Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 6535RESOLUTION NO.. 6535 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD POLICIES AFFECTING THE DOWNTOWN AREA REGARDING PREVENTING AN INCREASE IN THE PARKING DEFICIT, PkE- VENTING TflE INSTALLATION OJ?' CERTAIN TRAFFIC LIGHTS, PREVENTING SAND HILL ROAD TRAFFIC FROM CROSSING EL CAMINO REAL, IMPLEMENTING A TWELVE-POINT PARKING PROGRAM, REVIEWING HISTORIC BUILDINGS, LIMITING NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND MONITORING GROUND FLOOR RETAIL REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palo Alto, on February 12 and 20, 1986, and March 6, 1986, held a properly- noticed public hearing to consider amendments to the Palo Al to Comprehensive Plan affecting the Downtown Area1 and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto on April 21 and May 12, 1986, held a properly-noticed public hearing to consider such amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as fr .lows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the changed condi- tions and ths public interest, health, safety and welfare require amendments to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in sections 2 through 9 below. SECTION 2. Policies lOA and 108 are hereby added to the 'l:ransportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to read as follows: Policy lOA: In the Downtown Area, new ..levelopment should not increas3 the total weekday peak parking defi- cit beyond that expected from development existing and approved through ~ay 1986. Policy lOB: In the Downtown Area, encourage the use of Planned Community (PC1 zoning for parking struc- tures. The purpose of this pol icy is to encour- age park. in g in Down town Pa lo Al to that meets the needs identified in the 1984-86 Downtown Study. The Planned Community (PC) zone pro- cedures provide extensive opportunities for review of the d~sign of parking structures. SECTION 3. The following text is hereby added to the text following Policies 10, lOA, lOB and 11, and preceding Program 26 in the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Including all projects approved prior to May 1986, the Downtown parking deficit is approximately 1,600 spaces .. SECTION 4. Program ISA is hereby added to the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to read as follows: Program 18A: Do not install additional traffic signals on Middlefield Road or Alma Street north of Lytton Avenue, and on Middlefield Road south of Channing Avenue to Embarcadero Road, and on Alma Street south of Channing Avenue to Churchill Avenue. Prohibiting the installation of addition- al traffic signals will preserve the traffic- carrying capacity of these major arterials and also will help protect residential cross streets from traffic volume increases due to traffic signal installation. SECTION s. Program 19 of the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: Pro~ram 19: Reduce traffic congestion on Sand Hill Road whLe prohibiting a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Al to Avenue/Alma Street acroes El Camino Real. sand Hill Road has severe traffic congestion problems. Minor intersection improvements need to be made, traffic signals upgraded and coordinated, and bike lanes, sidewalks and crosswalks improved as minimum safety actions. Sand Hill Road serves an undeveloped 46-acre site zoned for multiple family residential. Development of housing on this site may make improved access necessary. However, any connection of Sand Bill Road to Palo Alto Avenue and Alma Street would encour- age traffic increases on Alma Street and nearby residential atreets, especially north of Downtown and, therefore, should not be approved. SECTION 6. Programs 26A and 26B are hereby added to the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to read as follows: Program 26A: Implement the Twelve-Point Parking Program proposed in the Downtown Study of 1984-86 in order to make more efficient use of the existing parking supply in Downtown Palo Alto. 2. Program 268~ Re-evaluate growth regulations that relate to parking exemptions for nonresidential development in the Downtown Area when development approvals resulting in approved parking exemptions show an unmet parking demand of one-half (225 ~)aces) of the 450 spaces identified in the EIR as the minimum number of spaces necessary for a new public parking garage. SECTION 7. Program lOB is hereby added to the Urban Design Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to read as follows: Program lOB: Expansions of Downtown buildings in historic categories 1 and 2 should require findings dur- ing the design review process that the character of such building exteriors would not be compromised by the expansions. SECTION 8. In the Urban Design Element of the Palo Al to Comprehensive Plan, Program 19 is hereby eliminated, Programs 20, 21 and 22 are hereby renumbered to Programs -18, 19 and 21, respectively, and Program-18 is hereby renumbered to Program 20 with the text following it to read: "Retail vitality• means the ability of business districts to mair'ltain and expand their sales volume and profits. Older retail areas lose their vitality quickly when a number ~f sites become vacant or