HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-21 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: February 21, 1996 CMR: 154:96
SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Update -- Land Use Plan Map Changes and
Related Land Use Classification Issues
REQUEST
Development of’the new Draft Comprehensive Plan includes preparation of’a Land Use Plan
Map. The Map assigns to each parcel in the City and the adjacent planning area a land use
designation. The Map also identifies proposed new collector and arterial street segments.
This report forwards staff and Planning Commission recommendations for consideration in
the Draft Plan of‘ three new land use designations and ten changes to the Plan Map. The
Council should review and give direction to staff as to what classifications and Map changes
should be incorporated into the Draft Comprehensive Plan and evaluated in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Council:
Review the attached November 16, 1994 staff report and subsequent Planning
Commission actions and determine whether additional consideration, including a
public hearing, should be given to any site not included in the ten Planning
Commission recommendations addressed in this report and noticed for review by the
Council on February 21, 1996.
Review and provide direction to staff regarding the three new land use classifications
(Village Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial Hotel) recommended for
incorporation into the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
CMR:154:96 Page 1 of 11
Review and provide direction to staff regarding the land use designation in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan for the ten sites reviewed in this report. Planning Commission
and staff recommendations for changes in the land use designation of the sites in the
Draft Plan include:
700 Sand Hill Road (Old Children’s Hospital Site) -- Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend consideration in the Draft Plan of a Multiple Family
Residential land use designation (site currently is Major Institution/Special
Facilities).
Addition of proposed Stock Farm Road, Vineyard Lane and modified Quarry
Road to the Plan Map -- Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
consideration in the Draft Plan of Stanford University’s proposed Stock Farm
Road, Vineyard Lane and modified Quarry Road.
Vacant land at the southeast comer of E1 Camino Real and Quarry Road --
Planning Commission recommends consideration in the Draft Plan of a Mixed
Use Residential/Non-residential land use designation and staff recommends
consideration of either Multiple Family Residential or Major
Institution/University Lands/Campus Multiple Family Residential (site
currently is Open Space...Controlled Development).
3880 Middlefield Road (Spangler School Site) -- Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend consideration in the Draft Plan of a Village
Residential, Multiple Family Residential or a combination of the two
designations (site currently is Major Institution/Special Facilities).
2650-2780 E1 Camino Real (vacant site at Page Mill Road and E1 Camino
Real) -- Staff and the Planning Commission recommend consideration in the
Draft Plan of adding a Commercial Hotel overlay to the current Multiple
Family Residential designation.
491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4207 E1 Camino Real (primarily Rickey’s
Hyatt House) -- Staff and the Planning Commission recommend consideration
in the Draft Plan of a Multiple Family Residential with a Commercial Hotel
overlay land use designation and a policy to retain the Landscape Overlay
zoning along Wilkie Way and Charleston Road.
1795-1885 E1 Camino Real (four parcels from Leland Avenue north to the
Duncan Insurance building) -- Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
consideration in the Draft Comprehensive Plari of a Multiple Family
CMR: 154:96 Page 2 of 11
Residential land use designation with policy language acknowledging a need
for parking flexibility (the parcels are currently Neighborhood Commercial).
231 Grant Avenue (Santa Clara County mental health facility) -- The Planning
Commission recommends consideration in the Draft Comprehensive Plan of
a Multiple Family Residential designation. Staff recommends retention of the
current Major Institution/Special Facilities designation (this is a revised staff
recommendation from the Planning Commission staff report).
4261-4271 E1 Camino Real and 431 Dinah’s Court (Dinah’s Court Hotel and
vacant former restaurant building) -- Staff and the Planning Commission
recommend consideration of a Commercial Hotel designation in the Draft Plan
(site currently is Service Commercial and Multiple Family Residential).
Maybell Avenue Property at the Rear of 4710 E1 Camino Real (site is a
parking lot) -- Staff and the Planning Commission recommend consideration
of a Neighborhood Commercial land use designation in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan (site currently is Multiple Family Residential).
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), in the process of selecting potential
sites for the design workshops, identified 14 areas of Palo Alto with a notable likelihood for
experiencing physical change in the next 15 years. All of the potential change areas were
reviewed by CPAC and City staff for possible Land Use Plan Map changes. Staff also
worked with members of the public to identify potential Map changes. This staff work is
described in the attached November 16, 1994 staff report to the Planning Commission.
In November 1994, after completing work on the Draft goals, policies and programs, the
Planning Commission began consideration of Map issues. The Commission concluded, after
initial discussion of the November 16 staff report, that they needed to hold a series of field
trips. During winter and spring of 1994 and 1995, the Commission held a number of
Saturday tours of parts of the City and evening workshop discussions. The Commission’s
formal review of Map items began on June 28, 1995 and continued through meetings on July
12, September 13, October 11 and November 8, 1995 (minutes attached).
The Commission’s review resulted, on July 12, in consideration of many sites that were not
pursued further, specific recommendations regarding some sites based on the initial June 28
public hearing, and other sites being identified for follow-up public hearings. Site-specific
public hearings were held on September 13 and October 11, with Commission
recommendations being made at the September 13, October 11 and November 8 meetings.
CMR:154:96 Page 3 of ! 1
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations in this staff report continue City policy of identifying additional
housing sites. The recommendations also recognize that three sites with current Multiple
Family Residential land use designations should be considered for a non-residential
designation. A summary of the residential/non-residential shifts include:
Non-residential designated sites to be considered for residential
0
0
0
Children’s Hospital
Hoover Pavilion/Quarry Road
Spangler School
1795-1885 E1 Camino Real
26 acres
5.5 acres1
5.0 acres
1.1 acres
Non-residential designated sites...to be considere.d for residential and hotel
Rickey’s Hyatt area 15 acres (10-12 acres residential)
Residential designated site to be considered for non:residential
Page Mill Road/El Camino Real
Maybell Avenue parcel
Portion of Dinah’s Hotel
5.7 acres
0.6 acres
1.1 acres
Regarding potential residential densities, the Page Mill~l Camino Real site was identified
in the 1990 Housing Element for 235 units, the maximum density under the RM-40 zone.
If housing was developed on the site, that many units is quite unlikely, given the need for
substantial setbacks and limits on underground parking. A density of 20 to 25 units per acre
(110-140 units) would be more realistic. As noted in the attached site analysis and Planning
Commission minutes, any residential development on the Maybell Avenue parcel would be
difficult. The portion of the Dinah’s Hotel site that is currently designated Multiple Family
Residential has primarily the Tamarack apartment building that has been converted to longer
stay hotel suite use. In total, the residential density of the three Multiple Family Residential
sites recommended for consideration for non-residential designations in the Draft Plan is
about 140-150 units.
Likely residential densities for the five sites recommended for consideration for Multiple
Family Residential designations include:
1Planning Commission recommends that part of the site be used for non-residential. In
addition, note that staff has withdrawn its residential recommendation for the 1.1-acre site at 23 !
Grant Avenue.
CMR: 154:96 Page 4 of 11
Former Children’s Hospital
Hoover Pavilion/Quarry Road
Spangler School
1795-1885 E1 Camino Real
Rickey’s Hyatt site
458 units
100-110 units
50-75 units
7-10 units
100-200 units
On balance, the land use changes recommended for consideration in the Draft Plan will add
to Palo Alto’s housing inventory.
DISCUSSION
New Land Use Designations
CPAC, through its meetings and design workshops, and City staff identified three new land
use designations. The Planning Commission reviewed the designations and recommends
their inclusion in the Draft Plan and Land Use Plan Map. The three new land use categories
would be added to the 17 categories in the current Plan. A list of the existing categories is
Attachment C. The recommended new categories are:
Village Residential: A land use category that includes small lot single family,
duplexes and/or lower density multiple family at a maximum density of between 15
and no more than 20 dwelling units per acre. This land use category responds to a
current and likely longer term demand for smaller lot single family development (e.g.,
Times-Tribune site, The Crossings project in Mountain View) with the flexibility for
inclusion of some lower density multiple family uses. The density of development
and potential inclusion of some multiple family structures is compatible with
numerous older single family areas.
Mixed Use: CPAC’s recommendations include three mixed use concepts:
Residential/Nonresidential (i.e., retail and/or office); Retail/Office and Live/Work
Residential/Nonresidential: Versions of this mixed use category include
mixed use within a structure and mixed use in side-by-side situations.
Retail!Office: This mixed use concept emerged in the South E1 Camino Real
design workshop and the California Avenue-Ventura Neighborhood Workshop
along E1 Camino Real as one response to the desire for upgrading areas
(especially Neighborhood Commercial) and the need to provide some
incentives for property owners to redevelop their properties with quality retail
environments and two-story buildings.
CMR: 154:96 Page 5 of 11
Live/Work: This mixed use concept includes both same-building
arrangements and side-by-side intermixing of residential and nonresidential
activities. This land use concept emerged primarily in the California-Ventura
design workshop as a way of addressing areas that have side-by-side
residential and nonresidential uses and some warehouse-type structures that
could be converted to live/work units. In a broader context, there is increasing
interest in creating new live/work spaces especially oriented toward younger
professional workers.
Since 1978, all of Palo Alto’s commercial, office and industrial zones have
permitted residential development. Especially in the late 1970s and early
1980s, a number of commercial/residential mixed use developments were
approved and built. Also, some nonresidential sites have been used for
residential development. Staff concludes that the CPAC interest in
residential/nonresidential mixed use (including live/work) concepts would go
beyond existing policy in two ways. In the past, the City has not allowed
commercial uses in designated residential areas. An example of a potential
land use change is found in CPAC’s Cal-Ventura workshop report which
identifies the existing Olive/Pepper residential area for mixed use. Second, if
the application of a mixed use or live/work designation appears on the land use
map, especially for existing nor,residential areas, the implication is that future
land use regulations will do more to facilitate residential use than current
commercial zoning with permitted regidential uses. At this time, staff is
unsure how this policy shift would translate into specific regulations.
Commercial Hotel: Interest in a Commercial Hotel land use category has grown out
of the interest in a hotel use at Page Mill!El Camino Real, but the land use category
could be applied to other current (e.g., the Holiday Inn site) and desired hotel
locations. The value of this designation includes the important economic functions
hotels serve and the lower traffic generation of hotels versus many other commercial
uses which may make a hotel-specific designation more appropriate than a broader
commercial designation at some high traffic volume locations.
Planning Commission-Recommended Land Use Plan Map Changes to be
Considered in the Draft Comprehensive Plan
The Planning Commission’s public hearings on potential changes to the Land Use Plan Map
began on June 28, 1995. The Commission began the recommendation process on July 12,
1995 by reviewing the 14 change areas identified by CPAC and making site-specific
decisions to either recommend changes, not consider for change, or schedule a separate
public hearing. Follow-up public hearings were held on September 13 and October 11, 1995.
CMR: 154:96 Page 6 of ! 1
In summary, the Commission took the following actions regarding potential Land Use Plan
Map changes:
Former Children’s Hospital Site (700 Sand Hill Road) -- change from Major
Institution/Special Facilities to Multiple Family Residential (7/12/95 Planning
Commission minutes, pages 10-13).
Add the proposed Stock Farm Road, Vineyard Lane and modified Quarry Road to the
Plan Map (7/12/95 Planning Commission minutes, pages 13-14).
Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Campus Area -- Change from Service
Commercial to Major Institution/Special Facilities (7/12/95 Planning Commission
minutes, pages 15-18).
Maintain current land use designations and identify the University Avenue train
station area (area extending from San Francisquito Creek to Embarcadero and from
E1 Camino Real to the railroad tracks) in the text of the Draft Plan as a future study
area (7/12/95 Planning Commission minutes, pages 18-21).
Maintain current land use designations and identify the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation/South of Forest Avenue area in the text of the Draft Plan as a future study
area (7/12/95 Planning Commission minutes, pages 21-23).
Maintain the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation of the Edgewood Plaza
Shopping Center (7/12/95 Planning Commission minutes, page 23).
Maintain the current land use designations in the Midtown area pending the results
of the study currently under way (712/95 Planning Commission minutes, pages 24).
Maintain the current land use designations for the East Meadow Circle, East and West
Bayshore Frontage Road and San Antonio Road area north of Highway 101 (7/12/95
Planning Commission minutes, pages 24-26).
Maintain the current land use designation for the San Antonio Road area from
Middlefield Road to Highway 101 (7/12/95 Planning Commission minutes, pages 26-
28).
10.Maintain the current land use designations for the South E1 Camino Real area (from
Curtner Avenue to Charleston Road) and identify this area in the text of the Draft Plan
as a future study area (7/12/95 Planning Commission minutes, pages 29-31).
CMR: 154:96 Page 7 of 11
11.Maintain the current land use designations for the Cal-Ventura area pending
completion of a coordinated area plan (7/12/95 Planning Commission minutes,
page 32).
12.Maintain the current Neighborhood Commercial and Multiple Family Residential land
use designations for Alma Plaza and the nearby residential areas (7/12/95 Planning
Commission minutes, pages 32-33).
13.Change the Palo Alto Hyatt site at 4290 E1 Camino Real from Service Commercial
to Single Family Residential for the rear half of the property and Multiple Family
Residential for the front half oft he property (7/12/95 Planning Commission minutes,
pages 35-36).
14.Change the properties at 491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4227 E1 Camino Real
(primarily Rickey’s Hyatt site) from Service Commercial to Multiple Family
Residential with a Commercial Hotel overlay (9/13/95 Planning Commission minutes,
portions of the public testimony on pages 8-21 and Commission consideration on
pages 22-30). Further, include in the Draft Plan a policy to retain the existing
landscape overlay zone along both Wilkie Way and Charleston Road (10/11/95
Planning Commission minutes, pages 38 to 42).
15.Change the land use designation of approximately 5.5 acres of vacant land located
along Quarry Road between Hoover Pavilion and E1 Camino Real from Open
Space/Controlled Development to Mixed Use Residential/Nonresidential (9/13/95
Planning Commission minutes, portions of the public testimony on pages 8-21 and
Commission consideration on pages 30-37).
16.Maintain the Service Commercial and Multiple Family Residential land use
designations for 3901-3981 E1 Camino Real (9/13/95 Planning Commission minutes,
portions of the public testimony on pages 8-21 and Commission consideration on
page 37).
17.Change the land use designation of 231 Grant Avenue (County Mental Health
Building and parking lot) from Major Institution/Special Facilities to Multiple Family
Residential (public testimony on pages 19 and 20 of 9/13/95 Planning Commission
meeting, pages 9 to 16 of 10/11/95 Planning Commission meeting and Planning
Commission consideration on pages 18 and 19 of 10/1/95 Commission minutes).
18.Maintain the existing Research!Office Park land use for properties from 450 to 560
San Antonio Road (public testimony on pages 9 to 16 and Commission consideration
on pages 19 to 22 of 10/11/95 Commission minutes).
CMR:154:96 Page 8 of 11
19.Change the land use designation of approximately 5 acres of land located at 3880
Middlefield Road (Spangler School) from Major Institution/Special Facilities to
Village Residential, Multiple Family Residential or a combination of the two
designations (10/11/95 Planning Commission minutes, pages 42 to 49).
20.Maintain the Multiple Family Residential land use designation for 560 Oxford
Avenue (10/11/95 Planning Commission minutes, pages 34 to 38).
21.Change the land use designation of 4261-71 E1 Camino Real/431 Dinah’s Court from
Service Cornnaercial and Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel (10/11/95
Planning Commission minutes, pages 22 to 30).
22.Change the land use designation of the property on Maybell Avenue at the rear of
4170 E1 Camino Real from Multiple Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial
(10/11/95 Planning Commission minutes, public hearing on pages 22 to 23 and
Planning Commission consideration on pages 28 to 30).
23.Change the land use designation of sites located at 1795 to 1885 E1 Camino Real from
Neighborhood Commercial to Multiple Family Residential with policy language to
acknowledge need for parking flexibility for the properties (public testimony at
9/13/95 Planning Commission meeting, pages 18 and 19 of the minutes, and at the
10/11/95 Planning Commission meeting, pages 10 to 12 of the minutes and
Commission consideration on 11/8/95, pages 2 to 8 of the minutes).
24.Change the land use designation of the vacant parcels at the northwest coruer of E1
Camino Real and Page Mill Road from Multiple Family Residential to Multiple
Family Residential with a Commercial Hotel overlay (public testimony at the 9/13/95
Planning Commission meeting, pages 8 to 14 of the minutes, at the 10/11/95 Planning
Commission meeting, pages 22 to 28 of the minutes and Commission consideration
on 11/8/95, pages 8 to 19 of the minutes).
