MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG -ii- DOC #25003505 Page 4'of 36 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND SI 33, LLC THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Development Agreement") is made and entered into this 12th day of February 2021, by and between the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a California charter city and municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"), and SI 33, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Owner"), pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. RECITALS A. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted Sections 65864, et seq., of the Government Code ("Development Agreement Legislation'), which authorizes City and any person holding a legal or equitable interest in the subject real property to enter into a Development Agreement, establishing certain development rights in the property, which is the subject of the development project application. B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, City has adopted procedures and requirements for consideration of Development Agreements, Section 36.54 of the Mountain View City Code ("City Code"). This Development Agreement has been processed, considered, and executed in accordance with such procedures and requirements. C. Owner has a legal interest in certain real property located in City consisting of approximately 4.45 acres and commonly known as 600 Ellis Street and 636 Ellis Street (collectively, the "Property"), which Property is described in the attached Exhibit A, and shown on the map attached as Exhibit B. D. Owner desires to redevelop the Property by demolishing two (2) existing one (1) and two (2) story buildings (sixty-three thousand two hundred sixteen (63,216) square feet total) located at 600 Ellis Street and building one (1) new office building and associated parking structure in the vacated areas of the Property (the "Project"). The new office building ("Building") will be six (6) stories and will contain approximately two hundred fifty-nine thousand ninety-five (259,095) square feet of new office space. The parking structure will be seven (7) stories (eight (8) total parking levels) providing approximately six hundred ninety-eight (698) parking spaces in addition to forty-five (45) surface parking spaces (seven hundred forty-three (743) total). The existing two (2) story, fourteen thousand six hundred twelve (14,612) square foot building at 636 Ellis Street will remain. The completed Project (including the existing building at 636 Ellis Street) will have approximately two hundred seventy-four thousand two hundred seven (274,207) MN/6/CDD 813-1.0-28-20AG 1 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 5 of 36 square feet of floor area. After taking into account subtraction of the sixty-three thousand two hundred sixteen (63,216) square feet of floor area of the demolished buildings, the Project will result in a net increase in floor area of approximately one hundred ninety- five thousand eight hundred seventy-nine (195,879) square feet. E. The Property is located within the East Whisman Change Area under the City's 2030 General Plan (the "General Plan"), which was adopted on July 10, 2012 by Resolution No. 17710, and the area subject to the East Whisman Precise Plan (the "Precise Plan") adopted November 5, 2019 by Resolution No. 18395_. Under the General Plan, the Property is designated "High -Intensity Office," and, under the Precise Plan, the Property is designated a "High Intensity" subarea within the "Employment Character Area (North),", which allows development at a floor area ratio ("FAR") of up to 1.0 for projects with measures for highly sustainable development consistent with City's Zoning Ordinance or Precise Plan standards. As of the date of this Development Agreement, City anticipates that, in connection with the Precise Plan, it will consider whether to authorize a new development impact fee that would apply to new development within the Precise Plan Area as a means of financing infrastructure improvements that may be necessary to support future growth within the area as called for in the General Plan. F. Within the time set forth herein, Owner will also purchase eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of Transfer of Development Rights ("TDRs") from the Los Altos Unified School District ("LASD") to help support the LASD and City's development of a new school site and shared park facilities in the San Antonio planning area. This will provide for Ten Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($10,400,000) in new funds for the LASD project ("TDR Payment"). With the TDRs, the Project will be allowed to exceed the 1.0 FAR by an additional eighty thousand (80,000) square feet. G. Prior to or concurrently with approval of this Development Agreement, City has taken several actions to review and plan for the future development of the Project. These actions include the following: 1. Initial Study of Environmental Significance. The potential environmental impacts of the Project have properly been reviewed and evaluated by City pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. Pursuant to CEQA and in accordance with the recommendation of the City's Environmental Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission"), the City Council approved an Initial Study of Environmental Significance for the 600 Ellis Street Project ("Consistency Checklist") confirming that the environmental effects of the Project were adequately evaluated and covered by the East Whisman Area Precise Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 20177082051) (the "EIR"), and all significant impacts of the project with implementation of the East Whisman Precis Plan standards and guidelines, State regulations, and mitigation measures identified in the East Whisman Precise Plan Program EIR, the 2030 General Plan, and Greenhouse Gas MN/6/CDD 813-1.0-28-20AG 2 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 6 of 36 Reduction Program EIR, and City standard conditions of approval will not result in any new environmental impacts beyond those evaluated in the EIR. 2. Planned Communi1y Permit. Following review and recommendation by the Planting Commission, and after a duly noticed public hearing and certification of the Consistency Checklist, the City Council, on November 17, 2020, approved a Planned Community Permit pursuant to Section 36.50.30 of the City Code by Resolution No. 18523 (the "Planned Community Permit"). 3. Heritage Tree Removal Permit. Following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, and after a duly noticed public hearing and certification of the Consistency Checklist, the City Council on November 17, 2020, approved a Heritage Tree Removal Permit for the removal of twenty-three (23) Heritage trees from the Property by Resolution No. 18523 (the "Heritage Tree Removal Permit"). 4. Development Review Permit. Following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, and after a duly noticed public hearing and certification of the Consistency Checklist, the City Council, on November 17, 2020, approved a Development Review Permit for the Project by Resolution No. 18523 (the "Development Review Permit"). The approvals described in this Recital G are collectively referred to as the "Existing Approvals." The Existing Approvals, together with any Subsequent Approvals, are referred to herein collectively as the "Approvals." H. City is desirous of encouraging quality economic growth and expanding its employment base within City, thereby advancing the interests of its citizens, taken as a whole. City has determined that the Project complies with the plans and policies set forth in the General Plan and Precise Plan. I. A primary purpose of this Development Agreement is to assure that the Project can proceed without disruption caused by a change in City's planning policies and requirements following the Approvals and to ensure that the community benefits Owner committing to provide in connection with development of the Project are timely delivered. Owner also desires the flexibility to develop the Project in response to the market, which is uncertain due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to ensure that the Approvals remain valid over the projected development period. J. City has determined that, by entering into this Development Agreement, City is receiving assurances of orderly growth and quality development in the Project area in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan and Precise Plan, and City will receive certain community benefits. MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 3 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 7 of 36 K. City will receive a public benefit fee in the amount of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) to be paid to City by Owner within twenty (20) days of the receipt by Owner of a copy of this Development Agreement duly authorized and executed on behalf of City. Additional public benefits set forth in the Approvals and this Development Agreement are described in Section 3.1. Owner recognizes it is being afforded greater latitude concerning long-term assurances for development of the Project in exchange for agreeing to contribute greater public benefits than could otherwise be required as part of the requirements imposed for the Approvals and does so freely and with full knowledge and consent. City will further benefit from an increase in the likelihood that the public benefits which are reflected in the conditions to the Approvals will be realized by City because this Development Agreement will increase the likelihood that the Project will be completed pursuant to the Approvals. L. For the reasons stated herein, among others, City and Owner have determined that the Project is a development for which a development agreement is appropriate. This Development Agreement will, in turn, eliminate uncertainty in planning for and securing orderly development of the Project. City has also determined that the Project presents public benefits and opportunities and will strengthen City's economic base with high- quality, long-term jobs, in addition to shorter -term