are occupied by vacant buildings, parking lots, stretches of blank walls, and drive-in businesses. All of these combine to discourage shoppers from walking to several stores before returning to their autos. A pedestrian zone combined. with the commercial zone on University Avenue requires that street frontage be designed in a way that is ~isually interesting and attractive to pedestrians. The same idea, if warranted, could help keep the California Avenue business district competitive and oriented to walkers and encourage shoppers to walk along portions of El Camino. SECTION 9. The section on Downtovn set forth under Policy 6 of the Urban Design Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read: DOWNTOWN Despite 111ajor shopping center competition during the last 20 years, Downtown has maintained its identity a.nd urban character. Improved benches, planting and lighting installed in 1974 contribute, along with the general high quality of new and old buildings, to a positive shopping environment on University Avenue. 3. Parking areas are reasonably well landscaped and located, usually within a half-block of the main shop- ping street. 'l'he rejection in 1971 of the highrise "superblock" proposal reflects the way Palo Altans feel about retain- ing the ultimate scale and character of Downtown. Policy 6B: Limit nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to ten percent ( 350, 000 square feet of floor area) above the amount of development existing or approved in May 1986. Of this 350,000 square feet, a minimum of 100, 000 square feet of floor area shall be reserved for projects demonstrating special public bene- fit (the criteria for which is to be developed by the Committee on Downtown Design and Amenities, reviewed and commented on by the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council) 1 and a minimum of 75, 000 square feet of floor area shall be reserved for projects qualifying for seismic, histor- ic or minor expansion exemptions. These reservations shall be removed on December 31, 1991. Policy 6C: Re-evaluate growth regulations fot· nonresidential development in the Downtown Area when development approvals reach two-thirds ( 235, 000 square feet of flcor area) of the ten percent growth limit for nonresidential development. Policies limiting nonresidential develop- ment in the Downtown area are necessary to minimize traffic and parking problems result- ing from new growth. They are also necessary to assure that the Downtown Area retains its special character offering the community, on a human scale, a blend of retail activities, eating and drinking establishments, business services, professional and financial services and residential neighborhoods. Planning Commission re-evaluation of Downtown growth regulations will occur when development approved after May 1986 reaches 235,000 square feet of floor area.. Monitoring of Downtown development will be undertaken by City staff and shall include information on vacancy rates, sales tax revenues and cost of space for retail businesses, sez:-vice businesses and office uses. Reports on the level of develop- ment activity will be agendized for Planning Commission review, and will be sent to the City Council, on a semi-annual basis~ 4. Retai 1 and offic·.a developments that provide some proportion of residential space on or near the same site will add interest and activity to the urban fabric. Functional and visual problems include through traffic on University Avenue, some obsolescent build- ings, and so:ne inefficient mixtures of activities such as the banks and offices that break up retail frontage. Many activities, such as prime retail stores, are too far apart or isolated. They would benefit if they were closer together. The walk from one store to another can be unacceptably long when one must pass by blank walls, parking lots, off ices or other "dead" uses. Retail frontage Jhould be encouraged and maintained if the Downtown retail district is to retain its vitality. The ground floor regulations and the pedestrian overlay zone are designed to accomplish this. Program 22: Monitor the effectiveness of the ground floor retail requirements for sections of the University Avenue business district. The Ground Floor {GF) overlay zone attempts to maintain shopper interest in the retail ccre of the University Avenue business district by restricting new uses at ground floor locations to retail businesses or per- sonal services. Palo Al to' s Downtown is better defined than most. However, it can be hard for shoppers to orient theni- selves when they enter Downtown. Many streets are indistinguiehable from one another, and it's difficult for motorists to decide where to park their cars and start walking. SECTION 10. thi~ resolution impact. The Council hereby finds that the adoption of will not cause any significant environmental INTRODUCED AND PASSED: July 14, .1986 AYES; Bechtel, Ccbb, Fletche~, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius., Woolley NOES; None ABSTENTIOHS: None ABSENT: None s. APPROVED: erk ' // ROVED ASJ. TO(#~M: o.Aij ~-~f,D~ ~QoJJAUMc Mayor ~ ss1stant City Attorney APPROVED'. :J, Ci~ ~ .:Sc~ Director of Planning and ~ ----~ ChWfuriSpiffit10fl f icial 6.