February_ 21.1996 City Council Public Hearing
For the City Council’s February 21, 1996 review, staff prepared a public hearing notice
identifying ten recommended changes for Council review (numbers 1, 2, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21,
22, 23 and 24 from the above list of Commission actions). Two recommended changes were
not included in the public hearing notice (number 3, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban
Lane Campus, because of recent Council action, and number 13, Palo Alto Hyatt site,
because the Draft EIR for the residential project and related Comprehensive Plan changes
has been released for public review, and Council review is likely in May 1996.) The
remainder of the Commission’s actions relate to issues addressed by the Council in review
CMR: 154:96 Page 9 of 11
of the draft goals, policies and programs (items 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11) or recommend no change
from existing land use designations (items 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18 and 20). If the Council wishes
to consider any of the items not noticed by staff for a public hearing, that direction should
be given at the February 21 meeting.
Updated Information on the Ten Sites that are the Subject of the Council’s February.. 21. 1996
Meeting
Attachment A contains an information sheet and area map for each of the ten sites included
in the February 21, 1996 public hearing. The information sheets, which were originally
provided to the Planning Commission (except for sites 1 and 2), have been updated to include
the Commission’s recommendation and additional staff comments and recommendation.
Also, the site numbers have been changed to correspond to the listing of sites in this report
(i.e., sites number 1, 2, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24).
ALTERNATIVES
For each of the sites, retention of the current land use designation is an alternative.
Consideration, on a case-by-case basis, of other land use designations could also be explored.
FISCAL IMPACT
Among the ten Plan Map items, the potentially most significant positive fiscal impact for the
City would be-development of a hotel at Page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real. As staff has
noted in the background information on Rickey’s Hyatt House, that site "is widely regarded
as a likely redevelopment site in the next 5 to 10 years or sooner." A hotel at Page Mill Road
and E1 Camino Real should more than offset the loss of City revenue resulting from closure
of Rickey’s.
From a municipal revenue perspective, redevelopment of Rickey’s with retail uses would
generate more revenue than a residential reuse. However, the traffic associated with retail
reuse would be a major problem and is the prime reason for staff’s recommendation to
remove the Service Commercial land use designation. A mixed use housing and hotel use
on the Rickey’s site would generate some notable City revenue while having the advantage
of lower traffic generation than alternative land uses.
Development of new housing will generate both direct (e.g., property tax) and indirect (e.g.,
sales tax) benefits to the City, but municipal revenue is not a primary reason for staff’s
housing redesignation recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Draft Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan Map, will be evaluated in the
Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for review along with the Draft Plan.
CMR: 154:96 Page 10 of 11
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
A Land Use Plan Map will be prepared for incorporation into the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
The Draft Plan is anticipated to be ready for public review by early fall, 1996.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
A.Updated Information Sheets and Area Maps of the Ten Sites
B.11/16/94 staff report to the Planning Commission
C.List of existing land use categories.
D.. Excerpt Planning Commission minutes of 6/28/95, 7/12/95, 9/13/95, 10/11/95 and
11/8/95
PREPARED BY: Kenneth R. Schreiber
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
FLEMING
Manager
CC:Planning Commission
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
CMR: 154:96 Page 11 of 11
Attachment A
Updated Information Sheets and Area Maps of the
Ten Sites that are the
Subject of the Council’s February 21, 1996 Meeting
NOTE: Site identification numbers correspond to the list of 24 Planning
Commission actions identified in this staff report (pages 7 to 9). The Planning
Commission minutes refer to different site and area numbers used in earlier
Planning Commission staff reports.
Site #1: Former Children’s Hospital Site at 700 Sand Hill Road
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Major Institution!Special Facilities.
Current Zoning: Public Facilities.
Current Land Use: Former Childrens’ Hospital Buildings currently temporarily
occupied by Childrens’ Health Council during reconstruction of the adjacent CHC site.
Site Size: Approximately 26 acres (not including the Ronald McDonald House site).
Recommended Land Use Map Designation: Multiple Family Residential. ¯
Discussion: The property owner, Stanford University, has been planning a Senior
Housing project on this site since the late 1980s. That project, which is proposed to
include 388 independent living units, 70 (?) assisted living units and a 48 (?)-bed
convalescent nursing facility, will be part of the Sand Hill Corridor Draft EIR anticipated
to be released for public review this spring and considered by the City Council before the
end of 1996.
The Draft Comprehensive Plan needs to assign a land use to this site. Staff recommends
that the site be designated Multiple Family Residential. No matter what the outcome of
the current development proposal and environmental review process, staff would
maintain this land use recommendation.
Planning Commission Recommendation: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, designate
the site Multiple Family Residential (pages 10 to 13 of the 7/12/95 Planning Commission
minutes, vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes).
Staff Comments and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission
recommendation.
~/Q~ ~//~~, ~/City Boundary
(form 1 Sit~)
2
Site #2:Addition of Proposed Stock Farm Road, Vineyard Lane and
Modified Quarry Road
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation:. Quarry Road is identified as a collector
street in the current Comprehensive Plan. Stock Farm Road and Vineyard Lane would be
new collector streets.
Discussion: The proposed roadway additions and modifications would be, along with the
extension of Sand Hill Road from Arboretum Road to E1 Camino Real, important
additions to the road network. These proposed roadway changes will be evaluated in the
Draft EIR for the Sand Hill Corridor projects. This EIR will be released for public review
in late spring 1996, with City Council consideration likely to occur before the end of
1996. The issue is whether to incorporate these roadways into the Draft Plan, which is
likely .to be available for public review prior to Council action on the Sand Hill Corridor
EIR. If incorporated into the Draft Plan, retention of the existing roadway network would
be evaluated as an alternative in the Draft EIR that will accompany the Draft
Comprehensive Plan. The Draft Plan would eventually be adjusted to conform with the
Council’s actions on the Sand Hill Corridor projects:
Staff Recommendation: Include the proposed Stock Farm Road, Vineyard Lane and
modified Quarry Road in the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Concur with the staff recommendation
(pages 13 and 14 of 7/12/95 Planning Commission minutes; 6 ayes, 0 noes).
New Information: The addition of these proposed street segments ih the Draft Plan was
referenced on page 12 of the February 7, 1996 staff report (CMR: 129:96) that dealt with
inconsistencies, gaps and conflicts in the Draft goals, policies and programs. Incorpora-
tion of these three street changes in the Draft Plan was approved by the Council on
February 7 as part of incorporating the Sand Hill Road Extension into the Draft Plan.
Area 5,, 2
This map is a product
of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
o’zoo’ 8oo’
Site #15:Vacant land at southeast corner of E1 Camino Real and
Quarry Road
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Open Space...Controlled Development.
Current Zoning: Agriculture (unincorporated Santa Clara County zoning).
Current Land Use: Vacant.
Site Size: Approximately 5.5 acres.
Recommended Land Use Map Designation: Multiple Family Residential or Major
Institution!University.Lands/Campus Multiple Family Residential.
Discussion: The approximately 5.5 acre vacant site on Quarry Road between Hoover
Pavilion and E1 Camino Real was identified as a potential multiple family housing site
during Stanford’s 1994 Sand Hill Corridor public outreach process. This unincorporated
area is not part of the historic arboretum. Subsequent to the 1994 public outreach
process, the University designated the site for potential residential use.
Development of the site would be constrained by the need to protect trees, establish
appropriate buffers, especially from E1 Camino Real and the Arboretum, and possible
conflicts with utility lines. A maximum density greater than about 20 units per acre is
unlikely. Development of the site would be consistent with other sites along Quarry Road
between Hoover Pavilion and the rear entrance to the Medical Center.
A Multiple Family Residential land use designation would anticipate annexation of the
site to the City, development under City zoning, design review and other development
regulations, and occupancy potentially available to the generalpublic. A Major
Institution/University Lands/Campus Multiple Family Residential designation would
anticipate development under Santa Clara County development regulations and
occupancy significantly limited to individuals or families, or both, affiliated with the
University, including the Medical Center. Staff is comfortable with either land use
designation.
Planning Commission Recommendation: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, designate
the site Mixed Use Residential/Non-residential (portions of the public testimony on pages
8 to 21 and Commission consideration on pages 30 to 37 of the 9/13/95 Planning
Commission minutes; 3 ayes, 2 noes, with Schink and Schmidt against, Beecham and
Ojakian absent).
Staff Comments and Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommendation
will add complexity to the development of this site and reduce the residential
development potential on a site that will need careful site planning. Staff reaffirms the
earlier recommendation to designate the site either Multiple Family Residential or Major
Institution!University Lands/Campus Multiple Family Residential.
6
cc
id ~" ~ Palo ~lto City Boundary
" ’~" Area ~15
Palo Alto ,. ~ - ~~
This map is a product
of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
o’200’ too’
Site #19: 3880 Middlefield Road (Spangler School Site)
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Major Institution/Special Facilities.
Current Zoning: Public Facility (PF).
Current Land Use: Santa Clara County-owned and -operated school.
Site Size: Approximately 5 acres.
Recommend Land Use Map Designation: Village Residential or Multiple Family
Residential.
Discussion: In the last year or two, there have been several indications that Santa Clara
County is considering ceasing their use of the site and declaring the site surplus for the
purpose of sale.
The site is bordered by:
Charleston Center and a single family lot to the south, across Charleston
Road;
The Unitarian Universalist Church on R-1 zoned land to the west;
The Community Association for the Retarded facility on Public Facility-
zoned land to the north; and
Duplex developments on land zoned R-2 and the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints facility on land zoned R-1 to the east.
Given the nearby land uses and the site’s location on two major streets, staff concludes
that if the site becomes available for redevelopment, the most appropriate land use would
be either Multiple Family Residential or the proposed Village Residential. This new land
use category could include small lot single family, duplexes, and/or lower density
multiple family residential at a maximum density of between 15 and 20 units per acre.
Planning Commission Recommendation: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, designate
the site Village Residential, Multiple Family Residential, or a combination of the two
designations (pages 42 to 49 of the 10/11/95 Planning Commission minutes, 5 ayes, 0
noes, Beecham and Ojakian absent).
Staff Comments and Recommendations: The attached February 23, 1995 memo from
Janet Motha, Santa Clara County staff member, regarding two County-owned properties,
was forwarded to the Planning Commission for their October 11 meeting. Note that for
the County property on Middlefield Road, the portion under consideration is the Spangler
School site and.not the portion of the site leased to the Community Association for the
Retarded, Inc.
Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation, with final resolution of the
land use designation to occur during review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
9
County of Santa Clara
Gone.ral Servic~.~ AgeOC.v
/-’a¢.iliti~.5 D¢.parn Tlenl~rot)Gr~¯
Post-it- Fax Note 7671
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JOHN GIBBS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISOR MCKENNA’S OFFICE
JANET MOTHA
GSA FACILITIES DEP~-RTMENT
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
cOUNTY-OWNED SITES
231 GR~NT AVENUE, PALOALTO
MARTIN SPANGLERSCHOOL S!TE, PALO ALTO
i understand that the City of Pa!o Alto would either like the
County to declare the above sites excess land and/or change
the current use of the properties to develop single family
residentia! housing.
Linda Wills asked me to give you the fol!owing information on
the above mentioned County-owned properties for Supervisor
McKenna, prior to the City of Pal~ Alto Council meeting on
Monday 27, 1995.
231 Grant Avenue, ~alo Alto
In my previous memo to you, I informed you that the
facility at 23! Grant Avenue is currently used by the
departments of Mental Health and Mental Health Alcohol
and Drug.
In addition to the above use of the facility, the
parking lot is also used by people on jury duty at the
North County Courthouse, located at 270 Grant Avenue,
Palo Alto.
Jurors and potential jurors park their cars in this
parking lot. Occasionally, when there is not enough
parking at this site, the jurors park their cars in a
nearby County parking lot.
Because of the Country’s need for this site for County
purposes it would not be a candidate for residential
development.
2)Martin Spangler School Site
The Martin Spangler School is a 5.1 acre site is located
on part of a larger County owned 7.64 parcel. The
County leases the 5.1 acres to the County office of
Education (COE) and the rest of the parcel is leased to
the Community Association for Retarded, Inc. (CAR), a
non-profit organization.
The 5.1 acre site was appraised on June !5, 1993 and
valued at $7,500,000. The improvements that belong to
the COE were valued at $I,i00,000. The total value of
the land if it were vacant would be $6,400,000. The
costs of demolition of the existing structures was not
included in the total value.
The County owns the land and the COE owns the
improvements because of a resolution that was passed and
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 22, 1973,
which was subsequently passed and adopted by the Santa
Clara County Board of Education on May 30, 1973.
item 9 (b) of that resolution states that buildings
.housing special schools will be deeded to the County
Board of Education by the Board of Supervisors at no
consideration. Martin Spangler School is included in
the list of buildings that should be deeded to the
County Board of Education.
The County cannot act unilaterally to consider any
alternative uses or disposition of the site. The County
must consult COE before any decision is made to change
the use of this site. Discussions with the COE to date
have resulted in the COE indicating they want to keep
the school open.
County~can also consider gaining control of the site and
improvements by making an offer to the COE or buying out
the COE’s interest. COE staff had indicated they might
consider presenting an offer to their Board of
$!,i00,000 for the improvements,-if the County did want
to buy out their interest. If that occurred, the county
could terminate the COE lease and market the land for
sale.
The CAR lease has a fifty year term that commenced on
October i, 1979. C~ has an option to r~new the lease
for an additional 49 year term. The rental is $i.00 per
year. C~, at its own cost, constructed a center for
developmentally disabled adults on this site, at 525 E.
Charleston Road.
11
Discussions with CAR are that they plan to keep the
center open. Therefore, the County could not sell the
!and for residential development°
Please call if you need additional information.
JM\Pt/\JGDMPACO 2-2_:3-95
GRANT AVe, & I’~RTIN SPAWGLER
13
Site #24:2650-2780 El Camino Real
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multiple Family Residential.
Current Zoning: RM-40.
Current Land Use: Vacant.
Site Size: Approximately 5.7 acres.
Recommended Land Use Map Designation: Commercial Hotel.
Discussion: There has been considerable discussion in the Comprehensive Plan Update
process as well as in other forums about the potential use of this site for a hotel.
Consideration of a hotel use has had the strong and consistent support of City staff. Staff
concludes that a hotel use is appropriate for several reasons:
Given the noise, fumes and other impacts of traffic at this location, the site
is not particularly suited to residential use;
Since designation of the site for multiple family use, a major ground water
contamination problem has been identified in the immediate area, with
adjacent sites part of a Federal superfund cleanup effort and ground water
under this site now known to be heavily contaminated;
The extent of contamination would most likely restrict the use of
underground parking and limit future residential use to well below the 40
units per acre maximum of the current zoning;
Hotel facilities, both for visitor rooms and meeting facilities, are an
important part of the Palo Alto economy and have suffered with the closure
of the Palo Alto Hyattand would suffer substantially more with the
rumored future closure ofRickey’s Hyatt House; and
Hotel rooms, through generation of Transient Occupancy Tax,. are a notable
revenue source for the City’s General Fund, and the loss of Rickey’s
without development of a new hotel would be a significant impact on the
City budget.
Planning Commission Recommendation: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, change the
land use designation to add a Commercial Hotel overlay to the current Multiple Family
14
Residential designation (public testimony on pages 8 to 14 of the 9/13/95 Commission
minutes, pages 22 to 28 of the 10/11/95 Commission minutes, and Commission
consideration on pages 8 to 19 of the 11/8/95 minutes; 4 ayes, 1 no, with Ojakian against,
Eakins not participating, Schmidt absent).
Staff Comment and Recommendation: The following table provides traffic generation
figures for four development scenarios:
AM Peak Hour
Us__._~e Size Da__gi!.Y Total In Out Total In
a. Hotel 350 units 3,045 235 141 94 266 144
b. Townhouse/condo 125 units 738 55 9 46 69 46
c. Townhouse/condo 250 units 1,475 110 18 92 138 92
d. Offices 99,300 sq. ft.1,393 189 169 20 186 32
PM Peak Hour
Out
122
23
46
154
Questions were raised in the public heating process about the depth of contaminated
ground water and the obstacle it would be to underground construction. The site contains
a number of ground water monitoring wells. Depth to ground water and the concentration
level of Tfichloroethylene (TCE) in parts per billion information is available for the five
wells identified below and on the attached map. One reference point for the
concentration of TCE is that the federal standard for drinking water is less than 5 parts per
billion.
Well ID #
EW-2
F 21A1 U
F 22A1 U
F 45A1 U
F 44A2
Depth to Ground Water (Ft.)
1990
N/A
23.71’
22.33’
21.51’
21.5’
1995
19.2’
19.05’
17.82’
17.2’
18.96’
TCE Concentration
Third Quarter, 1995
91
11
26
740
4,900
Four other wells on the site had 1995 TCE concentrations of 59, 120 and 160 (two wells)
parts per billion. A fifth well located on the western property line had a concentration of
less than 0.5 parts per billion. This last measurement may be an anomaly, since a well in
very close proximity had a measurement of 26 parts per billion.
15
The basic rule of construction is to not expose contaminated ground water and soil to the
surface, since exposure triggers a treatment requirement. The 1995 ground water
elevations indicate that more than one level of underground parking is unlikely.
Staff continues to recommend this site for hotel use. The Planning Commission
recommendation would facilitate the hotel development of the site. Staff recommends
either a Commercial Hotel designation or the Planning Commission recommendation.