construction jobs; generate revenues for City in the form of one-time and annual fees, taxes, and other fiscal benefits; promote high-quality design and development; enhance the use of transit; and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Legislation was adopted. M. The terms and conditions of this Development Agreement have undergone extensive review by City staff, the Zoning Administrator, and the City Council at publicly noticed meetings and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable. N. City has given notice of its intention to adopt this Development Agreement, conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code Section 65867, and the City Council hereby finds that: (1) the provisions of this Development Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the General Plan, the Precise Plan, Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code (the "Zoning Ordinance"), and CEQA; (2) the Project and this Development Agreement are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the General Plan and Precise Plan land use districts in which the Property is located; (3) this Development Agreement complies in all respects with City's Ordinance No. 9.00, as adopted effective May 1, 2000 (the "Development Agreement Ordinance"); (4) this Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community; (5) this Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values; (6) this Development Agreement would facilitate the development of the Property in the manner proposed and is needed by the Owner due to the timing constraints on the redevelopment of the Property; (7) the proposed development should be encouraged in order to meet important economic, social, environmental, or planning goals of City; MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 4 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 8 of 36 (8) Owner has made commitments to a high standard of quality; (9) this Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice; and (10) this Development Agreement is advantageous to, and benefits, City. O. Following a duly noticed public hearing, this Development Agreement was approved by the City Council of City by Ordinance No. 14-20, which was introduced on November 17, 2020 and finally adopted on December 8, 2020 and became effective thirty (30) days thereafter, and was duly executed by the parties as of January 8, 2021. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Owner agree as follows: ARTICLE I—PROPERTY AND TERM 1.1 Property Subject to the Development Agreement. All of the Property shall be subject to this Development Agreement. Owner agrees that all persons holding legal or equitable title in the Property shall be bound by this Development Agreement. 1.2 Term of Development Agreement and Effective Date. The term of this Development Agreement ("Term") shall commence upon the effective date of the ordinance approving this Development Agreement ("Effective Date"), and, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms hereof, shall continue in full force and effect until the "Expiration Date" (as defined in Section 1.3 below) (subject to extension as provided in Section 6.3(b)). 1.3 Expiration Date. Except as otherwise provided in Section 6.3(b), the Term of this Development Agreement shall expire on the seventh (7th) anniversary of the Effective Date (the "Expiration Date"). ARTICLE II—DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 2.1 Project Development. Development of the Project will be governed by the Approvals and this Development Agreement. City acknowledges the timing of the completion of development of the Project is subject to market forces, and Owner shall have no liability whatsoever if the contemplated development of the Project fails to occur. 2.2 Right to Develop. Owner shall have the vested right to develop the Project in accordance with and subject to: (a) the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and the Approvals and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Development Agreement; and (b) the Existing Standards (as defined in Section 2.5(b)). Nothing contained herein shall restrict City's discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny amendments or changes to the MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 5 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 9 of 36 Approvals proposed by Owner. Except as is expressly provided otherwise in this Development Agreement, no future modifications of the following shall apply to the Project: (a) the General Plan or Precise Plan; (b) the City Code; (c) applicable laws and standards adopted by the City which purport to: (i) limit the use, subdivision, development density, design, parking ratio or plan, schedule of development of the Property or the Project; or (ii) impose new dedications, improvements, other exactions, design features, or moratoria upon development, occupancy, or use of the Property or the Project; or (d) any other Existing Standards. 2.3 Subsequent Approvals. Certain subsequent land use approvals, entitlements, and permits other than the Existing Approvals, will be necessary or desirable for implementation of the Project ("Subsequent Approvals"). The Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation, the following: amendments of the Approvals, grading permits, building permits, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. The conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for such Subsequent Approvals shall be in accordance with the Existing Standards (except as otherwise provided in Sections 2.5(c) and 2.9) and shall not prevent development of the Property for the uses provided under the Approvals, the Existing Standards, and this Development Agreement ("Permitted Uses"), or reduce the density and intensity of development, or limit the rate or timing of development set forth in this Development Agreement, as long as Owner is not in default under this Development Agreement. Any subsequent discretionary action or discretionary approval initiated by Owner that is not otherwise permitted by or contemplated in the Approvals or which changes the uses, intensity, density, or building height or decreases the lot area, setbacks, parking, or other entitlements permitted on the Property shall be subject to the rules, regulations, ordinances, and official policies of the City then in effect, and City reserves full and complete discretion with respect to any findings to be made in connection therewith. 2.4 Permitted Uses. The Permitted Uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the installation, location, and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, the installation and location of public utilities, and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property shall be those set forth in this Development Agreement, the Approvals, and any amendments to this Development Agreement or the Approvals made in accordance with this Development Agreement and shall be considered vested for the Term. 2.5 Development Timing and Restrictions. (a) The parties acknowledge that Owner cannot at this time predict when, or the rate at which, the Project would be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not all within the control of Owner. It is the intent of City MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 6 of 28 DOC #25003505 Pagel 0 of 36 and Owner that, notwithstanding any future amendment to the General Plan, the Precise Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or any other ordinance, policy, plan, rule, or procedure of City or any other of the Existing Standards or the adoption of any ordinance, policy, plan, rule, or procedure (whether amended or adopted by means of an ordinance, City Charter amendment, initiative, resolution, policy, order, or moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and adopted by the City Council, Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or any other board, commission, or department of the City or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate by referendum or initiative), Owner, subject to the terms of this Development Agreement, shall have the right to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole and subjective business judgment. Such right is consistent with, and necessary to, the purpose and understanding of the parties to this Development Agreement, and that, without such a right, Owners development of the Project would be subject to the uncertainties sought to be avoided by the Development Agreement Legislation and this Development Agreement. (b) Development of the Property shall be subject to all, and only, the standards in the General Plan, the Precise Plan, the City Code, the zoning classification and standards, and other rules, regulations, ordinances, and official policies applicable to the Project on the Effective Date (collectively, the "Existing Standards"), as of the Effective Date, except as otherwise provided herein. If and to the extent any changes in the Existing Standards (whether adopted by means of an ordinance, City Charter amendment, initiative, resolution, policy, order, or moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and adopted by the City Council, Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or any other Board, Commission, or department of the City or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate by referendum or initiative) are in conflict with the Approvals, the Existing Standards, or the provisions of this Development Agreement, then the Approvals, the Existing Standards, and the provisions of this Development Agreement shall prevail, except as otherwise specified herein. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, the parties agree the time limits for completion of off-site improvements as specified in the City's standard improvement agreement shall govern. (c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Development Agreement, the following "New City Standards" shall apply to development of the Property: (i) New City Standards that relate to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matter of procedure imposed at any time, provided such New City Standards are uniformly applied on a Citywide or East Whisman planning areawide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties, and such procedures MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 7 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 11 of 36 are not inconsistent with procedures set forth in the Approvals or this Development Agreement; (ii) Other New City Standards that are determined by City to be reasonably required in order to protect occupants of the Project, and/or residents of City, from a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both, as further described in Section 6.5; (iii) Other New City Standards that do not conflict with the Existing Standards, this Development Agreement or the Approvals, provided such New City Standards are uniformly applied on a Citywide or East Whisman planning areawide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties; and (iv) Other New City Standards that do not apply to the Property and/or the Project due to the limitations set forth above, but only to the extent that such New City Standards are accepted in writing by Owner in its sole discretion. To the extent one (1) or more New City Standards apply to the Property and/or Project in accordance with the terms set forth above, the Existing Standards shall be deemed modified to include such New City Standards. (d) If any governmental entity or agency other than City passes any State or Federal law or regulation after the Effective Date which prevents or precludes compliance with one (1) or more provisions of this Development Agreement or requires changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by the City notwithstanding the existence of this Development Agreement, then the provisions of this Development Agreement shall, to the extent feasible, be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such new law or regulation. Immediately after enactment of any such new law or regulation, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of any such modification or suspension based on the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Development Agreement. In addition, Owner shall have the right to challenge the new law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement, and, to the extent such challenge is successful, this Development Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect; provided, however, that Owner shall not develop the Project in a manner clearly inconsistent with a new law or regulation applicable to the Project and adopted by any governmental entity or agency other than City or any entity affiliated with City, except to the extent that enforcement of such law or regulation is stayed or such law or regulation is repealed or declared unenforceable or such law or regulation is not applicable to projects as to which a development agreement has been executed. 2.6 Development Fees, Assessments, Exactions, and Dedications. Owner shall pay all applicable City fees, including processing fees, impact fees, and water and sewer MN/6/CDD 81.3-1.0-28-20AG 8 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 12 of 36 connection and capacity charges and fees; assessments; dedication formulae; and taxes payable in connection with the development, build -out, occupancy, and use of the Project that apply uniformly to all similar developments in the City (or in the case of the East Whisman Impact Fees, the Precise Plan area) at the rates in effect at the time Owner applies for a building permit approval in connection with the Project (regardless of whether such fees, assessments, dedication formulae or taxes became effective before, on or after the Effective Date); provided, however, that Owner shall not be required to pay any East Whisman Impact Fees (defined in Section 3.1 below) adopted for new development within the Precise Plan Area at a rate in excess of the amount set forth in Section 3.1(c)(iii). Owner shall be subject to all increases in fees established by City from time to time during the Term and that generally apply to all developments of the same type in City. No new fee, assessment, exaction, or required dedication policy not in effect on the date on which Owner has applied for approval of a building permit for development subject to this Development Agreement shall be imposed on the Project unless it is imposed uniformly on all substantially similar types of development either Citywide or East Whisman planning areawide and is not limited in fact to the Project. If any building permit lapses after issuance and the permit can be renewed or reissued under the City Code, the fees in effect at the time of renewal or reissuance shall apply. 2.7 Mitigation Measures and Conditions. If Owner constructs the Project, Owner shall satisfy and comply with the Mitigation Measures as set forth in the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as well as all Conditions of Approval for the Project, which are incorporated in this Development Agreement by reference. Owner's obligations under this Section 2.7 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement. 2.8 Applicable Codes. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Development Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the California Building Code, City's Green Building Code, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Mountain View, City standard construction specifications, and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to building standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project. The Project will require a City Excavation Permit(s) for any infrastructure improvements in City's right-of-way or City easements. Such improvements will be constructed in accordance with the latest version in effect at the start of construction of such infrastructure, including, but not limited to, the Standard Provisions of the City of Mountain View, the Standard Details of the City of Mountain View, the Standard Specifications of the Department of Transportation of the State of California (Caltrans) dated 2018 and subsequent updates to that 2018 edition, the Standard Plans of the Department of Transportation of the State of California (Caltrans) dated 2018 and subsequent updates to that 2018 edition, the latest version of the California Manual of MN/6/CDD 81.3-10-28-20AG 9 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 13 of 36 Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the Project Improvement Plans prepared by the Project's Engineer(s) and as approved by the City Engineer. The Project shall apply for a Caltrans Encroachment Permit for all work within Caltrans' jurisdiction, if any. Any work within the State right-of-way must be in accordance with Caltrans requirements. The Project shall apply for the appropriate Encroachment Permit (or as otherwise required by City of Sunnyvale) with the City of Sunnyvale for all work within the City of Sunnyvale's jurisdiction. Work within the City of Sunnyvale right-of-way must be in accordance with City of Sunnyvale requirements. 2.9 Floor Area Ratio. Consistent with the Approvals for the Term of this Development Agreement, Owner has the vested right to develop the Project at a FAR of up to 1.0 plus an additional 80,000 square feet of development authorized by the TDRs to be acquired by Owner from LASD as provided in Section 3.1(b) below. ARTICLE III—PUBLIC BENEFITS 3.1 Public Benefit to be Provided by Owner. In consideration of providing certainty in the approval of the Project and greater assurance that, once approved, the Project can be built, and as authorized by the Development Agreement Legislation, Owner shall provide City with the following public benefits: (a) Public Benefit Fee. Owner shall pay a public benefit fee in the amount of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) (the "Public Benefit Fee") to City within twenty (20) days of the receipt by Owner of a copy of this Development Agreement authorized and executed on behalf of City. If Owner fails to pay such Public Benefit Fee, this Development Agreement will automatically terminate, which shall be the sole remedy of City with respect to such failure. The Public Benefit Fee shall be retained by City regardless of whether Owner opts to proceed with development of the Project. (b) Purchase of TDRs from LASD. Owner acknowledges and agrees that Owner's purchase of TDRs from LASD is anticipated to generate revenue, and LASD will need to pay a portion of the costs of LASD and City's planned development of a new school site and shared park facilities in the San Antonio planning area. Accordingly, Owner shall complete its purchase of eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of TDRs from LASD by paying the TDR Payment to LASD on or before the second (2nd) anniversary of the Effective Date. If Owner fails to pay such TDR Payment to LASD, this Development Agreement will automatically terminate, which shall be the sole remedy of City with respect to such failure. Owner acknowledges that City has not made any representation or warranty as to the availability of such TDRs from LASD, and Owner assumes all risk in connection therewith. MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 10 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 14 of 36 (c) Future East Whisman Development Impact Fees. Although City has not yet adopted a development impact fee ordinance for the Precise Plan Area, covering such items as transportation and infrastructure impact fees applicable to development projects in the Precise Plan Area (collectively, the "East Whisman Impact Fees"), the parties agree that it is appropriate for Owner to pay its fair share of any such fees that may be adopted in the future by City, subject to the limitations set forth in subparagraph (c)(i) below. (i) Subject to adjustment as hereinafter set forth, for the net new square footage created on the Property prior to the adoption of an ordinance establishing a rate for the East Whisman Impact Fees, Owner agrees to pay to City a negotiated fee in an amount equal to the product of the PSF East Whisman Fee Amount (defined below) multiplied by the net new square footage of the Building that is the subject of the building permit. Such fee shall be payable at the time a