16
F21A1U
Site
2650 -2780
Location
E1 Camino Real
F44A2
The City of
Palo A1 to
Ground Water
monitoring wells
17
Legend
Approximate Well Sites
/!
This map is a product
of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-g
m
g~
~~. ., ~ .~~ ~. -’7 ~ ~ ~~~ ~,. ~ ~ //~ ...~,
..~..:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~;~;.:.>x.::;....-::::: :.---..:::- :::;::;:.- .::..,,.:;;::.. :...-~ ,~"
~; S~te Location -~,
2650-2780 E1 Camino Real ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.~.:.~-~¯City of Palo ~to G~
"~~’~""Area ~24
O’200’ ~00’ ~ ~
18
Site #14:491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4207 El Camino Real
(primarily Rickey’s Hyatt House)
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Service Commercial.
Current Zoning: Service Commercial with Hotel Overlay [CS(H)] and Service
Commercial with Landscape Overlay [CS(L)].
Current Land Use: Rickey’s Hyatt House and hair salon at 493 Charleston Road.
Site Size: Approximately 15 acres.
Recommended Land Use Map Designation: Either:
Commercial Hotel use in a 3- to 5-acre area at the corner of E1 Camino Real
and Charleston and Village Residential or Multiple Family Residential for
the remainder of the site, or
A Village Residential and Commercial Hotel mixed use designation.
Either land use alternative should incorporate a policy to retain the existing
Landscape Combining overlay zone along Wilkie Way and Charleston
Road.
Discussion: As noted in the discussion of Site #24 (i.e., the Page Mill Road!El Camino
Real corner), the Rickey’s Hyatt House site is widely regarded as a likely redevelopment
site in the next 5 to 10 years or sooner. The approximately 15-acre Rickey’s Hyatt site
offers a range of alternatives from retention of the current Service Commercial
designation to Commercial Hotel to part commercial and part residential to all residential.
Significant considerations include not wanting to encourage loss of the hotel use; the
traffic congestion at E1 Camino Real/Charleston, which would probably be substantially
worsened by an intense retail use; and the value of having the Plan establish land use
policy for a site that is likely to redevelop.
Retention of this site in a Service Commercial land use designation is not recommended,
both because of the traffic impacts of an intense retail redevelopment and the need for and
value of additional residential sites. Traffic impacts include both the congested E1
Camino Real/Charleston intersection and generation of additional traffic on Charleston
and Arastradero Roads. Designation of all of this site for residential is not recommended,
primarily because the loss of the existing hotel use, even if anew hotel develops at Page "
19
Mill and E1 Camino Real, would still result in a notable decrease in hotel rooms available
in the City, and the comer location, given traffic volumes and related environmental
considerations, is more appropriate for non-residential use. Redevelopment of a portion
of this site with a new hotel would be appropriate, given its location and access. It is not
envisioned that a new hotel would have conference facilities, but be closer to a residential
suites operation.
The single family residential land use designation and zoning for the 100-foot depth along
Wilkie Way at the adjacent Elk’s Club property resulted from the neighborhood’s strong
desires as expressed during the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. Staff
recommended at that time, and still believes, that a better treatment of the Wilkie Way
frontage is a Multiple Family Residential (or Village Residential) designation with a
policy that the heavily-treed area along Wilkie Way be zoned with the Landscape (L)
Combining District (as is the current situation with the CS zoning). The L District does
not allow any paving or building use, including driveways, without a use permit. For the
Rickey’s site, staff would expand the proposed policy to use (and retain) the Landscape
Combining District to include the existing L-zoned area along Charleston Road.
Redesignation of this site is related to the staff recommendation to redesignate the Page
Mill Road/El Camino Real site from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel.
If that redesignation is not desired, then staff would want to reconsider its
recommendation for the Rickey’s site, including the possible redesignation of the site
from Service Commercial to Commercial Hotel.
Planning Commission Recommendation: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, designate
the site Multiple Family Residential with a Commercial Hotel overlay and a policy to
retain the Landscape Overlay zoning along Wilkie Way and Charleston Road (portions of
the public testimony on pages 8 to 21 of the 9/13/95 Commission minutes, Commission
consideration on pages 22 to 30 of 9/13/95 minutes and further consideration on pages 38
to 42 of 10/11/95 minutes; 4 ayes, 1 no, with Schink against, Beecham and Ojakian
absent).
Staff Comments and Recommendations: The following table provides traffic
generation numbers for three development scenarios. The 150,000 square feet of retail
development scenario represents a 0.25:1 floor area ratio development with surface
parking consistent with the site’s existing Service Commercial zoning.
20
AM Peak Hour
288 202 86
Us_._.~Size ~
Hotel 342 units 3,045 ]a.
b. Supermarket 60,000 sq. ft.7,200
Drug and Other 90,000 sq. ft.7,200 288 202 86
TOTAL for retail 150,000 sq. ft.14,400 576 404 172
alternative
*Note: For retail uses (item b), PM peak hour includes subtraction of 40% of total for passby trips
already on the street.
c. Res. Suite Hotel 120 units 146 70 41 29 74 45 29
Single Family 12 units 115 9 2 7 12 8 4
Townhouse/condo 120 units 969 132 81 45 152 97 55
TOTAL for hotel/1,230 211 124 81 238 150 88
resfdential alternative
PM Peak Hour*
Total [ In [ Out
2601140I 120
430 215 215
430 215 215
860 430 430
Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation.
21
@
Th~ City of
Palo A1 to
Area ~14
This map is a product
of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
22
Site #23: 1795-1885 E1 Camino Real
Current Comprehensiv.e Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial.
Current Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (CN).
Current Land Use: Vacant except for Foster Freeze site at 1805 E1 Camino Real.
Site Size: Approximately 1.1 acres.
Recommended Land Use Map Designation: Multiple Family Residential.
Discussion: Three of the four parcels in this area from Leland Avenue north to the
Duncan Insurance building are vacant. The land to the rear of 1845 and 1885 E1 Camino
Real is designated Multiple Family Residential and zoned RM- 15. The area is not likely
to become a prime retail area. Given the vacant nature of most of the area, poor location
in relation to other retail uses, and access to E1 Camino Real in an area with fewer
negative impacts than other intensive commercial sections of the street, a Multiple Family
Residential land use designation is recommended.
Planning Commission Recommendation: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, designate
the four parcels Multiple Family Residential with policy language acknowledging a need
for parking flexibility (public testimony on pages 18 and 19 of the 9/13/95 Commission
minutes, pages 10 to 12 of the 10/11/95 Commission minutes, and Commission
consideration on pages 2 to 8 of the 11/8/95 Planning Commission minutes; 5 ayes,
0 noes, Beecham and Ojakian absent).
Staff Comments and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission
recommendation.
23
/&.
~,’(.~x,/~ ~ i
Sitete
Location
~ 1795-1885 E1Camino Reali ~~
Palo Alto City Bounaary
~N~:~’’~’ ~g~;~ ~"’"
)~:::.~.~ ,~.:<<~£~
IPa io A~ to ~
-,>~".~£;’~ .x" "..
24
Site #17: 231 Grant Avenue
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Major Institution/Special Facilities.
Current Zoning: Public Facilities (PF).
Current Land Use: Santa Clara County-owned and -operated mental health facility.
Site Size:Approximately 1.1 acres.
Recommended Land Use Map Designation: Multiple Family Residential.
Discussion: Cutbacks in County services and inability to maintain facilities may make
the approximately 1.4-acre site available for redevelopment. While City staff does not
want to encourage further Palo Alto and North County cutbacks in health (or other)
services, the Comprehensive Plan process is a logical way to establish reuse policy. The
site is adjacent to the recently-approved multiple family development at the comer of
Sheridan Avenue and Park Boulevard and in close proximity to the California Avenue
Train Station. A redesignation to Multiple Family Residential is recommended.
Planning Commission Recommendation: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, designate
the site Multiple Family Residential (public testimony on pages 19 and 20 of the 9/13/95
Commission minutes, pages 9 to 16 of the 10/11/95 Commission minutes, and
Commission consideration on pages 18 and 19 of the 10/11/95 Planning Commission
minutes; vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes).
Staff Comments and Recommendations: The attached February 23 1995 memo from
Janet Motha, Santa Clara County staff member, was forwarded to the Planning
Commission for their October 11, 1995 meeting.
Since the October Planning Commission meeting, staff has had additional discussions
with representatives of the County and has given the site further consideration. Staff has
concluded that it would be better at this time not to make a change in the land use
designation of the County Mental Health Building site. Staff is recommending retention
of the Major Institution/Special Facilities designation for several reasons, including:
1) The site should be considered in context with the adjacent County Court building,
which has not been part of the proposed change and is very likely to continue as a court
facility. 2) The additional information raised in the recently completed review of
Community Facilities policies and programs indicates the need for retention of Major
Institution/Special Facilities sites. 3) The mental health facility site is one of the few
sites in Palo Alto that is suitable for a broader variety of institutional/special facility uses
25
that often are not able to find sites due to adjacent residential areas and lack of adjacent
services such as transportation. 4) The frontage along Park Boulevard should not be
precluded from possible commercial use in the future, since this is the direct tie between
the California Avenue business district and the emerging development changes south of
Page Mill Road.
Staff believes that retaining the site as Major Institution/Special Facilities will allow both
the County and the City the options each needs in the future to meet demands for public
facilities. Future uses may include residential but leaving the site as Major Institution/
Special Facilities will keep the options for uses open.
26
counD" of Santa Clara
TO :
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JOHN GIBBS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISOR MCKENNA ’ S OFFICE
JANET MOTHA
GSA FACILITIES D~P~iRTMENT
PROPERTY MA!~AGEMENT DIVISION
COUNTY-OWNED SITES
231 GR~2~T AVENUE, PALO ALTO
MARTIN SPANGLER SCHOOL SITE, PALO ALTO
i understand that the City of Pa!o Alto would either like the
County to declare the above sites excess land and/or change
the current use of the properties to deve!op single family
residential housing.
Linda Wills asked me to give you the following information on
the above mentioned County-owned properties for Supervisor
McKenna, prior to the City of Pal~ Alto Council meeting on
Monday 27, 1995o
I)231 Gr~nt Avenue, ~alo
In my previous memo to you, i informed you that the
facility at 231 Grant Avenue is currently used by the
departments of Mental Health and Mental Health Alcohol
and Drug.
In addition to the above use of the facility, the
parking lot is also used by people on jury duty at the
North County Courthouse, located at 270 Grant Avenue
Palo Alto. ’
Jurors and potentia! jurors park their cars in this
parking lot. Occasionally, when there is not enough
parking at this site, the jurors park their cars in a
nearby County parking !or.
Because of the Country’s need for this site for County
purposes it would not be a candidate for residential
development.
2)Martin sp~ngl~r School Site
The Martin Spangler School is a 5.1 acre site is located
on part of a larger County owned 7.64 parcel. The
County leases the 5.1 acres to the County office of
Education (COE) and the rest of the parcel is leased to
the community Association for Retarded, Inc. (CAR), a
non-profit organization.
The 5.1 acre site was appraised on June 15, 1993 and
valued at $7,500,000. The improvements that belong to
the COE were valued at $I,!00,000. The total value of
the land if it were vacant would be $6,400,000. The
costs of demolition of the existing structures was not
included in the total value.
The County owns the land and the COE owns the
improvements because of a resolution that was passed and
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 22, !973,
which was subsequently passed and adopted by the Santa
Clara County Board of Education on May 30, 1973.
!tem 9 (b) of that resolution states that buildings
housing special schools will be deeded to the County
Board of Education by the Board of Supervisors at no
consideration. Martin Spangler School is included in
the list of buildings that should be deeded to the
County Board of Education.
The County cannot act unilaterally to consider any
alternative uses or disposition of the site. The County
must consult COE before any decision is made to change
the use of-this site. Discussions with the COE to date
have resulted in the COE indicating they want to keep
the school open.
County can also consider gaining control of the site and
improvements by making an offer to the COE or buying out
the COE’s interest. COE staff had indicated they might.
consider presenting an offer to their Board of
$!,i00,000 for the improvements, .if the County did want
to buy out their interest. If that occurred, the county
could terminate the COE lease and market the land for
sale.
The CAR lease has a fifty year term that commenced on
October l, 1979. C~_R has an option to renew the lease
for an additional 49 year term. The rental is $i.00 per
year. CA_R, at its own cost, constructed a center for
deve!opmentally disabled adults on this site, at 525 E.
Charleston Road.
28¸
Discussions with CAR are that they plan to keep the
center open. Therefore, the County could not sell the
land for residentia! deve!opment.
Please call if you need additional information.
J~\Pi,,’\ J GDMPA(20
AVE, & MARTIN S~PAWGLER
29
The Ci[y of
Palo Alto
Area ,~17
This map is a product
of ~e
City of Palo Alto GIS
@
200’ ,’oo’
3O
Attachment B
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA DATE: November 16, 1994
SUBJECT:Review of Draft Map Exhibits For the Policy and
Program Recommendations, including Maps pertaining
to Land Use, Circulation Transportation, Environmental
Protection, Community_ Design and other Topics
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
a.Review the citywide map exhibits to the Draft Policy and Program Document
and make recommendations for confirmation of or modification to these maps;
Review the larger scale exhibits pertaining to housing sites. These exhibits
depict the same properties shown in the citywide exhibit titled "New Multi-
Family Housing Sites". They are further described in the attached October
13, 1994 memorandum and the accompanying tables which provide rough
estimates about housing site unit potential and very rough estimates about the
time frame and probability of redevelopment.
BACKGROUND
In October 1994, the Planning Com~ssion reviewed the draft Policy and Program
Document prepared by CPAC and developed their recommendations for Council on each
individual goal, policy and program as to whether or not it should be retained in the new
Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission did not have time in their review of the
written material to simultaneously consider and comment on the map exhibits which
illustrated the recommendations. The November 16th Commission meeting was
scheduled to allow for that review.
The subject maps were prepared by staff, with subcommittee review, to illustrate
geographically the various recommendations of the CPAC. These exhibits will later
become the basis in Phase III for the final ,ttiagrams for the Draft Comprehensive Plan,
including the state required land use, ciNulation, open space, scenic highway and
potential housing site diagrams. Additional maps will be contained in the Master
Environmental Impact Report FIR] related to environmental constraints such as
geotechnical hazards, flood plane, fire hazard and other environmental and planning
criteria recommended by the State and needed for California Environmental Quality Act
[CEQA] review.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations contained in the Draft Policy and Program Document are numerous
and are outlined in the November 7, 1994 City Manager’s Report. The maps illustrate
many of those recommendations. The exhibits accompany the various sections of the
document. Some exhibits will become the state required diagrams that illustrate the
general plan. Other maps are intended to better illustrate those policies and programs
which can be described geographically. They answer the "where?" question that often
arises when a policy or program is provided in narrative only. Mapping also allows
analysis of how multiple policies and programs will affect specific areas of the city.
Effects can be beneficial or they can be environmental impacts, or both. Maps can better
reveal conflicting policies and programs, aiding the City in meeting the requirement for
consistency in the plan. State guidelines encourage jurisdictions to illustrate with exhibits
as much of the plan as possible.
DISCUSSION
The maps illustrate different levels of conceptual development for various types of
information provided. Some of the maps are quite schematic, particularly those provided
for future transportation and circulation planning purposes. For example, the exhibit
titled "Regional Rail Transit" indicates light rail extending in three possible optional
routes from the planned Castro Street Station to E1 Camino Real in Los Altos and along
E1 Camino Real in Palo Alto and into Menlo Park. Another segment is shown along
Page Mill/Oregon extending into East Palo Alto, along two potential routes, to the
existing rail right-of-way which links to the East Bay. This extfibit is extremely
conceptual and any implementation of these ideas would require interjurisdicfional
collaboration and years of effort on the part of all agencies to plan the system, much less
implement it. Some of the other transportation and circulation exhibits are equally
conceptual, although not as long range. On the other hand, the identified Residential
Arterials are very specific sections of existing roads.
P:\PCSR\PCSRMAPS.NL
11-16-94
Page 2
The exhibits relating to land use changes and potential housing sites will evolve into the
Draft Land Use Diagram in Phase III of the Draft Comprehensive Plan preparation. The
recommended changes can be implemented through utilization of either coordinated area
planning (e.g., Specific Plans), traditional citywide zoning districts, or using a
combination of both. In any case, the areas identified for land use change will need
further refinement both during Phase Ill and during implementation. Most of the change
areas are so designated because they were revealed as being desirable for change through
the one-day workshops. Others were identified by CPAC subcommittees or through
independent ad hoc efforts, like the "Dream Team" or the Housing Site Committee.
While the workshops and ad hoc efforts were extremely valuable for visualizing an area’s
potential and conceptually developing ideas for future more refined planning efforts, they
were not intended to translate directly to zoNng changes. Further integrated and detailed
analysis and environmental review, as well as community and private property owner
participation, are needed. That process will occur either entirely during Phase III (i.e.,
the first half of 1995) and the subsequent Phase IV public review of the Draft
Comprehensive Plan or a combination of Phases III and IV plus more detailed area
planning (i.e., coordinated area plans). The decision as to whether or not to pursue these
more detailed planning efforts should be made by the Council as part of their current
review of the CPAC Draft IV recommendations and related Board and Commission
recommendations.
An example of the need for further refinement was recently reinforced in a field trip to
the California/Venture Area. The properties at 2747 through 2787 Park Boulevard were
identified in the community workshop as having excellent potential for multiple-family
housing. They are within wakking distance of the California Avenue Transit Depot and
on property that is underutilized, (i.e., an abandoned concrete plant and a very small
general business service building). These sites are numbered 4-11 on the large scale map
exhibits and in the housing tables. In examining the properties in the area, we found that
those next door to the abandoned concrete plant have similar potential, although they
were not identified in the workshop. In this brief field trip many issues about traffic
problems, circulation, pedestrian connection needs and opportunities arose and would
affect the public right-of-way adjacent to the ~acant property. Issues about the potential
redevelopment of the Hewlett Packard property at 395 Page Mill Road were also germane
to the discussion and would have an effect on the sites nearby. It was concluded that
there is much value in mutually exploring improvements in the area, both public and
private, with as many of the concerned and responsible entities as possible prior to taking
any specific zoning action. This type of refinement is envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan Advisory Committee’s recommendation for coordinated area plans.
P:\PCSR\PCSRMAPS.NL
11-16-94
Page 3
The Planning Commission’s recommendations on the CPAC recommendations that the
City undertake coordinated area plans was two-fold. First, for policy statements
regarding preparation of "proactive plans" or "coordinated area plans," the Commission
changed the CPAC wording from "prepare" to "evaluate the need for coordinated area
plans’, (see Policy CD-1C., page 3 of the Community Design section, Program CD-
10.A3, page 19 of the CD section, and Program CD-11 .G1, page 22 of the CD section).
However, the Commission retained the CPAC recommendations to prepare coordinated
area plans (Program CD-1.C1 Establish a coordinated area planning program that
studies major areas with the potential for change on a regular basis). For specific areas,
the Commission retained the CPAC-recommended programs to have coordinated area
plans prepared for the Stanford Medical Center (Program CD-7.B2, page 12); the Cal-
Ventura area (Program CD-9.A1, page 14); the Dream Team/Stanford Shopping Center
area (Program CD-12.A1, page 24); South E1 Camino Real (Program CD-17.A1,
page 31); and Midtown (Program CD-18.A1, page 33). For the Charleston, Edgewood
and Alma Centers, the Commission retained the CPAC wording, "If appropriate, prepare
a coordinated area plan..." (Program CD-19.A2, page 36). The only area plan
recommendation deleted was for the South of Forest Area, where the detailed
recommendations (Business and Economics, Goal BE-15 and related policies and
programs, page 16 and 17 of the BE section, and Community Design program CD-8.A1,
page 13 of the CD section) were deleted and replaced with a new program, "Study the
area after PAMF relocates."
If the Council chooses to undertake a coordinated area planning program, it is unrealistic
to expect the City to undertake a large number of these plans within a short time period.
Initial discussions at the staff level indicate that each plan would cost on the order of
$250,000 and take 12 to 18 months to complete. If coordinated area plans are not
selected as the implementation tool, some of the proposed change sites may be deleted
from the map because traditional district zoning offers a much less predictable outcome
for the community and is, therefore, often more controversial. Should the Council chose
to adopt the CPAC and Commission recommendations or not, refinement of the diagrams
will be needed in Phase III and in subsequent implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The existing exhibits are a first step in the necessary discussion regarding potential land
use modifications and changes. Discussion of the exhibits also offers the Commission the
opportunity to identify higher priority planning areas among the list of areas identified
above and in the CPAC recommendations.
The maps provided to illustrate the Comprehensive Plan are products of the City’s
Geographic Information System (GIS) program. Additional information on this program
is included in Appendix A.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the current map exhibits include the addition or deletion of policies and
programs and their geographic representation.
P:\PCSR\PCSRMAPS.NL
11-16-94
Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impacts of the new Comprehensive Plan will represent shifts in City resource
allocation and could have significant impacts on city expenditures and likely impacts on
City revenues. Staff has identified in the Policy and Program document cost ranges for
significant expenditures or known implementation costs, but many of the
recommendations still have undefined fiscal impacts. Further fiscal impact analysis will
be conducted in Phase III.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Environmental Impact Report will be prepared on the Draft Policy and Programs that
the City Council approves for further review.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The recommendations on the map exhibits will be forwarded to City Council for their
consideration in reviewing the Policy and Program document.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Appendix A
Citywide Thematic maps
Housing tables and Large Scale Exhibits
Housing memo dated October 13, 1994
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
COPIES WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS:
CPAC
Prepared by: Nancy Lytle
Project Planner: Nancy Lytle
Department Head Approval:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
P:\PCSR\PCSRMAPS,NL
11-16-94
Page 5
APPENDIX A
Geographic Information System (GIS) Comprehensive Plan Application
Eventually upon adoption, of the new Comprehensive Plan, the intent of the GIS program
is to translate the adopted policies and programs into computer maps available to all
departments of the City participating in GIS. In this way, as individual departments
embark in their independent planning efforts, they have access to the Comprehensive Plan
information, increasing the possibility of coordinated public investment and
Comprehensive Plan consistency. An example of where GIS would assist in
interdepartmental and jurisdictional coordination is a recent proposal by the Utility
Department for a utility access road through Arastradero Preserve and into Foothills
Park. The route needed by Utilities was a similar route to one that had long been
requested by the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District as a regional pathway
connection. These independent needs could have potentially been coordinated into one
physical design and connection, reducing the environmental impacts to this
environmentally sensitive area and resulting in possible cost reductions through joint
funding. Utilities and Public Works are all participants in GIS, and other departments
are anticipated to participate eventually.
The mapped exhibits that accompany the master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will
eventually enable the City to provide automated Initial Studies and in some cases
environmental clearance. This streamline capability is years away and requires that the
exhibits are input to the GIS and that the system is made operational for the public
counter customers and Development Monitoring staff, a long-range goal of the Planning
Division and citywide GIS program. In the meantime, the exhibits are very useful as a
manual system in performing faster and more systematic CEQA review.
P:\PCSR\PCSRMAPS.NL
11-16-94
Page 6
0
C)
3nN:ON3~JO~N 3nN3AV ON3~O~i
STELLIh
ROAO ROSS
DRIVE RAND ERS CT.
SSO ST
RlVi-30
TOWLE
2500 ~ ..............k 24oo ~2600 COWPER ZTOO ~_,’_..
WAVERLEY ~ =o "~ST
m " ’ o .........("’"I -1 "I "’J
.~TREET
PF
suTHEI DRIVE
PF
PF(D)
./
C¢
Page 41
T. Vincent Keelan, Realtor, ~0 14a~Ilton Avenue, s~id i~ ~s a.complex property, and to establish ~e ~air ~arket value of ~e
dete~ined. Tamarack Co~t was a ~eat oppo~uni~y Zor affordable
Page 42
Page 43
~Ordinance 415~ entitled "Ordinance :of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1992-93
~o Provide Funding For the Housing Fee Nexus Study"
I0.A~endment No.1 to Consultant Agreement No. C0019802 wi~h
-~- ~omatrlx Conaultants, Inc. for Design and Construction
-: .. Adm.inistration Services to I:prove ~as~adero ~e D~; ~~.-.
~ ~ge o~ere no~ to excee~ $12,000~
~ P~B~ 8-0 for Item Nos. 3°6, 8~0, McCoy. absent.
~I~ P~S~ 7-0-1 fo~ It~ No. 7, H~r "abstaining,. McC~
~T~s~ BUS~NESS .’.
PUBLTC HEARING: The Planning Co=ission recommends that the
City Council approve and the Architectural Review Board
recommends denial of the Negative Declaration and the proposed
Planned Community zone change from CS(H) Service Commercial
Hotel Combining District and RM-30, Medium Density Multlple-
Family Resldential to PC, Planning Community; prellmlnary
parcel map to divide one lot into two; and variances for
existing encroachments into front yard, side yard, "and
~ dayllght plane setbacks for the property located at 4269-4273
E1 Camino Real (Tamarack Court) (continued from 4/19/93 -
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED) ~
Council Member Cobb queried whether the decision on the Tamarack
Cour~ would affect staff’s view of the issues that related to the
appeal of the site plan for Houston’s Restaurant.
Senior Planner Sarah Cheney said the project was independent
decision.
Vice Mayor Enlss queried the current rent for units at Tamarack
CoUr~o
Planning Commissioner Vic OJakian clarlfled one or two units ~ere
$700 par month, one was $675, and the remaining units ~are $550.
Vice Mayor Knlss clarlfled the majority of the units wer~ .$650. ~,
P1annlng Commissioner OJaklan said that was correct.
Council Member Andersen queried how many children resided at the
property.
Ms. Cheney deferred to the property owner.
Planning Commissioner Ojaklan said previously there were familles
with children in three of the units, and now only one parson had
.child on a perlodi~ basis.
Council Me~b~..Andersen asked the current occupancy rate. Ths
previous range was from 65 to 85 percent.
os/~o/s3
Page 44
Ms. Cheney said it was approximately 75 percent.
Council Member Simitian asked whether the current Tamara~kproJe~t
generated any ~ransient occupancy tax.
Ms. Cheney said the Tamarack project had not paid the transient
occupancy tax since April 1989 because the rentals went ~eyond
30 days and there was a change in the nature of the operation.
~OTZO~I| Council Member Simltlan moved, seconded by Andersen, to
approve the staff and Planning Commission recommendation that the
City Council find that the project will not result in any slgnlfl-
cant envlronmental impacts and approve the elements of the project
subject to the findings and conditions as contained in staff report
(CMR:247:93).
CounciZ Member Simitlanhad conversations with Raymond Handleyand
vlsltedthe site. The p~’oJect had support from the staff, Plannlng
Conunlsslon, Citizens Committee of the Com~unlty Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program, Human Relatlons Commission (HRC), and The
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. Those five bodies had
carefully looked at the project and had reached the conclusion that
the project was noteworthy and deserved the Council’s support. The
project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehen-
sive Housing AffordabilityStrategy (CHAS) and was zoned for multl-
family. The need was substantial and undeniable, and the project
appllcant came to the Council with an unchallenged expertise in the
fleld. ~he project was already .~uilt, so the City had e rare
opportunity to accommodate a turnkey operation. The rather unique
confi~uratlon of the site was an advantage since there was aminlmal number of nelg~bors adjacent or in close proximity to the
proper~y. Considering all those elements, he queried why there was
so much controversy about the project. The Councll was being asked
to acknowledge what already occurred on the site and to approve a
Planned Community (PC) designation to ensure there was publlc
benefit in perpetuity. Four arguments were suitabillty for
children, adjacency of parking, adequacy to businesses, a~d the
lack of open space. The project was a spacious Slngle Room
Occupancy (SRO) project, had the same set of issues as the Barker
Hotel, and was much better than the Barker Hotel on many of those
issues. The applicant had indicated the project was not designed
for children and was not intended for family housing, hut the
applicant was being punished for that candor. The applicant
managed 2,000 units along the Peninsula and was well positioned to.
ensure that familles with children found alternative housing.
There were 20 parking spaces for the units, which was sufficient
according to the expe~ience of the appllcant with other similar
projects, and itwas more than twice the parking required by othe~
local Jurisdictions which had SRO ordinances. There were also 29
on-street parking spaces. While the impact on adjacent businesses
was a legitlmate issue, he queried whether it was really an impact
that Councll needed to be concerned about. The argument that poor
people were bad for business should be rejected. The recession
could not be used as an excuse to neglect the City’s obligation to
provide affordable housing in the community. The business
community had been the strongest voice for affordable housing in
Page 45
the Bay Area, and husiness ~nderstoodthat tome successful in Palo ~.
Alto, affordable housing was needed for its employees. Homeless -...
people who had been homeless prior to entering the project would ....
appreciate the opportunity to have a unit of that type. Monroe .~~Park was only three blocks away, so. open space was closer to the
project than many residential dwellings around the conmunity. The
preference would Me to provide affordable housing with abundant
open space, plenty of amenities for children, two parking spaces
per unit, and a warm welcome from every nelghbor,~. such
opportunities, however, rarely, i~. ever, arise. The Council,.
therefore, had to decide whether the project was fundamentally~.~
sound, and he believed the answer was "yes." He differed with the
proponents fort he proJect whomade the argument during the course
existing land use. It did constitute a change in the existing land
use, but it was a change for the better. The project was a
residential afterthought and had always been the poor relation to
~he primary use of the~ Dinah’s Shack Restaurant. It had Mean
handled by people who had marginal interest and/or e~pertlse in
managing multl-family housing. It had little soclal benefit and no
flscal benefit because it had not been paying the transient
occupancy tax. The Council was in a position to receive public
benefit end use the project for housing for very low-lncome people,
and the applicant had the expertise to turn it into a top flight
operation wi~hon-slte counseling. He urged the Council to support
the project.
Council Member "Andersen endorsed Council Member Simitian’s
comments. It was important to recognize the existing apartment
structure served the needs of low- to moderate-lncome people. The
units were 65 to 85 percent rented at the present time which meant
I~ units were occupied. The proposal increased the units to 21,
with an on-slte manager, which was an ex~raordlnary relationship
for a managed proper~y of 21 units. The CHAS considered the
project viable, affordable housing. The Urban Ministry stated that
less than I0 percent of its cllentele had automobiles, so 20
parking spaces would be sufficient for the project. The proJec~
was designed for residential use, and if the Councll did not
support the proposal, then that would indicate the structure should
he demollshed. Furthermore, the app11cant for Houston,s Restatu~ant~
had not objected to the proposal. "Dinah’s Garden Hotel would not
be affected adversely by five addltional lower income residents,
and low-lncome people would not impact the higher income people
that would patronize the hotel. There was no data available that
suggested low-lncome housing increased illegal behavior. It was
not Just a land use issue, and the Council,s approval of the
proposal would indicate a commitment to a community that supported
a diverse housing population. Low-lncome housing would not Me
provided in the community if it were only supported when all
interested parties agreed, when all the amenities could Me
provided, and when there was no one that considered it adverse to
their economic interest. He rejected the suggestion by some
individuals that it was an act of prejudice against ~he souther~
part of tow~if another affordable housing project were put in that
area. There had been no problem with the Palo Alto Housing
Page- 46
Corporation’s (PAHC) selection of low’Income housing locations. Heurged suppor~ of the staff recommendation.
Council ~eaber~heeler said ~he application was not simple, and it
was the most difficult issue she had considered. She appreciated...the people who responded to her requests for information..She met~
wi~hMr. Handley and hls’legal representative, Fran Wagstaff, Mid~
Peninsula HOusing Coal~ition (MPHC),° and she spoke with members ofthe public who had an interest in" the property. There wja
question that the use proposed for the property fulfilled a needb~th in Palo Alto and in neighboring communities. There wereopportunities to be able to house people of lower income in Palo
Alto. The e~enslve screening processes of residents atTamarack project would be more ~han those of other apartment
’dwellers in the City. The units were designed for singlecants, and the people who resided at the project would beworking poor. She concurred with staff the application complled/~-:
with the Comprehensive Plan policies that related tohousing. The appllcant w~s .extremely reputable with a history
success in other communities and was able to secure funding.Yederal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Shecarefully considered the 1ocatlon which had an extremely
bizarre history that had been confused and compounded by bothprivate and publlc actions. After reviewing the zoning map andvisiting the site, she met with staff and discovered that when the
buildlng was constructed, the long rectangle site was surroundeda commercial zone. The parcel was for a commercial purpose,
~uasl-hotel use, and up until the late 1950’s did not producetransient occupancy tax. There were covenants that existed betweenthe o~ers of the property and the o~ers of Dinah Garden Hotelwhich solidified an understanding of the use of the building in a
quasl-hotel fashion. As a result of the adoption of the 1976Comprehensive Plan, a new zoning map was put in place, and staff ora consultant visited each parcel of land in the City and a~temptedto draw the map in a manner that reflected the use to which
individual buildings were being put at the time. Because the
building had a quasl-hotel status, multl-family zone was the onlygood zoning designation between the hotel and the residential use,
but it was not used as an apartment building nor was that the
intent. Residential uses could be accommodated in commercialzones, and hopefully the Council would have the opportunity toapprove such ~ses in the future. The project was different because
it was residential use and zoning within a single business. Shecould not support the finding to change the zoning on the proper~y
which would be ompatible with existing and potential uses ~nadjoining sites.
SUBSTXTUTZ HOTXONs Council Member ~neeler moved, seconded WRosenbaum, to deny the application for e PC zone change ofsubdivision.
Council Meml:~sr Rosenbaum asked if the motion to approve failed,
whether that constituted denial.