building permit is issued for any building on the Property. The "PSF East Whisman Fee Amount" shall initially be Sixteen Dollars and Sixty -One Cents ($16.61); provided, however, such PSF East Whisman Fee Amount shall be subject to annual escalation during the Term based on increases in the ENR Index. "ENR Index" means the Construction Cost Index for San Francisco, as published from time to time by the Engineering News Record. As used in this Development Agreement, "net new square footage" means the additional square footage of floor area in the new building or buildings after subtracting the floor area of the buildings at 600 Ellis Street that have previously been demolished (sixty-three thousand two hundred sixteen (63,216) square feet of floor area). For purposes of illustration only, if Owner obtains a building permit for a new building in the first year of the Term and the new building has two hundred fifty-nine thousand ninety-five (259,095) square feet of floor area, the fee pursuant to this subsection would be determined after crediting the full amount of the floor area of the 600 Ellis Street buildings that have been demolished (a total of sixty-three thousand two hundred sixteen (63,216) square feet) against the new floor area for a total of one hundred ninety-five thousand eight hundred seventy-nine (195,879) net new square feet. At the rate of Sixteen Dollars and Sixty -One Cents ($16.61) per net new square foot, the fee would be Three Million Two Hundred Fifty -Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars and Nineteen Cents ($3,253,550.19), (Sixteen Dollars and Sixty -One Cents ($16.61) per square foot times one hundred ninety-five thousand eight hundred seventy-nine (195,879) net new square feet). For purposes of illustration only, the parties agree that if the maximum net new square footage for the entire Project is one hundred ninety-five thousand eight hundred seventy-nine (195,879) square feet and Owner obtains a building permit for all such development in the first year of the Term, and if City has not adopted an ordinance establishing a rate for the East Whisman Impact Fees, the maximum amount to be paid pursuant to this Section at the time the building permit is issued for the Project would be the amount noted above, which amount will be subject to potential reduction and refund pursuant to subsections (ii) and (iii) below. MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 11 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 15 of 36 (ii) Upon adoption of an ordinance establishing a rate for the East Whisman Impact Fees, the parties agree that if the aggregate rate for the East Whisman Impact Fees is less than Sixteen Dollars and Sixty -One Cents ($16.61) per net new square foot, then City shall refund to Owner the excess amounts, if any, previously paid by Owner within thirty (30) days after the effective date of such ordinance. The amount of the refund shall be determined by applying the following formula: the credit shall equal the total net new square footage of the new building(s) multiplied by the difference of Sixteen Dollars and Sixty -One Cents ($16.61) minus the rate of the East Whisman Impact Fees as established by the ordinance. Any refund shall be made within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the ordinance. (iii) For any new building permits issued after the effective date of a City ordinance establishing a rate for the East Whisman Impact Fees, Owner will be required to pay the East Whisman Impact Fees at the rates set forth in the ordinance (including any escalations); provided, however, Owner shall not be required to pay East Whisman Impact Fees adopted for new development within the Precise Plan Area at a per net new square foot rate that exceeds the PSF East Whisman Fee Amount in effect from time to time. (iv) In addition to any other remedies provided for by this Development Agreement, the failure of Owner to timely pay any applicable fees pursuant to this Section shall be grounds for City to refuse issuance of a building permit, and, if a building permit has nevertheless been issued, City may refuse issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for such building. ARTICLE IV —OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES 4.1 Owner. (a) Development in Conformance with Agreements and Approvals. In consideration of City entering into this Development Agreement, Owner has agreed that development of the Project during the Term of this Development Agreement shall be in conformance with all of the terms, covenants, and requirements of this Development Agreement and the Approvals, as they may each be hereafter amended with the consent of City and Owner in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6.6, 6.7, 6.9, or 6.10. 4.2 Com. (a) City's Good Faith in Proceedings. As further provided in Section 2.3, in consideration of Owner entering into this Development Agreement, City agrees that it will accept, process, and review in good faith and in a timely manner all applications related to the Project for environmental and design review, demolition, grading, and MN/6/CDD 813-1.0-28-20AG 12 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 16 of 36 building permits, or other permits or entitlements for use of the Property, in accordance with the terms and spirit of this Development Agreement. (b) Additional Approvals. City shall cooperate with Owner, at Owner's expense, in Owner's endeavors to obtain any other permits and approvals as may be required from other governmental or quasi -governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project as set forth in Section 7.3. ARTICLE V —DEFAULT, REMEDIES, TERMINATION 5.1 Remedies for Breach. City and Owner acknowledge that the purpose of this Development Agreement is to carry out the parties' objectives and local, regional, and Statewide objectives by developing the Project. The parties acknowledge that City would not have entered into this Development Agreement had it been exposed to damage claims from Owner for any breach thereof. As such, the parties agree that in no event shall Owner be entitled to recover any actual, consequential, punitive, or other monetary damages against City for breach of this Development Agreement. Therefore, City and Owner agree that, in the event of a breach of this Development Agreement, each of the parties hereto may pursue the following: (a) specific performance; (b) suits for declaratory or injunctive relief; (c) suits for mandamus or special writs; or (d) cancellation of this Development Agreement. In addition to the foregoing remedies, City shall be entitled to recover monetary damages with respect to monetary amounts payable by Owner under this Development Agreement. All of the above remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one (1) or more of these remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. 5.2 Notice of Breach. (a) Prior to the initiation of any action for relief specified in Section 5.1 above because of an alleged breach of this Development Agreement, the party claiming breach shall deliver to the other party a written notice of breach (a "Notice of Breach"). The Notice of Breach shall specify with reasonable particularity the reasons for the allegation of breach and the manner in which the alleged breach may be satisfactorily cured. (b) The breaching party shall cure the breach within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Notice of Breach; provided, however, if the nature of the alleged breach is nonmonetary and such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter at the earliest practicable date shall be deemed to be a cure, provided that if the cure is not so diligently prosecuted to completion, then no additional cure period shall be required to be provided. If the alleged failure is cured within the time provided above, then no default shall exist, and the MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 13 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 17 of 36 noticing party shall take no further action to exercise any remedies available hereunder. If the alleged failure is not cured, then a default shall exist under this Development Agreement and the nondefaulting party may exercise any of the remedies available under this Development Agreement. (c) If, in the determination of the alleged breaching party, such event does not constitute a breach of this Development Agreement, the party to which the Notice of Breach is directed, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice of Breach, shall deliver to the party giving the Notice of Breach a notice (a "Compliance Notice') which sets forth with reasonable particularity the reasons that a breach has not occurred. 5.3 Applicable Law. This Development Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California without reference to its choice of laws rules. ARTICLE VI—ANNUAL REVIEW, PERMITTED DELAYS, AND AMENDMENTS 6.1 Annual Review. The annual review required by California Government Code Section 65865.1 shall be conducted pursuant to City Code Section 36.54.30 by the Community Development Director every twelve (12) months from the Effective Date for compliance with the provisions hereof. The Community Development Director shall notify Owner in writing of any evidence which the Community Development Director deems reasonably required from Owner in order to demonstrate good -faith compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement. Such annual review provision supplements, and does not replace, the provisions of Section 5.2 above whereby either City or Owner may, at any time, assert matters which either party believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Development Agreement by delivering a written Notice of Breach and following the procedures set forth in said Section 5.2. Owner shall pay City's actual costs for its performance of the Annual Review, including staff time if and to the extent that more than two (2) hours of staff time is required to perform the annual review. 