City Attorney Ariel Calonn~ said the motion to approve wouldapprove the staff reoommendatlon, and other forms of a mo~ion to
05/i0/93
Page 47
approve might be acceptabie. In the absence of an affirmative
a~lon to deny the project, it would not close the matter.
Councll Member Slmitlan understood that after the orlglnal zotlon
to approve the project was voted up or down, there could be any
number of alternative motions. Ms bellevsd the substitute motion
was inconsistent.
MOTION TO ~PPEAL SUBSTITUTE MOTION~ Council Member simltla~¯ appealed the substitute motion as being out. of order. -
Vice.Mayor Eniss understood the direction by the City Attorney
differently. She asked the City Attorney if the substitute motion
~as in order. ¯
Mr. Calonne said the substitute motion was in order, and Council
Member Simltlan had the right to appeal the ruling. Council shouldvote on thequestion of whether the substitute motion was in order;
MOTION-TO ~%PPEAL SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 2-6, Andersen, Simltlan"yes," MoCown absent.
Council Member Rosenbaum appreciated the comprehensive comments
made by his colleagues, but a more visceral response was in order
on the issue. The building was in the middle of Dinah’s Garden
Motel, and it was neither reasonable nor fair to create a free-standing parcel with grossly substandard characteristics in that
location. When the building was constructed, it was used as a
hotel. The current use of the buildlng as an apartment on a month-
to-month rental basis was temporary pending resolutlon of the
status of the building. Staff had found itself in the middle of a
private dispute. The proposal should be returned to the two
private parties for resolution.
Councll Member Huber agreed with CounciZ Member Wheeler in terus of
the difflculty with the item and said it was the most difficult
issue he had considered as a member of the Council. Me acknowl-
edged the efforts of the Archlteotural Review Board, and Planning
Commissioner Ojakian. The issue was whether Councll could make T.he
finding required of a PC zone, i.e., compatibility with existing
¯ and potential uses on adjoining sites. He did not bel~eve low-
income housing was incompatible in commercial or residential zones,
and he was confident in ~heMPHC’s abillty to managed the project.
Me was concerned about the parking and open space but believed it
could be overcome. The Hyatt Rickey’s/Handley dispute was
irrelevant to the issue. He "could not make the finding that the
zone change would be compatible with existing uses and agreed with
the statement by Planning Commissioner Bern Beecham in his letter
dated March 31, 1993, "~t is not the use itself but rather the use
in conjunction with the site development that I find may be
incompatible with the adjoining use.. There was concern thai the
building existed and the use existed, but in terms of what was
required ~y a PC, he believed the building,s existence was a
dlstlncti6~without a difference. The land use in the area shouldbe a hotel, and the Councll should not approve zoning that would
prohibit that ~use. He would not support the original motion but
05110193 70-3"79
Page 48
would continue to support the City’s long-term needs for affordable
houslng.
Council Member Fazzlno thanked the staff, ARB, and Planning
Commission for their outstanding efforts. On one hand, there wasan opportunity to Support affordable housing, ~ut on the other
hand, there was an existing important business surrounding the¯ project. The decision to vote against the project was made lore
difficult by comments made by opponents oft he project. The issue~
was not whether Polo Alto was dedicated to providing affordable
housing or whether affordable housing was appropriate along E1Camino Real. It was and should be encouraged. He rejected anysuggestion that residents of low-income projects were undeslra~leto the neighborhood. He llved in an area of town that had more.}-
low-income projects than all other neighborhoods combined. He was
troubled that comments from indlviduals on both sides of the issuehad bordered on demagoguery. It was important to focus oathsusa issue, and he could not make the finding that the site
appropriate fort he proposed use. Many of his comments were stated.~by one or more of the Planning Commissioners. There were three
hotels An allgnment, and the Councll was being asked to placehousing in the middle of an existing, extremely important business
toPolo Alto. The site as developed was grossly substandard, wasnot capable of standing on its legal own, and was a subset ofhotel complex. He agreed the building was one of Polo Alto’s worstdesigns. He thanked Planning Commissioner OJaklan for his effort
at the Planning Commission meeting to assure that the residents ofthe project would no~ be treated as second-class citizens. He~elleved that by approving the project, the City would create an
opportunity for residents to be treated as second-class citizens.He was troubled the City would provide residents of the project
with inadequate open space. The establishment of a condition that
residents could not use the hotel swimming pool or room serviceemphasized the imposslble nature of the proposal. He could not~imagine ohil..nen living at the site, and it would create
opportunities for ongoing problems. The Council could avold’-creating problems by defeating the staff recommendation. He a~reedwith Council Member Wheeler’s analysis and believed the future of
the site should continue to be hotel use. He could not make thefinding that adjoining uses were compatlble with the proposed use.It was important for the Council and the staff to work with houslng
advocates to identify other sites for housing along E1 Camlno Real.He opposed the original motion and would support the substitute
motion.
Council Member Cobb associated with the comments of Council Mem~rsWheeler with respect to the history of the site and Council Member
Rosenbaum,s vlsceral comments. He visited the site and spoke withpeople on both sides of the issue. The social charges regardlr~
the residents who would live at the site were not correct. He mawsome terrible planning and agreed wi~h the comments of Planning
Commissioner Beecham. The City Just lost a major hotel, and anopportunity that private actions might result in another excellent
hotel complex was important. The transient"occupancy ta~ was amajor source of income to the City and was the income that helpedsupport social programs. The housing issue was enormous a~d
70-380
Page. 49
"housing~ Ha believed CounCil and staff should find an
answer. He supported the substitute motion.¯~-~:..
Vice Mayor Knlss associated with the ~ommsnts of Council.~
.Rosenbaum. The housing issue had been extremely difflcult
it was hard to separate a land use issue for a different type
housing from what currently existed. The proposed proJa~
according to the staff, would have no change An the use since
sits was ~ed by non-transient and ~e rentals exceeded 30
R~less ~f ~e decision, ~e alia-would continue to ~ used.
"~housing~ but approval of ~e proposal would dlsplace one
housing Zor snorer, i.e, low-income housing would ~ dlsplaced
Co~cil’s priorities: Economic Outreachand People in ~Isis. ’
~e Co~cll turned do~ the housing opportunity, constituents ~a~
supposed ~a~ cause would be lost, and ~f it t~ned do~
economically f~ctlonlng hotel, it would send ~e message
businesses that it did not put emphasls ~hind-what ~t
Co~cll w,s In an awkward position of judging a 40-year dlspute.~
She would suppo~ ~e substitute motion. "
~. Calonne suggested the Council either direct staff to
w£~ a resolutlon or to incorporate a supporting statement
findings made by Council Members into the substitute motion. ~- -
~ ~ SECO~ AGREED TO INCORPO~TE I~O ~E SUBSTIT~E
references by Council Members to specific findings i~ suppo~
~e. S~st~tute Motlon.
Vi~e Mayor ~iss co,ended the Planning Co~isslon and ~ f~~’
~elr efforts and said both groups saw the issues differently.
Co~cil,s vote would be based more on Jud~ent than on what some
Co~cll Me~ers saw as a different vle~olnt.
Councll Member Slmitian echoed Vice Mayor Kniss’s comments about
the fact t hal the parties saw the issues dlfferen~ly. He apprecim
atsd the efforts of his colleagues to put some of the issues to
rest and to focus on issues that were a difference of opinion. The
issue of findings raised by the City Attorney and addressed by
Council Member.Wheeler was an area that was seen dlfferently. When
it cams to the compatibillty issue, he looked at an operating
rssidsntlal use and saw the existing use continuing in a better
way. The two adjacent hotels had not only managed to survive but
also planned to invest further capltal. He could not reach the
findlngthat professional management made the project Incompatlble.
With respect to the design issue, the denial of the project did not
mean the design would change. The loss of switching pool use and
room service should not be contrasted agains~ the need for
affordable housing. ..- .
Council Member Andersen asked whether the Council considered it
appropriate to continue the status quo for the property or whether
the property should change ownership in order to make it a more
compatible use with the hotel. Me would b e interested in re~0nsld,
sting the proposal in six months if a property 8e~lement were not
reached by the applicant and Mr. Handler.
05110193 ?0-3’81
Page 50
:Vice Mayor Kniss tmderstood-Cotmcil was asked to
-~ec~da~on or deny At. .. .
-proposal at a ,later t~e ~ a way ~at could ~ consid~ed
¯ ~’..probl~ wi~ 1~age ~a~ broad. ~.~:
:-.~CL1 ~r Cobb ~as ~comfo~abZe vL~ ~e ,approach.
.:-. manual forces would b~tng a~ut ~e eolu~Lon~ end ¢o.~da~e" hap~L~g £~ a pa~L~la~ period o~ ¢tme £o=ced ~he issue ~
-+ ~ Co~c£1. The ~en~s ~rom ~ose ~ho indicated,~e +n~ notion concerned ~e ~ssue of no~ ~Lng ~le ~o
findings end ~e nat~e of ~e planning. He d~d not see .hoe
issues would ~ange in slx months even Af an a~eement Wera
.~,:=ea~ed, Xf ~e Council vanted ~o find ~s~ers to the es~abll
~-.~nt of ~at t~e of housing in ~e co~ity, .At should.~
~?onsid~ed at a tutus Council meeting, ~e did not suppor~
~’~ FAXL~ i-7, ~dersen "yes," McCo~ absent.. : " ’~" "
" Co,oil Me~r Fazzlno clarified the loss of swi~in~ pool ~Se.
~ an ~illus~ation, and ~he loss of a recreational op~rtunlty,~ ~e already llmi~ed recreational opport~ities, =oul~
..Second,class citizenship for residents of ~e ~roJect. .~,
S~BTXT~ M~XON P~S~ 6-2, ~dersen, Simi~lan eno,.
~sent.
M~XON ~S~ 8-0, McCo~ absent.
14.Council Me~s Fazztno and Rose~a~ =e Six-Foot F~¢Is’~:~ ~,.
~e Prope~y Line Along University Argue -
M~XOH TO ~ Council Me~er Fazzlno ~oved,
Rose~a~, to refer ~e matter of 8ix-foot fences on ~e
line along University Avenue to Planning Co~isslon and 8~ff
evaluation and ~at ~e followlng issues ~ ad~essed:
3.
4.
5.
Change in appearance of the street
Fence standards and landscaping requirements
Visibility at intersections ~..~Poli~ concerns about providing hiding pl~oes in
Application to other ar~erlal streets
Page. 51
Site #22:Maybell Avenue Property at the rear of 4710 El Camino
Real.
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multiple Family Residential.
Current Zoning: RM- 15.
Current Land Use: Parking lot.
Site Size: Approximately 0.6 acres.
Recommended Land Use Designation: Service Commercial.
Discussion: This site was redesignated from Service Commercial to Multiple Family
Residential in 1989 as part of the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. The
Multiple Family area has been used since before 1989 for parking of vehicles by Lutz
Ford. At the present time, a driveway connects the Multiple Family site with the rear of
the Lutz site.
The property has several serious problems that inhibit residential development. First,
nearly all of the rear of the site is adjacent to a large City of Palo Alto electric substation.
The substation is unattractive and generates constant noise. While the best and latest
available evidence on electromagnetic fields indicates that the substation is not a health
risk, there is enough concern in the general population about EMF that the substation is
an additional factor discouraging residential development. Second, to the rear of the site
is also located the Lutz Ford automotive sales and service facility, including a large,
unattractive structure that includes car storage on the roof.
Since 1989, City staff has received a number of residential use inquiries, nearly always
including the adjacent 4170 E1 Camino Real site. Each of those proposals encountered
major site planning problems in trying to use the Multiple Family land. Finally, the front
Service Commercial area was proposed and approved for a Walgreen’s Drug Store.
Without the site planning flexibility of the front area, staff concludes that it is unlikely
that a residential project will be proposed for the rear Multiple Family land.
Planning Commission Recommendation: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, designate
the site Neighborhood Commercial (public testimony on pages 22 to 23 and Planning
Commission consideration on pages 28 to 30 of the 10/11/95 Planning Commission
minutes; 5 ayes, 1 no, Cassel against and Carrasco not participating).
52
Staff Comments and Recommendations: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission
recommendation.
53
~~ ~~~//,
rear ;f 4170 E1-Cabin; Real
Area
This map is a product
of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
o’200’ too’
54
Site #21: 4261-4271 El Camino Real and 431 Dinah’s Court
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Service Commercial for 4261 and 4269 E1
Camino Real and Multiple Family Residential for 4271 E1 Camino Real and 431 Dinah’s
Court.
Current Zoning: Service Commercial with Hotel Overlay (CS(H)) and RM-30 for 4217
E1 Camino Real and 431 Dinah’s Court.
Current Land Use: The site contains the 148-room Dinah’s Court Hotel, which includes
22 longer term residential suite units located in the former Tamarack Court apartment
building. Nineteen of the 148 units are located in the building at 431 Dinah’s Court. The
site also contains a vacant former restaurant building.
Site Size: Approximately 5.7 acres.
Recommended Land Use Map Designation: Commercial Hotel.
Discussion: While the potential Commercial Hotel land use category has not been
precisely defined, it is intended to be compatible with the type of hotel operation
conducted at Dinah’s Court, including related restaurant facilities. The key question with
this request is whether the Multiple Family-designated properties should be considered
for redesignation.
In 1993, the City Council rejected an application from Midpeninsula Housing Coalition
for a Planned Community zone to use the 22-unit building at the end of what was then
Tamarack Court (and since renamed to Dinah’s Court) for lower income residential units.
Subsequent to the City Council action, the site was acquired by the owner of the Dinah’s
Court Hotel, rehabilitated, and since used as a longer-stay (i.e., beyond 30 days)
residential suite hotel facility. The second building in the Multiple Family area contains
19 units, which are used as part of the conventional hotel facility (i.e., stays generally
shorter than 30 days). With acquisition of the 22-unit building, the Multiple Family
Residential area and the rear of the Service Commercial designated area function as an
integrated hotel complex. The hotel-related restaurant at the front of the site is currently
vacant.
Staff concurs with the property owner’s request for consideration of a Commercial Hotel
designation on the site. This recommendation is reached because of the tightly integrated
hotel use of the Service Commercial and Multiple Family Residential portions of the site;
the value of facilitating retention and upgrading of the site; the well-established hotel use
for a portion of the Multiple Family Residential area (the 19-unit hotel building on RM-
3!
30 land was constructed in 1965 and has always been used as a hotel); the City Council’s
rejection of the housing-related Planned Community zone for what is now the 22-unit
residential suites building; and the difficulty over the long term of monitoring and
enforcing the over 30-day provision for residential suite use of the 22-unit building.
Planning Commission Recommendation: In the Draft Comprehensive Plan, designate
the site Commercial Hotel (pageg 22 to 30 of the 10/11/95 Planning Commission minutes,
5 ayes, 1 no, Cassel against and Carrasco not participating).
Staff Comments and Recommendations: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission
¯ recommendation.
32
Executive Offices
September 30, 1995
Ms. Nancy Lyttle
Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: CPAC Map Revisions
Dear Ms. Lyttle:
We are requesting that you consider changing the following properties of Dinah’s
Garden Hotel to the new zoning designation of "Commercial Hotel":
4261 E1 Camino Real, currently zoned CS(H)
4269 E1 Camino Real, currently zoned CS(H)
4271 E1 Camino Real, currently zoned CS(H)/KM30 (zoning line goes through the
center of the building)
431 E1 Camino Real, currently zoned RM30
These properties are isolated from any existing residential buildings and have been
operating as hotels for many years. Now that the new zoning designation is available,
we feel that the above referenced sites should be included.
Sincerely,
!j~M~a~tters
//Vice, resident of Operations
JM:mar
Dinah’s Garden Hotel
4261 E1 Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306-4405 33
415 ¯ 493 ¯ 2844
Fax 415,856 ¯ 4713
800 ° 227 ¯ 8220
4261 4269~% 4261, 426, 42N E1 Camino gea~4~1 ~~ Court
Area =~ 21-
200’ zOO’
34
Appeal of the Decision of the Zoning Administrator to Deny
Appllcatlon for a Variance to Allow Construction of a New
Story, Single-Family Residence at 756 Talisman Couz~ , ..
Mayor McCown announced that Item No. i0 had been removed by staf~
because the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Varza, withdrew their
of the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny an sppllcatlon’
for a variance to allow construction of a new two-story,
family tee!dance with a height of 25 feet on a flag lot
¯ slngle-story and 17-foot height limit was normally the maxlmu~,
permitted, and a front yard setback of 12 feet where 20 feet was
otherwise required for the property located at 756 Talisman Co~
II. ~: Planning Commission Recommendatlon.~fo~’~o..
~’Approval and the Archlte~tural Review Board Recommendat~6n for
Denial of the Negative Declaration and the Proposed Planned:-
Community Zone Change for 4259-4273 E1 Camlno Real., co~:)
Hayer McCo~n announced that she would not participate onZte=
11 and :12 because both she and her la~ firm had been Involved
the appellant on easement issues that related directly topro~e¢t.
Vice Mayor Kales clarified the Council’s intent was to hear all of
the public testimony that evening, and if further discussion were
necessary, the issue would be continued to the May .i0, 1993,..Ccuncll meeting. She said the item was a land use issue, and the
Planning Co~mlsslon recommended approval and the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) recommended denial of the Negative Declaration
and the proposed Planned Community (PC) zone change from CS(H)~
Service Commercial Hotel Combining District and RM-30, Medium
Density Multiple-Family Resldential to PC, P1anning"Communlty;
Preliminary parcel map to divide one lot into two; and variancesfor existing encroachments into front yard, side yard, and
daylight plane setbacks for the project.
Chief Plannlng Official/Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle said the.
questions raised were whether there was. a trade-off for the
Council, whether there was a divided recommendation from the
Planning Commission, staff, and the ARB, whether the staff’s
recommendation was imbalanced, "and whether there was a personal
staff sgendabelng forwarded in the staff report (CMR:247:93). The
issue and policy decision resulted from a onflict between ¯ poor
existing ~oint facility design versus the need for low-lncome
housing; None of the policy bodies during the course of several
hearings argued against the need for low-income housing in PaleAlto. The ARB stated the poor design and inherent use conflicts of
the facility would bepermanently fixed into its current conflgura-tion with the approval of the combination eppllcatlon, and there-
fore, the project was inappropriate because it removed any chalice
04119193 70-334
Page35
for improvement of a bad" situation. The Plannlng Com~isslon
¯ aJority and staff believed the desigu Would not ~e worsened and.
approval would fulfill compelling housing needs as identified in
the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan.. The recommendationwas based on policy in the-Comprehensive Plan which encouraged.
zoning flexibility when considering low-income housing projects.~
Any imbalance in the staff recommendation was due to imbalances in
~Irrent policies within the Comprehensive Plan. While .the,-
Comprehensive Plan was being updated, staff contlnuad~-.to use~document that did not contain policles for land usa decis
regarding assisting local businesses, encouraging ’hotel
ments, and other similar policies that were the subject of recent
Council priorities on economic plannlng, The document did contain
many policles which encouraged the preservation and creation of
affordable housing; however, the document did not deal with deslgn~
and design had become an important issue in the current update
effort. Recent newspaper articles were incorrect with respect .to
the staff encouraging the property owner to find a low-lncome ’:.’~
housing group to apply for the subdivision. The property owner was
discouraged from any subdivision of the property in a non-complylngmanner when staff was approached several years ago with a Below-
Market Rate (BMR) proposal, and the applicant came to his own
concluslon regarding s BMR proposal. The Pale Alto Housing
Corporation (PAHC), who initially approached staff with the idea,
also was discouraged by staff. Mid-Penlnsula Housing Coalltlon
(M~HC) was also warned regarding the risk and controversy.
However, after receiving an application, staff processed it
according to the policies in the do~ments staff, used in making
land use recommendations.
commercial zones because of a lack of open space. The majority Ofthe Planning Commission approved the application, end ths concerns
Planning Commissioner Victor OJakian said the issue had been
dlfflcult for the Plannlng Commission. The Planning Commission had
considered the site in terms of the current ordinances and believedthat certain required determinations of those ordinances were not
me.~. The majority of the Plannlng Commission considered how the
existing site currently functioned and felt therewas Justification
arrangement had the potential to be permanent housing, and most of.
the units rented for $675 per month which was already low-lncome
housing. Many of the arguments against the proJec~ were things
that already existed. There was currently some negative impact on
the surrounding businesses because of existing covenants, so the
Planning Commission put some elements in the Conditions that would
prevent or inhibit a similar situation from happening in the
future. When staff revisited the issue, it attributed the
difficulty wi%h obtaining affordable housing to the lack of federal
funds and availability at sites. It was difficult to get afford--
able housing into Pale Alto because there was a lack of incentive
for developers to build that type of housing. The affordable
housing issue was clear in the Comprehensive Housing Affordabillty
Strategy (CHAS) document, and the proposed project was the only
unit singled out for permanent housing. He realized one of thedlf.~ ~ulties with the project was the lack of open space, but the
tit! ~hould not tie its hands and deny apartment complexes in
Page 36
emotional and h~an pull of housing for ~e homeless or a~u~
h~eless versus rational land use planning. She ~lle~d
C~Iss~one~ Beech~’s letter o~ March 3, 1993, s~rlzedsite development was ~e c~x of ~e probl~. ~e site develo~
was s~standard which she ~lleved had no right
~m =~unlty would receive. The staff repo~
charac~erlzed tenants as indlvlduals who ~uld likely
~e ~a~y ~qtel ~nd restaurant uses along El Casino Real.i~~llcaulon characterized the tenants ~n ~e~e provision of pe~anen~ housing tot ve~ iow-lncome IndivIdua~
and s~11 Zamilies with priority given to ~ose ~o had
04/19/93 ?0-336
Page’ 37
COSt housing, but it did not make sense to instltutlonallze it. A
lot of money had been invested into Dinah,s Hotel, and Houston’s
Restaurant would invest.a lot of money. The logical solution would
be to return Tamarack Court to an ex~ended-stay hotel. Zf the
Council made the decision to move forward with low-cost housing
nex~ to the hotel, there would be no corrective process if it.
created a severe economic impact on the hotel. It was not a ~ood
plan.
B~rry Elledge, 466 Monroe Drive, Mountain View, said acoordlng to
the criteria establlshed in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Plan,
Tamarack Court was already a very low-income housing pro~ect. It
was unclear from the terms of ~he Comprehensive Plan that the
project ~uallfled as a public benefit since a very iow-lncome
housing project would be converted to another very low-lncome
housing project. People who were self-sufflclent would b e replaced
by people who were being subsidized. The neighborhood was
o4119193
Page 38
., . :concerned about a homeless ihelter because many of the couples both
:::.~ .~ .workedi and there was a lot of small children: He had asked MPHC:-~. !. whether, potentially unsavory people would be screened and was told,
-~.. ~people could not be diecri~inated, against because., of-a
i~i ?.; ~criminal conviction or on the basis of drug or alcohol ~d~ L~
~; ,~.Tne ~.opportunlties to eliminate unsavory .people were li~ted.;~,.,
:’~! ErioWac~s~an, 112 Monroe Drive, Mountain’ Vi w,"rsf~rrad to-a
¯Francisco Chron~l* article vhlch stated no~.h ofOregon Expressway.-... there were five low-income developments and .to the.south there wore
nine, -which did not include Tamarack Court..-ZE BMR’s were added
-that .plan, there would be 10 in North Palu. Alto and 22 in South
-Pale Alto. Potential development for possible future
housing showed 4 £n North Pale Alto and 15 in Sou~h Pale Alto:There seemed to be some disparity in the ratio. He urged
Council to consider the fairness of the plan. If the Council~
continued that plan as the future for South Pale Alto, it
become another East Pale Alto.
Caroline Lamont, 618 Kingsley Avenue, urged the council to
the ~ubd~vislon of the lot to accommodate the acquisition by
of the Tamarack Apartments. The apartments were needed by
ommunity as an affordable housing resource for homeless and near[
homeless people. The location was ideal because it was on a
bus route. Many people with service Jobs had a tremendous-problem:!
affording housing in the community where they grew up. The "
of community should Include those people too. Because
City’s housing assistance, she was able to complete her educatlon~..!:
and was currently employed as the Housing Director for the City
Fremont and had assisted many affordable" housing developments.
Housing affordabillty was a regions1 problem, and every city
do .its share. As a housing and plannlng professional, she had
utmost regard for H~HC’s work, both as a developer and as a
of affordable housing. She believed the publlc benefit and need."
that the housing would serve outweighed the non-conformlty. The
housln~ was already there, and M~HC would only improve %he housing
and make it more affordable for people who were tmamployed...~i.:..
underemployed, or working in low paying ~oba. ~ ....
Gloria Christine, 278 Monroe Drive, Mountain View, supported the. ~:~
pro~ect and urged the Council to approve the project.
Leonard Ely, 655 Seals Avenue, spoke on behalf of the
Development Block Grant (CDSG) Committee and said the Tamarack .7;~.
Project offered the best affordability. The project could ~
immediately, Section 8 subsidies were in place, transportatien.was~,
good, and 22 units of needed housing would ~e provided,.
fulfilled all of the priorities s~ated in CHAS.
Geoz~e Smith, 390 MacLane Street, considered the approval of ~h~!~-~
proposal to be a moral and athloal dedication to ~he
Trina Lovsrcheck, Chairperson, Human " Relations Commissi~
1070 McGregor Way, supported the recommendation of the Plennlng~:
Commission that asked ~ha Council to approve the Eonlng ~hangee leE-:
Page 39
’ ~.:~d~ ~ ~used ~Inly for single ~ople and s~ll f~illes
~ ’::. ~O. ~C ~uld 8~een ~rs~ve tenants ~eEully. to ~
.... E~nclal st~illty, and £t was close to ~anspo~atlon~ ¯ She
’ .~e Co,ell .~o suppo~ ~e pro~sal as’an oppo~lty to
.. ~:~8 City’s ob1~gat£on to provide housing oppo~itles .fora
~ .~a~n g~ent of ~e population ~d Zor ~e go~ of .~e
p~ot~stod ~o rezontng on ~e ~sim of ~eir o~ application .fo~single-family prope~y variances. ~HC ac~ist~ton would add
"s~ility to the neig~orhood. ~e State Departeent of Hous
¯ Co~tty Develo~ent reposed several years ago that the
of l~-tncome housing, hoeeless shelters, or B~ housing bad.no¯n~ative impac~ on existing residential neighbo~hoods. She~e Co~cil to endorse and approve ~e variance application..-:
~an collins, 310 Mo~oe ~ive, Mountain view, opposed the
Co~ su~tvision because i~ was a substandard lot wi~
~rktng and no open space. A lack of open space would lead
~espassers which would create a less than desi~bl~ business
envtro~ent. Thriving businesses paid a lot of taxes and kept
~eir property in shape, but st~ggling businesses did no~.
~ril~ B~ant, 4010 O~e S~eet, President, ~e ~a~e of Wom’~Vot~s, supported the application for a zoning variance
T~a~ Co~t (letter on file in the City Clerk’s .Office).
Judy Ri~dson, 2503 sou~ coup, said ~e ba~o~d of ~e
sPonsoring_organizations should ~ considered. She had fai~~e Ur~n Minist~ who had managed and helped ~e homeless in Palo
Alto. ~o ~HC had a wonderful ~eputatlon ~oughout ~e Bay
Zo~ ~ts management of low-income housing. She resented ~e scare
ta~cs, and the issue was about ~ople who needed housing n~
Judy Stained, ~08 Ch~chill Avenue, underscored ~at ~HC .~s
co~idered to be preeminent by housing professionals, pa~i~la~ly.
~n its management of its projects. In order ~o ~ a heal~y,
diverse asualty, the City had ~o include people of
f~mily t~s, ~aces, o~nic groups, ages, and incomes. She~e Council to approve the application.
would ~ ~antamount to those p~ople ~Ing to grasp th~ ~ttom ~g
on ~e ladder of basic liZe suppo~. If Ta~ra~.~.Co~ were.
approved, ~e property value would ~ not ha~ed ~or~ in the tut~e-
~n it had ~on in the past. No~In~ would ~ don~ by ~att
"~-.-’~L’:."~’"~’~’~ ........."" : ’ :~ ~~’-, ,._:. .""i.:-. "-’-~"
’ ~i.i the :-T~ack "court site." There .was "~ a’:.large need to
~.~-’ i.!affcrdable housing for low- to moderate-income residents of Palen.: ,~0:-.i.A1to,i~ It was i~po~ant to approve the proJec~ to .ensure that
"°.’.iCit¥16ontinued to have diversity within .the City. ’i Diversity added?~.:~i !.,~ricl~ess and variety to a oo==unlty and kept the +City+~frc~ ~ovln~.
Corporation and Dinah’s Hotel if the Tamarack Court were approved
041%9193 70-339
Page 40
Attachment C
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE CATEGORIES
(Amended through June 5, 1995)
Definitions of Land Use Categories
Single-Family Residential: Includes one dwelling unit on each lot and uses requiring
permits such as churches and private schools which are generally located in residential
areas and serve them.
Specific areas may be zoned for addition of second units or modification of single-family
houses to duplexes where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and not
increase traffic and parking problems.
The density in single-family areas will range from one to seven dwellings an acre, but
may rise to a maximum of 14 units in zones where second units are permitted. Population
densities will range from 1 to 30 persons per acre.
Multiple-Family Residential: the permitted number of housing units will vary by area,
depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to
shopping, and environmental problems of the area. Densities will range from 10 to 40
units and 1 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the multiple-
family scale next to single-family residential areas. Higher densities may be allowed
where measurable community benefit is to be derived, where services and facilities are
available to serve the increased density, and where the effect of the increased density will
be compatible with the Plan.
Neighborhood Commercial: includes shopping centers with off-street parking, or a
cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. These areas often
include supermarkets, bakeries, delicatessens, drugstores, variety stores, restaurants,
barber shops, beauty shops, laundromats, dry cleaners, and hardware stores. Residential
and mixed use projects may also locate in this land use category. Existing neighborhood
commercial centers shown on the Plan Map are Alma Plaza, Charleston Center,
Edgewood Shopping Center, and Midtown. Residential uses are not permitted in the
Charleston Shopping Center or the Midtown shopping district. As described in
Employment Program 5, the neighborhood commercial areas designated for E1 Camino
.Real and E1 Camino Way are intended to include such uses plus a limited number of
service commercial uses which would serve nearby neighborhoods and be compatible
-1-
with them and a beautified E1 Camino. The allowable building/site floor area ratio for
these areas is 0.4:1.
Regional/Community Commercial: larger shopping centers and shopping districts that
have a variety and depth of goods and services usually not available in the neighborhood
shopping areas. They rely on large trade areas and may include department stores,
apparel shops, sporting goods stores, toy stores, book shops, plant stores, fabric stores,
appliance dealers, furniture stores, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as
offices, real estate brokers, banks, and insurance brokers. Residential and mixed-use
projects may also locate in this land use category. Regional!community commercial areas
shown on the Plan Map are Stanford Shopping Center, Downtown (University Avenue),
California Avenue and Town and Country Village. The allowable building/site floor area
ratios range from .35:1 to 2:1.
Service Commercial: facilities that provide city-wide and regional services that rely on
customers making trips by car and do not necessarily benefit from being located in high-
volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers and Downtown. Stores locating in
these areas include dealers in new and used automobiles, automobile repair and service,
motels, veterinarians and small animal hospitals, lumber yards and building supply
dealers, and fast-food and other restaurants. In almost all cases, these require good
automobile access and service drives so that customers can safety and conveniently load
and unload without impeding traffic. Residential and mixed-use projects may also locate
in this land use category. Service commercial areas shown on the Plan Map are along E1
Camino, San Antonio, south of Downtown, and on Embarcadero east of Bayshore
Freeway. The allowable building/site floor area ratio is .4:1.
Research!Office Park: office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose
operations are clean and quiet and do not conflict with any adjacent residential uses.
Stanford Industrial Park is an example of this type of land use. Other uses that may be
included are educational institutions and child care facilities, and residential and mixed
use projects, whose proximity to employment centers is highly desirable, provided that
the specific locations of such facilities are not in conflict with the presence or use of
hazardous materials. Additional uses, including retail services, eating and drinking
establishments, commercial recreation, churches and private clubs may also be located in
Research!Office Park areas, but only if they are found to be compatible with the
surrounding area through the conditional use permit process. The allowable building/site
floor area ratios range from 0.3:1 to 0.5:1.
-2-
Light Industrial: wholesale facilities and storage warehouses and the manufacturing,
processing, repairing, or packaging of goods. Emission of fumes, noise, smoke or other
pollutants or nuisances is strictly controlled. Residential and mixed use projects may also
locate in this land use category. The area south of Oregon Avenue between E1 Camino
and Alma and the San Antonio Road industrial area are both designated light industrial on
the Plan Map. Palo Alto’s Zoning Ordinance does not contain provisions for factories
and the Land Use Plan Map does not contain a heavy industrial classification. The
allowable building site floor area ratio is 0.5:1.
Publicly Owned Conservation Land." open space lands whose purpose is primarily the
preservation and enhancement of the present natural state of the lands and their plants and
animals, and in which only compatible recreation and educational activities are allowed.
Public Parks: open space lands whose purpose is primarily active recreation and whose
character is essentially urban, which have been planted with non-indigenous landscaping,
and which require concerted effort to maintain the recreational facilities and landscaping
in a usable fashion.
School District Lands: properties owned by public school districts or leased to them or
by them and used for educational, recreational, or other non-commercial, non-industrial
purposes. The allowable building/site floor area ratio is 1:1.