6.2 Changes in State or Federal Law. In the event changes in State or Federal laws or regulations substantially interfere with Owner's ability to carry out the Project, as the Project has been approved, or with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Development Agreement, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith to consider mutually acceptable modifications to such obligations to allow the Project to proceed as planned to the extent practicable. 6.3 Permitted Delays. (a) Force Majeure. Subject to the limitations set forth below, the time within which either party shall be required to perform any act under this Agreement shall be MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 14 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 18 of 36 extended by a period of time equal to the number of days during which performance of such act is delayed unavoidably and beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking the delay by strikes, lockouts, and other labor difficulties; Acts of God; unusually severe weather, but only to the extent that such weather or its effects (including, without limitation, dry -out time) result in delays that cumulatively exceed twenty (20) days for any winter season occurring after commencement of construction of the Project; failure or inability to secure materials or labor by reason of priority or similar regulations or order of any governmental or regulatory body; changes in local, State, or Federal laws or regulations; any development moratorium or any action of other public agencies that regulate land use, development, or the provision of services that prevents, prohibits, or delays construction of the Project; enemy action; civil disturbances; wars; terrorist acts; fire; unavoidable casualties; or mediation, arbitration, litigation, or other administrative or judicial proceeding involving the Existing Approvals or this Agreement (each a "Force Majeure Delay"), provided that, except as otherwise provided in Section 6.3(b) below, the Term shall not be extended by reason of any Force Majeure Delay. An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the Force Majeure Delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice (as defined in Section 10.3) by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within sixty (60) days of the commencement of the cause. If notice is sent after such sixty (60) day period, then the extension shall commence to run no sooner than sixty (60) days prior to the giving of such notice. Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the mutual agreement of the City Manager and Owner. Owner's inability or failure to obtain financing shall not be deemed to be a cause outside the reasonable control of the Owner and shall not be the basis for a Force Majeure Delay. (b) Extension of Term Due to Moratoria. In the event of any publicly declared moratorium or other interruption in the issuance of permits, approvals, agreements to provide utilities or services or other rights or entitlements by any State, local, or Federal governmental agency, or public utility which could postpone the construction of improvements at the Project, the Term of this Development Agreement shall be extended without further act of the parties by a period equal to the duration of any such moratorium or interruption; provided, however, the total Term extension under this Section 6.3(b) shall not exceed a total of two (2) years. Nothing in this Section is intended, however, to confer on City or any related agency any right to impose any such moratorium or interruption. 6.4 Certain Waivers. City shall have the right to waive or reduce the burden of provisions of the Approvals as they apply to any portion of the Property, with the consent of the Owner of such portion, so long as: (a) the waiver, reduction, or revision does not conflict with the land uses or improvements that are the subject of the Approvals (or any permit or approval granted thereunder); (b) such reduction or waiver does not increase the burden imposed upon a portion of the Property owned by any other owner; (c) the waiver, reduction, or revision is not inconsistent with the purpose and goals of the MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 15 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 19 of 36 General Plan or Precise Plan; and (d) such waiver or reduction is made with the written consent of the Owner of the portion of the Project as to which such waiver or reduction is granted. 6.5 Life Safety and Related Matters. As provided in Section 2.9, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prevent adoption and application to improvements upon the Property of laws, ordinances, uniform codes, rules, or regulations pertaining to or imposing life -safety, fire protection, environmental, energy or resource efficiency, mechanical, electrical, and/or building integrity requirements at the time permits for construction of such improvements are issued. This Section 6.5 is not intended to be used for purposes of general welfare or to limit the intensity of development or use of the Property but to protect and recognize the authority of the City to deal with material endangerments to persons on the Property not adequately addressed in the Approvals. 6.6 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Development Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one (1) or more provisions of this Development Agreement or require changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by City, such modifications shall be governed by the provisions of Section 2.5(c) above. Any such amendment or suspension of this Development Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with the City Code and this Development Agreement and by Owner. 6.7 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Development Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of City and Owner, subject to approval by the City Council (except as otherwise provided in Section 6.9), and in accordance with the procedures of State law and the City Code. 6.8 City Costs for Review. During the Term of this Development Agreement, Owner shall promptly reimburse City for costs incurred by City to have its staff, consultant, or outside counsel review, approve, or issue assignments, estoppel certificates, transfers, amendments to this Development Agreement, and the like. Owner's obligations under this Section 6.8 shall survive expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement. 6.9 Minor Amendments. (a) The parties acknowledge that the provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between City and Owner, and, during the course of implementing this Development Agreement and developing the Project, refinements and clarifications of this Development Agreement may become appropriate and desired with respect to the details of performance of City and Owner. If, and when, from time to time, during the Term of this Development Agreement, City and Owner MN/6/CDD 813-1.0-28-20AG 16 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 20 of 36 agree that such a refinement is necessary or appropriate, City and Owner shall effectuate such refinement through a minor amendment or operating memorandum (the "Operating Memorandum") approved in writing by City and Owner, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as an addendum and become a part hereof. Any Operating Memorandum may be further refined from time to time as necessary with future approval by City and Owner. No Operating Memorandum shall constitute an amendment to this Development Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6.7, and by way of illustration but not limitation of the above criteria for an Operating Memorandum, any refinement of this Development Agreement which does not affect: (a) the Term of the Development Agreement as provided in Section 1.2; (b) the right to develop, and Permitted Uses of, the Property as provided in this Development Agreement; (c) the general location of on-site and off-site improvements; (d) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (f) monetary contributions by Owner as provided in this Development Agreement, shall be deemed suitable for an Operating Memorandum and shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Zoning Administrator or the City Council before the parties may execute the Operating Memorandum; provided, that such amendment shall first be approved by Owner and the Community Development Director (or if the City does not then have a Community Development Director, then by the holder of the position which includes the majority of the planning responsibilities held, as of the date of this Development Agreement, by the Community Development Director); and provided further, that the Community Development Director (or substitute) in consultation with the City Attorney shall make the determination on behalf of City whether a requested refinement may be effectuated pursuant to this Section 6.9 or whether the requested refinement is of such a character to constitute an amendment hereof pursuant to Section 6.7. The Community Development Director (or substitute) shall be authorized to execute any Operating Memoranda hereunder on behalf of City. Minor modifications to the Project as to the location, operational design, or requirements for maintenance of improvements shall be suitable for treatment through Operating Memoranda subject to the provisions of this Section 6.9, and not "major modifications' subject to the provisions of Section 6.7. 6.10 Amendment of Approvals. Approval of any major modifications to the Project or Approvals requires City Council approval and the approval of Owner. Any of the following amendments to Approvals shall be deemed a "major modification' and shall require an amendment of this Development Agreement: (a) the term of the Development Agreement as provided in Section 1.2; (b) the right to develop, and Permitted Uses of, the Property as provided in this Development Agreement; (c) the general location of on-site and off-site improvements; (d) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (f) monetary contributions by Owner as provided in this Development Agreement. Such amendment MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 17 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 21 of 36 shall be limited to those provisions of this Development Agreement, which are implicated by the amendment of the Approvals. Any other amendment of the Approvals shall not require amendment of this Development Agreement unless the amendment of the Approvals relates specifically to some provision of this Development Agreement. 6.11 Alternative Approvals. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Development Agreement, Owner may apply for, and City may thereafter review and grant, in accordance with applicable law, amendments or modifications to the Approvals or other approvals ("Alternative Approvals") for the development of the Property in a manner other than that described in the Approvals. The issuance of any Alternative Approval which approves a change in the Permitted Uses, density, or intensity of use, height, or size of buildings, provisions, for reservation and dedication of land, conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements relating to subsequent discretionary actions, monetary contributions by Owner, or in any other matter set forth in this Development Agreement, shall not require or constitute an amendment to this Development Agreement, unless Owner and City desire that such Alternative Approvals also be vested pursuant to this Development Agreement. If this Development Agreement is not so amended, it shall continue in effect unamended, although Owner shall also be entitled to develop the Property in accordance with the Alternative Approvals granted by City, without such permits and approvals being vested hereby. 6.12 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Development Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of City and Owner or their successors -in -interest, in accordance with the provisions of the City Code. Any fees paid pursuant to this Development Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by City, and any sums then due and owing to City shall be paid as part of the cancellation. ARTICLE VII—COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 7.1 Cooperation. It is the parties' express intent to cooperate with one another and to diligently work to implement all land use and building approvals for development of the Project in accordance with the terms hereof. City will not use its discretionary authority in considering any application for a Subsequent Approval to change the policy decisions reflected by this Development Agreement or otherwise to prevent or delay development of the Project. 7.2 City Processing. (a) By City. The City shall cooperate with Owner in a reasonable and expeditious manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated by applicable statutes or ordinances, to complete, at Owner's expense, all steps necessary for implementation of this Development Agreement and development of the Project in accordance herewith, MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 18 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 22 of 36 including, without limitation, in performing the following functions to process the Project: (i) Scheduling all required public hearings by the City Council, Planning Commission, Subdivision Committee, and Zoning Administrator in accordance with the City Council's regularly established meeting schedule for these bodies; and (ii) Processing and checking all maps, plans, land use permits, building plans and specifications, and other plans relating to development of the Project filed by Owner or its nominees. (b) By Owner. When Owner elects to proceed with construction of the Project or any part thereof, Owner, in a timely manner, shall provide City with all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder, and Owner shall cause its planners, engineers, and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all necessary materials and documents. 7.3 Other Governmental Permits. Owner shall apply prior to the expiration of the Term of this Development Agreement for approvals which may be required from other governmental or quasi -governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project. City shall cooperate reasonably with Owner in its endeavors to obtain such permits and approvals at no cost to City. If, pursuant to the Existing Standards, such cooperation by City requires the approval of the City Council, such approval cannot be predetermined because decisions are made by a majority vote of the City Council. ARTICLE VIII—TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS 8.1 Transfers and Assignments. Owner may assign this Development Agreement with the express written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. Owner may assign this Development Agreement in whole or in part as to the Property, in connection with any sale, transfer, or conveyance thereof, and upon the express written assignment by Owner and assumption by the assignee by an assignment and assumption agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to City, and the conveyance of Owner's interest in the Property related thereto. Upon execution of an assignment and assumption agreement, Owner shall be released from any further liability or obligation hereunder related to the portion of the Property so conveyed and the assignee shall be deemed to be the "Owner," with all rights and obligations related thereto, with respect to such conveyed property. 8.2 Covenants Run with the Land. All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 19 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 23 of 36 merger, consolidation, or otherwise), and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all of the persons or entities acquiring the Property or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, including foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise), and assigns. All of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any City -owned property: (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such property; (b) runs with such properties; (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and each person or entity having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such properties, or any portion thereof; and (d) shall benefit each property hereunder, and each other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such properties. ARTICLE IX—MORTGAGE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE 9.1 Mortgage Protection. This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Development Agreement, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage'). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 9.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to construct or complete the construction of improvements or to guarantee such construction or completion; provided, however, a Mortgagee shall not be entitled pursuant to this Development Agreement to devote the Property toany uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Development Agreement or otherwise under the Approvals. Nothing in this Section 9.2 shall prevent or impair the right of any Mortgagee to apply to City for the approval of entitlements to construct other or different improvements than the Project, although this Development Agreement shall not be construed to obligate City to approve such applications, and City retains full and complete discretion with respect to consideration of any such applications for approval. MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 20 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 24 of 36 9.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Owner hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Owner, any Notice of Breach given to Owner with respect to any claim by City that Owner has committed an event of default, and, if City makes a determination of noncompliance hereunder, City shall likewise serve notice of such noncompliance on such Mortgagee concurrently with service thereon on Owner. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Owner to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City's Notice of Breach. ARTICLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 10.1 Project is a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties that the development contemplated by this Development Agreement is a private development, that City has no interest in or responsibility for or duty to third persons concerning any of said improvements, and that Owner shall have full power over the exclusive control of the Property herein described subject only to the limitations and obligations of Owner under this Development Agreement. 10.2 Intentionally Omitted. 10.3 Notices, Demands, and Communications between the Parties. Formal written notices, demands, correspondence, and communications between City and Owner will be sufficiently given if dispatched by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or overnight courier, to the offices of the City and Owner indicated below. Such written notices, demands, correspondence, and communications may be sent in the same manner to such persons and addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section: City: City Manager's Office — City of Mountain View Attn: City Manager 500 Castro Street P.O. Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 With a copy to: Office of the City Attorney Attn: City Attorney City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street P.O. Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 21 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 25 of 36 And to: Community Development Department Attn: Community Development Director City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street P.O. Box 7540 Mountain View, CA 94039-7540 Owner: SI 33, LLC Attn: Tim Steele c/o The Sobrato Organization 599 Castro Street, Suite 400 Mountain View, CA 94041 With a copy to: Holland & Knight Attn: Tamsen Plume 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Notices delivered by deposit in the United States mail as provided above shall be deemed to have been served forty-eight (48) hours after the date of deposit or if sent via overnight courier on the next business day. 10.4 No Joint Venture or Partnership. Nothing contained in this Development Agreement or in any document executed in connection with this Development Agreement shall be construed as making City and Owner joint venturers or partners. 