"Streamside Open Space: the corridor of riparian vegetation along a natural stream. The
corridor may vary in width up to 200 feet. Hiking, biking, and riding trails may be
developed.
Open Space... Controlled Development: land having all the characteristics of open space
but upon which some development can be allowed, providing that the open space
amenities are retained. Residential and population densities range from .2 to 1 dwelling
units and 1 to 2 persons/acre.
Major Institution!Special Facilities: institutional, academic, governmental, and
community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or are operated as non-
profit organizations. Examples are hospitals, and City facilities. The allowable
building/site floor area ratio is 1:1.
Major Institution/University Lands." Academic and academic reserve areas of
Stanford University. The building intensities and population densities for these
-3-
areas are defined by conditional use permit. These lands are further designated by
the following sub-categories of land use:
Campus Single-Family Residential: Single-family areas where the
occupancy of the units is significantly or totally limited to individuals or
families affiliated with the institution.
Campus Multiple-Family Residential: Multiple-family areas where the
occupancy of the units is significantly limited to individuals or families or
both affiliated with the institution.
Campus Education Facilities: Academic lands with a full compliment of
activities and densities which give them an urban character. Allowable uses
are academic instruction and academic research, student housing, faculty
housing, and support services. Substantial housing and traffic mitigation
measures must be taken to balance increases after December, 1980, in
student enrollment, faculty, and staff with their respective housing needs.
Academic Reserve and Open Space: Lands of an academic institution
having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some academic
development may be allowed provided that the open space amenities are
retained. These lands are important for their scenic beauty, visual relief,
grazing and wildlife values as well as their academic potential.
-4-
Wednesday, October 11, 1995
Regular Meeting
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MEn-’rINGS AR~ CABLECA.qT LfV~ (3~ GONV’~RNMENT ACCESS CHANN~J. 16
EXCERPT MINUTES
SPECIAL ORDER OE. THE DAY
Presentation by Stanford University’s Office of Government
& Community Relations and Transportation.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. Approval of September 13, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
t CONTINUED.pUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE MAP CHANGES (VARIOUS LOCATIONS): (Public Hearing
continued)
A.Area #6 - 231 Grant Avenue
B.Area #8 - 450-560 San Antonio Road
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE MAP CHANGES (Public Hearing Closed)
2
8
9
9
9
42
A. Area #2 - 3880 Middlefield Road (Spangler School Site)42
B. Area #3 - 2650-2780 El Camino Real 49
C. Area #5 - 1795-1885 El Camino~Real 49
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
MAP CHANGES (VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND IN GENERAL)
22
F. Area # 9 - 560 Oxford Avenue 22
G. Area #10 - 4261-71 El Camino Real (Dinah’s Garden Hotel)23
H.Area #11 - Maybell Avenue property 23
I.Other suggested changes for future public notification.
RECONSIDERATION OF LAND USE RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA #4
(491-493 CHARLESTON ROAD AND 4201-4227 EL CAMINO REAL)
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
7.AnnualRetreat. Review Draft Agenda.
8.Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.
9.Reports on Council Actions.
J. Slocum
38
49
50
50
The planning commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, October 11,
1995 at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Beecham presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present:Commissioners Beecham, Carrasco, Cassel, Eakins, Ojakian,
Schink and Schmidt
Absent:None
Staff Present:Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official
Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community
Environment
COMMUNICATIONS
Cha
At
on the
no s
Beecham: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications.
time, any member of the public may speak to any item that is not
enda. Is there anyone who wishes to speak this evening? Seeing
, we will move on to the next agenda item.
SPECIAL ORDER THE DAY
AGENDA ITEM i ~entation by Stanford University’s Office of Government
&Relations and Transportation.
Chairman Beecham: Thi ~resentation will be made by Andy Coe.
An.dy Coe, Director of Relations Stanford University: My
colleague, Julia Fremon,~nager of Transportation Programs, and I
welcome this opportunity toni to talk with you about our Stanford
transportation programs. In cular, we want to cover three things.
One is to update you on recently munced and implemented and future
enhancements to our Marguerite system, which we think will be of
interest to members of the Palo Alto ty.
Secondly, we want to provide you with a ~f glimpse of our overall
transportation programs and the philoso at supports those programs.
Thirdly, we want to communicate to you and t ~alo Alto the message that
we are very much interested in future i efforts with you, the
City of Palo Alto, our neighbors. We currently a very effective
partnership in place right now with the Marg ~uttle, and we wouldlove to enhance that partnership and explore ways partner up
with the residents in the City of Palo Alto to meet c~ ion and mutual
transportation service objectives.
We- have delivered to you a packet of information. If you d likeadditional information, please do not hesitate to ask, and of course,welcome your comments and questions tonight. By way of backc d, let me
say that Stanford has been in the business of responsible trans Lation
planning for a long time, perhaps even as long as 104 years ago wh the
first Marguerite, the horse, transported the fi~t trolley, pulled the
10/11/95
-2-
r~airman Beecham: Are there any comments on the minutes?
MOTION: Coroner Schmidt: I move approval.
SECOND: By Commi~
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is ~y further discussion on this
motion? All tho~, say Aye?_ A~l_opp ~----~I~,,~That passes on a vote
of 5-0, with Com~d Ojakian absta~i,~g,,~we were not
present.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM 3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE MAP CHANGES (VARIOUS LOCATIONS): (Public Hearing
continued)
Chairman Beecham: As I am sure everyone in the audience knows, we had
substantial discussions on this on September 13. Commissioner Ojakian and
I have both read the minutes and can participate tonight. We have some
items ~oming back from that meeting, and some items that are in addition
to that.
The first item coming back to us is a continuedpublic hearing on Area #6,
231 Grant Avenue. Does staff have any comments to make?
Mr. Schreiber: Regarding this area and Area #8, 450-560 San Antonio Road,
the two items on which you continued the public hearing from September
13th, staff has provided you with some additional information, including a
communication from Santa Clara County. It was an internal memo regarding
231 Grant Avenue sent to us last spring that I do not believe you have
seen. We have also contacted Santa Clara County staff, not only in
writing but by phone to make sure they are aware of this meeting and the
opportunity to participate in this discussion.
231 Grant Avenue is a Santa Clara County-owned site in the California
Avenue area. It is a little over an acre and is currently designated
Major Institution/Special Facilities. It has traditionally held a variety
of mental health and other social service agencies, but with the cutbacks
in the county’s budget, the level of activity in that building has
dropped. While we do not want to do anything to discourage county.
services in the north county, nor do we want to do anything to encourage
the County to cut back further, just given the status of the county’s
budget, this would seem to be a site that has some probability of becoming
available in the next five to ten years. There are 15 years in the life
of the plan, so we felt it was appropriate to raise that site for
discussion at this point in the process.
The second area on’which you continued the public hearing is 450-560 San
Antonio Road. In total, it is about a four-acre area. You have received
considerable correspondence not only from the owner but from the occupants
of 560 San Antonio Road. We have provided some additional information in
the staff report regarding contacts there, and we can certainly talk about
that. Right now, it is designated Research/Office Park, and the staff
10/11/95
-9-
recommendation is to change it to Multiple-Family Residential.
The last comment I want to make at this time is one that was certainly
very evident in reviewing the minutes.. We have had general confusion in
terms of changing the Comprehensive Plan and changing the zoning. Much of
the discussion revolved around zoning and much of the. public input talked
about zoning. Just to clarify where we are in the process, the commission
is considering itemsthat they would recommend t~ the council for further
consideration in a future draft Comprehensive Plan and environmental
impact report. So we are not changing the zoning, and we are not changing
the Comprehensive Plan right now. We are trying to identify areas to
consider further in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. That
process will eventually lead to amending the Comprehensive Plan land use
designations on some sites in the city. After that process is over, which.
will probably be at least a year-and-a-half from now, the city would then
undertake changing the zoning. So we are at the early stages of a
Comprehensive Plan land use process, and we are not, in any way,
entertaining zone changes. Whatever comes out of the commission’s actions
tonight will not lead directly to zone changes in certainly anything even
close to the near future.
Chairman Beecham: Are there any questions for staff at this point?
Commissioner Ojakian: My first question is, in looking at the Grant Road
site, we did have a letter dated September 11th from the Santa Clara
Valley Health and Hospital System in which they ask that they have some
time to review a proposal on this site. Have we heard back from them
since this date?
Ms. L,ytle: No.
Commissioner Ojakian: A second question I have deals with the San Antonio
Road sites. It looks like the land use designation is Research Office
Park but the zoning is Limited Manufacturing. Am I understanding that
correctly?
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, the Limited Manufacturing zone is the zone that
corresponds to the Research/0ffice Park land use designation. Stanford
.Research Park is designated as Research/Office Park in the Comprehensive
Plan. The zoning is Limited Manufacturing.
Commissioner Ojakian: So those two are consistent with each other,
allowing for the type of use that is currently there. (Yes)
chairman Beecham: I will now reopen the public hearing on this item.
Terry Holzemer~ .2581 Park Boulevard, #Y211,....Palo Alto: BY home is a part
of the Palo Alto Central condominium complex at Park Boulevard and
California Avenue. Also, my unit is immediately across the street from
Area #6, 231 Grant Avenue. I would like to take a couple of minutes to
tell you why I feel you should not~change the land use status of Area #6.
As a resident, voter, taxpayer, and now homeowner in Pal0 Alto over the
past three-and-a-half years, I have become increasingly concerned about
the growth and changes I see in my neighborhood, without the city’s true
understanding of the people and their concerns who live there. If you
don’t know this area of Palo Alto personally, I:would ask you toplease go
10/11/95
-10-
there if you can, and check it out for yourself, and talk to some of the
residents before making any land use changes. The people who live in this
area are already facing an increase in traffic, congestion, fewer parking
spaces, and a concern of mine, crime, of which we have had a recent
problem at Palo Alto Central.
In our neighborhood~ traffic and parking are already a problem, due to the
constant activity surrounding the North County Courthouse and the
commercial areas of California Avenue, which is just two blocks away. In
addition, construction is under way, as you probably well know, on a
large, four-story apartment complex which is immediately next door to Area
#6. This will undoubtedly introduce a large number of people who wish to
live there, and obviously, more traffic in what I consider to be a crowded
neighborhood. I am greatly concerned that a change in the land use status
of Area #6 could cause, if allowed to go to its final conclusion as a
multiple-family residential complex, another large growth in the problems
we are already experiencing. Believe me, what our neighborhood needs
right now is not more people, traffic congestion, and less parking. We
already have those problems now. In addition, as a Palo Alto homeowner, I
also have a growing concern about the increasing stress that will be put
on city services by having more and more people packed into our
neighborhood, specifically Area #6. I know that sewer lines, electrical
lines, etc. will have to be expanded, and our schools will have to handle
more and more children. The city will have to deal with more people
wanting more services. I am wondering if that is what we really want for
our city.
In conclusion, to top everything off, I personally do not understand why
-the planning commission is thinking about changing the Area #6 land use
designation at this time, due to the fact that I think this property is
not even under its control at the moment, since it is owned by the
county. Unless the city has knowledge that the county is planning to
vacate the property, and I understand that as of this moment, I don’t
think it does have that knowledge, I suggest that a more prudent course
might be to keep the status quo until such a time that a change like that
would be warranted. I just want to thank you~very much.
Patricia Hernandez~ 2581 Park Boulevard. Palo Alto: I live at this same
address. The area of the condominium complex that I live in is
immediately across the street from Area #6, 231 Grant Avenue. As a
resident and homeowner of Palo Alto, I am concerned about the changes in
my area in the short period that I have been living in my condominium
complex. It has been less than a year. Key issues in my neighborhood are
traffic, parking and theft. Traffic and parking are already a problem
both day and night, due to a new apartment structure that is going up and
the increasing night life on California Avenue. Within the last month, we
have had three restaurants and coffee shops open up with extended hours,
and that is in addition to Printers Inc. also staying open fairly late and
The Edge having extended hours. Despite having lived in my complex for
less than a year, approximately five cars have been broken into, storage
areas have been broken into repeatedly, and five bikes have been stolen.
The complex I live in is also~a security complex. There are gates at all
entrances. Despite these problems, I have not seen an increase in police
activity in the area or even patrolling the area. Changes in the land use
of Area #6 would logically lead to an increase i~ traffic, parking and
theft, and I would like to ask you to reconsider, reclassifying this land
now for so far off in the future. I have talked to a lot of homeowners,
and they also have the same concerns within my complex. Thank you for
your time.
Chairman Beecham: Next we will take up Area #8, 450-560 San Antonio Road,
which is Agenda Item 3B.
Randy ~aar~ 953 Industr{~l, Palo Alto: I am the operations .manager for
Nearon Enterprises at this address. The Nearons have developed the
buildings at 450, 470 and 490 San Antonio Road, and Nearon Enterprises
continues to own and manage them. We are opposed to the land use change
currently being considered, and we feel that these changes will have a
negative impact on these properties. Financially speaking, we feel that
it would lower their value, impair their liquidity, make financing more
difficult, and reduce the appeal to the long-term tenant which we like to
have, therefore increasing vacancies. We also feel that this change will
have little beneficial impact to the community. If the zoning were
changed to mitigate the detrimental effects of any downzoning, an
owDer-developer would strive for the highest density and highest prices.
This would increase growth, traffic, and probably~have little positive
effect on affordable housing.
Furthermore, we feel there really is little reason to change the current
land .use plan. What we see is that if Multiple-Family Residential were a
viable economic alternative, it is available and it is allowed by the
current zoning. So we do not see any reason to change it. There are also
benefits to the existing zoning. The current commercial use fits fairly
well into the mixed use neighborhood, and really has no detrimental
-effect, and it also provides a valuable commodity in Palo Alto. There is
not much reasonably priced commercial space available for small- to
medium-sized businesses, which is what we provide. We have over 40
tenants, some of the types of high tech, high growth companies that Palo
Alto is-known for. If we changed the zoning, there would be fewer places
for this type of company to start and grow and thrive.
We have over 67,000 square feet in these buildings, and typically, a very
low vacancy rate. That shows that there really is a demand for this type
of space. We continue to improve the properties. We are currently doing
about $60,000 worth of improvements to 490 San Antonio Road. So given
that brief overview of our concerns, we would like you to consider those.
Thank you.
Bill Green~ 550 Hamilton Avenue. Palo Altn: I am here as counsel for
Richard Strock, who will make a presentation, and I will follow him, if
that is permitted. I simply want to say that we are here, obviously, to
oppose the proposed change. I am an attorney, and I live in the
Greenmeadow area, the nearest residential neighborhood. That is an area
in which I walk and bike, and where I ran when I was younger. With that
as an introduction, I would like to have Mr. Strock, who is both an owner
and a tenant in the building, present to you his comments.
Richard Strock~ 560 San Antonio Road~ Palo Alto: I live at 238 Frances in
Los Altos, and I am a tenant and owner of the above property. I bought
the building in 1982 with a group of other Palo Alto businessmen, most of
whom live in Palo Alto. I have been a Palo Alto resident on and off for
35 years, and a Palo Alto business resident since 1970.
10/11/95
-12-
I would like to address a number of issues tonight. With regard to the
staff report, I would like to address the issue of the location. We are
at the southernmost end of Palo Alto. We are almost as much a part of
Mountain View as Palo Alto. I could hit a three iron and get into the
industrial area of Mountain View, the shopping center from the same
location,_and Hewlett-Packard from the same location, as well as the Palo
Alto Toyota dealership, as well as the school across the street. It is a
classic, mixed use neighborhood. We are next door to a condo complex and
a low-income housing project. We are served by a private driveway, which
is our only access off of San Antonio Road. We have an access easement
that serves our building, ingress only. We have a single exit that we use
for exiting onto San Antonio.
Aside from its neighboring aspects, it does have some residential use.
The single-family residential is not adjacent. There are, again, condos,
multiple-family next door. It is a successful building. The building has
been significantly upgraded, and again, just adding onto the-staff report
regarding the building permits, there was a notation in the additional
staff report that we had $6,000 worth of improvements. That dramatically
underestimates what is going on in the building. Needless to say, I would
invite all of you to come and see the~building.
It has been significantly upgraded on the exterior. It has been
completely landscaped; windows have been replaced with energy-efficient
windows. I have a letter which was written by a staff member of the City
of Palo Alto Utilities Department, outlining the five or six utility
programs that we have participated in. We have gone through and put in
electronic ballast lighting, reflector lights, energy management systems.
In every city program that there is, we have participated. We have shared
the cost, as a small business, with the Utilities Department on an
energy-efficiency study. They found us to be one of the most
energy-efficient buildings in the city, and we subsequently replaced all
of our heat pumps under the utilities program with energy-efficient heat
pumps recently. We have stubbed out all of the exterior walls with
insulation, because it is a concrete, tilt-up building. Basically, we
have finished the building. We bought it after a major renovation had
been started. The city records are deficient. I don’t know if you are
aware of that, but there are no plans for the building. I know that
because it has cost us a lot of money trying to recreate them.