10.5 Severability. Except as otherwise provided herein, if any provision of this Development Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Development Agreement shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties. 10.6 Section Headings. Article and Section headings in this Development Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Development Agreement. 10.7 Entire Agreement. This Development Agreement, including the Recitals and the Attachments to this Development Agreement which are each incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. The Attachments are as follows: Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B Property Diagram MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 22 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 26 of 36 10.8 Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party: (a) this Development Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties; (b) this Development Agreement has not been amended or modified orally or in writing, and, if so amended, identifying the amendments; (c) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults; and (d) any other matter reasonably requested by the requesting party. The party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate or give a written, detailed response explaining why it is not obligated to do so within twenty (20) business days following the receipt thereof. Either the City Manager or the Community Development Director of City shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by Owner hereunder. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees. 10.9 Statement of Intention. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development and controlling the parties' agreement, it is the intent of City and Owner to hereby acknowledge and provide for the right of Owner to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole and subjective business judgment, subject to the terms of this Development Agreement. City acknowledges that such a right is consistent with the intent, purpose, and understanding of the parties to this Development Agreement, and that without such a right, Owner's development of the Project would be subject to the uncertainties sought to be avoided by the Development Agreement Legislation and this Development Agreement. 10.10 Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Owner shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, contractors, agents, and representatives (individually, a "City Party," and, collectively, "City Parties") from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs (collectively, "Claims"), including Claims for any bodily injury, death, or property damage, resulting directly or indirectly from the development, construction, or operation of the Project and, if applicable, from failure to comply with the terms of this Development Agreement, and/or from any other acts or omissions of Owner under this Development Agreement, whether such acts or omissions are by Owner or any of Owner's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees; provided that Owner's obligation to indemnify and hold harmless (but not Owner's duty to defend) shall be limited (and shall not apply) to the extent such Claims are found to arise from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of a City Party. This Section 10.10 includes any and all present and future Claims arising out of or in any way connected MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 23 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 27 of 36 with Owner's or its contractors' obligations to comply with any applicable State Labor Code requirements and implementing regulations of the Department of Industrial Relations pertaining to "public works' (collectively, "Prevailing Wage Laws"), including all claims that may be made by contractors, subcontractors, or other third -party claimants pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1726 and 1781. Owner's obligations under this Section 10.10 shall survive expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement. 10.11 Defense and Cooperation in the Event of a Litigation Challenge. (a) City and Owner shall cooperate in the defense of any claim, action, or court proceeding instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official seeking to attack, set aside, void, annul, or otherwise challenge City's consideration and/or approval of this Development Agreement or the Approvals or challenging the validity of any provision of this Development Agreement or the Approvals ("Litigation Challenge"), and the parties shall keep each other informed of all developments relating to such defense, subject only to confidentiality requirements that may prevent the communication of such information. Owner shall take the lead role defending such Litigation Challenge and may elect to be represented by the legal counsel of its choice, subject to City's right to approve counsel, with the costs of such representation, including Owner's administrative, legal, and court costs, paid solely by Owner. City may elect to retain separate counsel to monitor Owner's defense of the Litigation Challenge at Owner's expense. The parties shall affirmatively cooperate in defending the Litigation Challenge and shall execute a joint defense and confidentiality agreement in order to share and protect information under the joint defense privilege recognized under applicable law. (b) Owner shall indemnify, defend, release and hold harmless City Parties from and against any damages, attorneys' fees, or cost awards, including attorneys' fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against City by way of judgment, settlement, or stipulation, and any costs, expenses, reasonable attorneys' fees, or expert witness fees that may be asserted or incurred by the City Parties, including, but not limited to, those arising out of or in connection with approval of this Development Agreement or the Approvals. Any proposed settlement of a Litigation Challenge shall be subject to City's and Owner's approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. If the terms of the proposed settlement would constitute an amendment or modification of this Development Agreement or any Approvals, the settlement shall not become effective unless such amendment or modification is approved by City and Owner in accordance with applicable law, and City reserves its full legislative discretion with respect to any such City approval. If Owner elects not to contest or defend such Litigation Challenge, City shall have no obligation to do so, but Owner shall be liable for any costs or awards that may arise from resolving the Litigation Challenge in favor of the party bringing the Litigation Challenge, including, but not limited to, costs the City incurs to void approval of this Development Agreement MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 24 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 28 of 36 or the Approvals or take other action as resolution of the Litigation Challenge may direct. Owner shall reimburse City for its costs incurred in connection with the Litigation Challenge within thirty (30) days following City's written demand therefor, which may be made from time to time during the course of such litigation. Owner's obligations under this Section 10.11 shall survive expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement. 10.12 Intentionally Omitted. 10.13 Recordation. Promptly after the Effective Date of this Development Agreement, the City Clerk shall have this Development Agreement recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California. If the parties to this Development Agreement or their successors in interest amend or cancel this Development Agreement as hereinabove provided, or if City terminates or modifies this Development Agreement as hereinabove provided, the City Clerk shall record such amendment, cancellation, or termination instrument in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California. 10.14 No Waiver of Police Powers or Rights. In no event shall this Development Agreement be construed to limit in any way City's rights, powers, or authority under the police power and other powers of City to regulate or take any action in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. 10.15 Ci!y Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Owner that, as of the Effective Date: (a) City is a California charter city and municipal corporation and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of City under this Development Agreement. (b) The execution and delivery of this Development Agreement and the performance of the obligations of City hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary City Council action, and all necessary City approvals have been obtained. (c) This Development Agreement is a valid obligation of City and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. During the Term of this Development Agreement, City shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause of any of the warranties and representations in this Section 10.15 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to Owner. MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 25 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 29 of 36 10.16 Owner Representations and Warranties. Owner represents and warrants to City that, as of the Effective Date: (a) Owner is duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California, and is in good standing, and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to own property interests and in all other respects enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of Owner under this Development Agreement. (b) The execution and delivery of this Development Agreement and the performance of the obligations of Owner hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action and all necessary corporate authorizations have been obtained. (c) This Development Agreement is a valid obligation of Owner and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. (d) Owner has not: (i) made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (ii) filed any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary petition by Owner's creditors; (iii) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all, or substantially all, of Owner's assets; (iv) suffered the attachment or other judicial seizure of all, or substantially all, of Owner's assets; or (v) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they come due. During the Term of this Development Agreement, Owner shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause any of the warranties and representations in this Section 10.16 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to City. 10.17 Counterparts. This Development Agreement may be executed in one (1) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 10.18 Waivers. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Development Agreement, any failures or delays by any party in asserting any of its rights and remedies under this Development Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any such rights or remedies or deprive any such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies. A party may specifically and expressly waive in writing any condition or breach of this Development Agreement by the other party, but no such waiver shall constitute a further or continuing waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision. Consent by one party to any act or failure to act by the other party shall not be deemed to imply consent or waiver of the necessity of obtaining such consent for the same or similar acts or failures to act in the future. MN/6/CDD 813-1.0-28-20AG 26 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 30 of 36 10.19 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Development Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof. All references to time in this Development Agreement shall refer to the time in effect in the State of California. 10.20 Venue. Any legal action regarding this Development Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, California, except for actions that include claims in which the Federal District Court for the Northern District of the State of California has original jurisdiction, in which case the Northern District of the State of California shall be the proper venue. 10.21 Surviving Provisions. In the event this Development Agreement is terminated, neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder, except for those obligations of Owner which by their terms survive expiration or termination hereof, including, but not limited to, those obligations set forth in Sections 2.8, 6.8, 10.10, and 10.11. 10.22 Construction of Agreement. All parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Development Agreement, and this Development Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Development Agreement. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (c) "shall," "will," or "agrees" are mandatory, and "may" is permissive; (d) "or" is not exclusive; (e) "includes" and "including" are not limiting; and (f) "days" means calendar days unless specifically provided otherwise. MN/6/CDD 81.3-10-28-20AG 27 of 28 DOC #25003505 Page 31 of 36 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have executed this Development Agreement as of the date first written above. "City". CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a California charter city and municipal corporation om-)i�'/YlII By: h""l 6br7McCarthy Cit Attest: "Owner": SI 33, LLC, a California limited liability company By: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: � 0 Name: Aarti Shrivastava Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director FINANCIAL APPROVAL: %offl h� Name: U Finance and Administrative Services Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: Name: 5,wity Attorney MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 28 of 28 Title: Z16 Z1) -3131 1ki Taxpayer I.D. Number DOC #25003505 Page 32 of 36 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California } } ss. County of Santa Clara } On SIJ aq, 90 2-1 , before me, KATIE PETTEWAY, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared MATTHEW W. SONSINI, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(-,) whose name(-,) is/ -me subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his'"�ei>< authorized capacity(ies), and that by his"ben signature(IR) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. a� KATIE PE TEWAY W Notary Public - California T Santa Clara County _ ` Commission k 2315250 `'�"� My Comm. Expires Jan 8, 2024 WITNESS my hand and official seal NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE PF CALIFORNIA My Commission #2315250 Expires: January 8. 2024 DOC #25003505 Page 33 of 36 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Santa Clara On before me, Heather Glaser, City Clerk, personally appeared SGL lr�h who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/ are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/ they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature A 1 JAX (Seal) Htof er Glaser, C Clerk Ci Mountain View Government Code § 40814 F078 -Acknowledgment -HG (05-05-21) DOC #25003505 Page 34 of 36 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Mountain View, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: COMMENCING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN 3.465 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 3491 OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 93, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 25 FOOT STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED OF A. R. ANDERSON, ET UX, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2418 OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 630, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, DISTANT ON SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE NORTH 160 18' EAST 611.07 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 25 FOOT STRIP OF LAND; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 3.465 ACRE TRACT, NORTH 500 42'49" WEST 16.29 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 15 FEET NORTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 25 FOOT STRIP OF LAND AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 160 18' WEST 476.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 730 42' WEST 284.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 160 18' EAST 592.37 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 3.465 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 3.465 ACRE TRACT SOUTH 660 32'49" EAST 15.12 FEET AND SOUTH 500 42'49" EAST 292.63 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO MARK R. TUBAN, ET AL, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4019, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 322, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 500 42'49" WEST 64.66 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46° 12' 10" EAST 35.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ON A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 382.40 FEET; THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40 34'19" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 30.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 160 18' EAST 4.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: MN/6/CDD 813-1.0-28-20AG 1 of 2 Exhibit A DOC #25003505 Page 35 of 36 BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO MARK R. TUBAN, ET AL, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4019, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 322, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE S. 660 32'49" E. 15.12 FEET; THENCE S. 500 42'29" E. 14.66 FEET; THENCE N. 660 32'49" W. 28.72 FEET; THENCE N. 16° 18'E., 4.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO MARK R. TUBAN, ET AL, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4019, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 322, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, DISTANT THEREON S. 16° 18'W. 4.36 FEET FROM THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND; THENCE S. 16'18'W. 5.43 FEET; THENCE N. 500 46'29" W., 2.11 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ON A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT OF RADIUS 387.40 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40 34'19" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 30.91 FEET; THENCE N. 460 12'10" W. 99.36 FEET; THENCE S. 500 42'49" E. 63.58 FEET; THENCE S. 460 12'10" E. 35.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ON A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 382.40 FEET; THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4'34'19" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 30.51 FEET, THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO MARK R. TUBAN, ET AL, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4019, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 322, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, DISTANT THEREON S. 160 18'W. 4.03 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND; THENCE S. 660 32'49" E., 28.72 FEET; THENCE S. 500 42'49" E. 18.32 FEET; THENCE N. 660 32'49" W. 45.73 FEET; THENCE N. 160 18'E., 5.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: ALL OF LOT 1, AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON SEPTEMBER 16,1963 IN BOOK 166 OF MAPS, AT PAGE 41. MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 2 of 2 Exhibit A EXHIBIT B PROPERTY DIAGRAM BAYSF{pR FREEWA y FAIRCHILD DRIVE 30.5.57 Y r rs 173,02 5.156 Ac Gr. • 5.0 45 Ac Net. LTJ ? 2 � 37 194,74 199.74 so 36 goN 35� 1.19 Ac PCL. 2 I 199.68 4-9 _ 3. 382.18 80. 199. zsiaa PCS. A n ' 1.258 At n.IZ$I tw 0 s"sO I R1M]. 1 4 } «, R.0.S 157137 423 is sl, 2$x.90 Q MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 1 of 1 DOC #25003505 Page 36 of 36 g 23 PARCEL 2 w PARCEL 1 27j40 w �(n 25 cn 445 Ac 4.89 Ac PCS. 2 1 U3 ---Igo _< 40 Pc:L. 8 2.1.6 Ac ; PCL 3 1;21 Ac Net g T�9 r 9 1 1 N 1© N Exhibit B MN/6/CDD 813-10-28-20AG 1 of 1 DOC #25003505 Page 36 of 36 g 23 PARCEL 2 w PARCEL 1 27j40 w �(n 25 cn 445 Ac 4.89 Ac PCS. 2 1 U3 ---Igo _< 40 Pc:L. 8 2.1.6 Ac ; PCL 3 1;21 Ac Net g T�9 r 9 1 1 N 1© N Exhibit B Exhibit B