We presently have an earthquake seismic retrofit project on which we are
waiting for a response from the city, which is~o come tomorrow. It was
initiated before this all took place. It is the kind of expenditure that
I fear we may not make if we have a rezoning. It is not required. It is
something that we want to do to the building’s strength and safety. The
$6,000 estimate in there is the situation where the contractor has
produced the.plans, which cost the $6,000, to have the engineering done.
The contractor has to put a number on the paper, and obviously, it is a
number that gets changed as the scope of the job enlarges. It will
probably be a $100,000 job. It is not a $6,000 job. It is one of those
items where the contractor is literally standing at the desk, and you need
to put an estimate down, and he doesn’t even know what the straps cost nor
what the job is until the city has responded to it and has reviewed the
calculations, which are very extensive.
lO/!1/9s
We are 100 percent occupied. We are a successful building. We have been
occupied for years. We have unique businesses in there. Every single
tenant has written letters. They have been there for 20 years, in some
cases. In one case, we have a tenant that has grown nine times in the
building, and now occupies the entire second floor. We had a foundation
that could not find space elsewhere. Above and beyond all of these
things, the impact of the land use decision is completely devastating to
this building. We have a site that is 100 feet shorter in depth, with
limited access, than the adjacent buildings (never mind the other
arguments) that on a standalone basis, it makes no sense as a residential
site. We would not be able to successfully refinance the building. We
would have disincentives for the continued upgrade, so I ask your
consideration to kill it at this point, because it dramatically impacts
our value, and dramatically provides disincentives for the further
upgrade.
Bill Green, 225 Greenmeadow Way, Palo Alto: The existence of the
adjacent, Multiple-Family Residential parcels, in my opinion, does not
paint a complete picture of this neighborhood, nor does it disclose the
really unique nature of the property and the kinds of uses that it
supports. So I would like to touch on some of the important points,
although they are not all of the points. One, the condition of the
property. The staff report characterized the properties as older office
buildings. That characterization does not take into consideration the
extensive remodelling which Mr. Strock has just discussed with you, some
of which is shared by other buildings. Next, the San Antonio Road
frontage. The characterization of these properties as a non-residential
pocket bordered by Single-Family Residential, Multiple-Family Residential
and a child care center is not inaccurate, but upon closer inspection, it
is not the complete picture. The property across the street from the
subject property is separated by four lanes of barrier-divided
thoroughfares. Although on a map, they appear to be adjacent, for
practical purposes, those properties are not a part of the same
neighborhood. Behind the subject property, the single-family houses in
Mountain View are screened from the subject properties and do not have
access from San Antonio Road. Thus, they also are not a part of the
neighborhood.
For purposes of determining consistency of use, the east side of San
Antonio Road is the more proper unit. I was unsure whether to call it
east or north or south, but I think you know what we are talking about.
When viewed from that perspective, rather than from a non-residential
pocket, what you really have are two isolated residential islands in a
river of commercial use. The subject properties are a part of that
commercial strip which extends all the way from the Hewlett-Packard
property on Alma at one end and includes the Toyota dealership at
Middlefield Road and San Antonio and extends, unbroken,.to Highway 101.
In summary, what appears to be logical when viewed on a map is
considerably less logical when viewed from Ground Zero.
Regarding the existing policy of the city with respect to n~ighboring
commercial properties, there is a limited amount of moderate commercial
property within the city, as is apparent in downtown Palo Alto. The
renaissance which provides new, upscale businesses pushes out other less
upscale businesses which cannot afford the increased rents. Many of these
businesses provide services or goods that the residents of Palo Alto
10/11/95
-14-
need. Areas like the east side of San Antonio Road perform the same kind
of function in the commercial world. They provide homes for vital and
essential businesses which the city needs, but frankly, does not
accommodate well. I have lived here a long time, and I am appalled, as I
know some of you are, by the continuing trend towards the homogeneity we
find in this city, from a residential point of view. This kind of action
will do the same thing from a commercial point of view.
Within 560 San Antonio Road are accounting services, the social services
of the Cystic Fibrosis Agency, a unique sound system studio which serves
surrounding corporate citizens like Sun Microsystems, and an accounting
firm that serves small businesses in the area. I know that in some areas,
it is the policy of the city to preserve such uses, as evidenced by the
treatment of the area from Middlefield Road to Highway 101. It appears
that it would be appropriate to include the subject properties within such
a policy.
One of the characteristics that makes Silicon Valley unique is its ability
to nurture startup businesses through access to sophisticated tools and
services which are necessary for such businesses without having those
businesses in which to invest their limited, startup capital in either
employees or equipment. Facilities such as the properties in question act
as incubators for such businesses. Such a business, for example, within
#560 has grown and expanded over a period of years to become a very
successful business. Without this facility, Palo Alto migh~ have lost
this business.
Residential development is permitted within this area right now. If it is
-a permitted use, if the market is allowed to develop freely, housing may
be developed on the three larger sites in the city, but because of the
limited size and access of #560, the action would, in fact, be a reverse
condemnation. It is not likely to be developed without joining with a
larger parcel. By leaving the land designation as it is, spot zoning may
be avoided, and economic injury to the existing owners who have been
upgrading their property will be eliminated. In summary, it is
recommended that although the existing property is not in the best of
condition, the proposed action, rather than rewarding those owners-who
have been .and are upgrading their property, will punish them and remove
all incentive. The fairest course of action is to leave the present land
use designation, which permits residential development, to publicize the
availability and the city’s favorable stance toward the development of
housing on these sites and other sites within the city and allow market
forces to determine the final use of the property. The properties are not
eyesores. They are not adversely impacting their residential neighbors,
and there is no compelling reason to justify economic harm to the existing
ownersfor the benefit of the city’s housing policy.
Ann Cottrell, 444 San Antonio Road. Palo Altn: I am a resident at 444 San
Antonio Road, the 48-unit condominium development. As a resident of that
area, I thoroughly concur with the two previous presenters that to
increase multiple-family housing is just going to cause more problems.
Right now, you have a great deal of traffic that goes along San Antonio
Road, and there are times of the day when it is bumper to bumper. I think
that actually causes a lot of potential for danger. If there is an
emergency at a residence along that road, police, fire trucks, ambulances
are just not going to be able to get through. When residents at the Rose
10/11/95
-15-
Walk development do try to access San Antonio Road in the middle of the
day, it is very difficult. I like living on San Antonio Road. I like the
area. I have adjusted to it, but I certainly would not encourage more
high-density housing there.
We currently have problems within the complex about the use of the
property i~ relation to families with children. That problem is only
going to grow. When we first moved in there, there were only about four
households out of 48 with.children. I would venture to say that there are
probably at least 15 households with children there now. As the
population changes, the problem of how to use limited land is just going
to be exacerbated, so I really encourage you to not.go with the higher
density.
Commissioner Carrasco: I am hearing you say that additional housing might
cause a problem, yet you live in the Rose Walk and you seem to think it is
a nice place, to live.
Ms.-Cottrell: When we are inside the complex. It is surrounded by a
wall, and within the complex grounds, I live in a unit that faces San
Antonio Road, and it is noisy. When you first look at a piece of
property, you look at the model units, and everything is nice and new and
spiffy. I didn’t realize how noisy the units would be that face San
Antonio Road. Despite that, it is a comfortable place to live as long as
our childreD can play outside the unit, as long as the traffic congestion
doesn’t increase. There is a level of discomfort right now, and I just do
not see how it can possibly increase.
Commissioner Carrasco: So are you saying that because residential zoning
causes more traffic than commercial zoning, which it probably does in this
instance, as RM-30 would probably generate more trips than the existing
businesses, is that the reason? Is it because San Antonio Road is so
congested that you think adding more trips on San Antonio would be the
problem? Is that it?
Ms. Cottrell: The current traffic is going to cause a problem for any new
residential development. So if it is commercial property that adds more
congestion or residential property, you have high congestion in there
right now. I would hope that if any new residences were put in that area,
that you would do something to divert the commercial traffic. You have a
problem there right now. I don’t think that changing it to
multiple-family housing is going to be the resolution.
Chairman Beecham: With that, I will close the public hearing on 231 Grant
Avenue and on 450-560 San Antonio Road and return this to the planning
commission. Are there any questions at this point?
Commissioner Ojakian: I have a general question~that goes back to
everything that we are handling here, since I missed the prior meeting.
ChairmBn Beecham: But I a~sure you read the minutes!
Commissioner Ojakian: Of course, and I got the video tape. I looked at
every public comment, and I even see some of those people back out here
tonight. So I did my homework.
The state normally requires of us, through the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), a fair share housing number that cities are to try and
achieve. Have they done that yet for the 1996 through 2001 period of
time?
Mr. Schreiber: It sounds like a simple question, but has a fairly
complicated answer. The State of California General Plan Guidelines
stipulate that housing elements must provide opportunities for additional
housing sufficient to satisfy projections, estimates of future needs
developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments, in this case. That
is not an optional type of thing. If you want to have a certified housing
element by the State of California, they have to make a finding that your
Comprehensive Plan or general plan does satisfy that provision of the
state regulations. The development of those numbers has been hung up in a
state budget issue. The mandate is triggered by legislation in Sacramento
in a mandate to ABAG. The state refuses to fund the work that ABAG would
need to do to develop the new numbers, so ABAG, along with other regional
planning agencies throughout California, has been refusing to do the work,
citing lack of staff availability, since most of the work.is very
specifically funded. So we have been living with old numbers for any
number of years. At this point in time, what we anticipate is likely to
happen over the next year is that the state will continue not to fund the
various metropolitan planning organizations, such as ABAG for the bay
area, and that we will most likely be using the old numbers brought
forward as a base for the next five-year housing element. We had a
meeting in Sacramento some months ago with state staff members, and that
was.the course of action they suggested. At the same time, if the state
legislature does fund this mandate, whenever they do fund it, that will
trigger a new set of numbers, and those numbers may well be different
from, and probably higher than, the numbers we have been using in the
past.
Commissioner Ojakian: If I remember correctly, that number was around
1,500 units. In conjunction with that question, if you took all of the
potential housing sites that we have looked at over the last few years and
included everything that we have in the particular report in front of us
tonight, what would the number of housing equal out to be?
Mr. Schreiber: I do not. have a specific number on that. Staff, at this
point in time, is feeling reasonably confident that we have identified
enough sites to satisfy at least the numbers that we are now working with,
which our past .projections brought forward for future years. One of the
intents of staff, in going through the land use map, has been to try and
find additional housing sites. This is consistent with city planning
policy for the last 25+ years. It has been consistent in terms of local
objectives to try and find more sites for housing, as well as the high
priority placed on satisfying state requirements in more recent times.
That priority is very high, because without a certified housing element,
the entire Comprehensive Plan of any jurisdiction is open to potential
legal attack. You have to make findings for various actions, subdivisions
and other actions of consistency with the~Comprehensive Plan or general
plan. If your Comprehensive Plan or general plan is not certified by the
State of California, if they found part of it to be unacceptable under
law, you are then open to a risk. In Palo Alto, we have always maintained
that we do not want to entertain that risk, which is a risk to the private
sector more than anything else, because those types of lawsuits tend to
10/11/95
-17-
come along with controversial projects and tend to be part of an effort to
stop a project.
There are a lot of jurisdictions around California that have had
court-imposed moratoriums on all building permits or on all development or
most development until they get their plan updated consistent with state
guidelines. So we have never wanted to open ourselves to being in that
type of situation, andwe have not been in that situation in the past. So
¯ there is both a statemandate type reason, as well as a local interest in
housing, that is behind the hunt for more housing sites. I think we
probably~have enough, but the state number is likely to go up in the
future. I do not know where it is going to go or when it will go up, so
the effort to look for appropriate housing sites needs to be somewhat
separate from meeting the state objectives, while being consistent with
them, because again, there is the future to look to, as well as Palo
Alto’s own policies of continuing the search for more housing sites.
Chairman Beecham: With that, let’s focus the discussion on Area #6,
231 Grant Avenue
Commissioner Schink: I would support the staff recommendation on this
item. I think it is appropriate for this piece of property. I appreciate
the concerns of the neighbors, but I find some of their commentsa little
ironic, as we look back 12 years ago, when we heard the very same comments
from the neighbors when their project was being considered. So I can step
back from this and evaluate it objectively. I feel this is an appropriate
site for multiple-family housing.
Commissioner Carrasco: I concur with the staff recommendation, as well.
I have lived in this area; I have walked that neighborhood. Additional
housing on that site will create a better, more walkable neighborhood. We
have been talking about neighborhoods in the Comprehensive Plan, and I
think that additional housing on that site will benefit the area.
Commissioner Cassel: I have one concern about it. In this particular
neighborhood, we have no public parks. While I am not one who tends to go
for parks instead of housing, I am wondering if a small park on the end of
this allowing for some benches and a children’s play area might not be
appropriate to consider for the site.
Mr. Schreiber: Actually, there is a small public park. It is located one
block down on Grant Avenue. It is a PF area, so if you mentally walk your
way down Grant, it was constructed about 15 years ago and was part of an
overall project that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation was involved in
when developing some low- and moderate-income housing that is adjacent to
it.
Commissioner Cassel: That gives the appearance of being a private park,
so maybe, that needs to be adjusted in some way so it looks more
attractive to people with children. Maybe that is why I did not identify
it as such. I identified it as a part of the development.-
Commissioner Eakins: I recall Tom Taylor’s comments last month about the
housing styles along Park Boulevard and in that general area being so
closed off from the street. What he would like to see in the future in
any additional housing stock would be street-friendly houses. That means.
10/11/95
o18-
people are more related to the street, and it is the crime prevention
strategy called "Eyes on the Street." So I support the staff
recommendation also, but I would want to see this developed sensitively
with some of these other goals in mind.
Commissioner Ojakian: I will support the staff recommendation, and I
thought Commissioner Schink’s comments were very appropriate. Sometimes,
in this day and age, especially after listening to the tape of the l~t
meeting, that people are making negative assumptions. When we try to
build housing somewhere, people make all of the negative assumptions, and
when we try to put commercial somewhere, people make a series of negative
assumptions. It is sometimes a little difficult to try and deal with
this, but the fact of the matter is that maybe, some of the down sides of
the situations that were mentioned tonight will be alleviated by putting
housing into this particular site, rather than being exacerbated. The
issues dealing with theft are more issues that you need to address to the
police department. Some of those came out in our discussions of The Edge
nightclub and how we tried to control that particular site in terms of
safety issues. So we are sensitive to what is going on down there, since
we have addressed it before, but I do not see housing on this site having
a down side. I see it as having an up side for everyone concerned.
Commissioner Schmidt: I, too, will support staff’s recommendation, and I
want to add that putting additional housing in this area is in concurrence
with things being suggested in the Comprehensive Plan, trying to
concentrate housing near transportation nodes. We have the CaITrain
station there; we know we will have better Marguerite service going out to
that area. So I think it is a very reasonable place to put additional
housing.
Chairman Beecham: I may be a standout on this issue tonight. I do agree
that this is an appropriate site for housing, but part of my philosophy in
going into this current round of looking at properties that may require a
zone change is the presumption that that property is likely to change in
the near- or mid-term. So we are just getting an early jump on a change
that is soon coming. I am disappointed that neither the county or the
Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System came tonight to let us know
what they plan to do for the site. I certainly think it would impact how
we would have responded tonight. At any rate, in consideration that we do~
not have any indication that they will be changing, and for a continued
need for these types of services in our area, I will not support the staff
recommendation on this item.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move the staff recommendation to further
consider changing the site at 231 Grant Avenue (County Mental Health
Building and Parking Lot) from Major Institution/Special Facilities to
Multiple-Family Residential.
SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco.
MOTION PASSES:, ChBirman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote
.of 6-I, with Chairman Beecham voting no.
Next we have Item 3.b., Area #8 - 450-560 San A~tonio Road. Are there any
lO/11/95
questions at this point?
Commissioner Schink: I am wondering if staff could help us understand
what transportation options are available to people who would be residents
here. One specific question I have is whether CaITrain intends to open a
station there at San Antonio Road. Would that be a mass transit option
for people living in this area?
Mr. Schreiber: CaITrain, currently the Joint Powers Board, has talked for
at least the last 10 to 12 years about putting in a train station at San
Antonio Road. I do not have specific information in terms of its current
status. I think I can venture to say, however, that given the financial
pressures that the whole Joint Powers Board and CaITrain operation is
under, it may be difficult for them to free up capital funds to institute
a new station at this location. So there is no pending approval for any
type of station there.
Commissioner Carrasco: Ken, what kind of residential development is
allowed under the LM zone, and what is the density that is allowed?
Mr. Schreiber: It allows residential, and Nancy will check the density
for you.
MS... Lytle: The multiple-family density allowed is RM-30 in the LM
district.
Commissioner Carrasco: Was the Rose Walk zoned LM when it came in?
Mr. Schreiber: No, the Rose Walk site had been zoned LM, but the city
changed it from LM to multiple-family zoning in another round of the
city’s hunting for housing sites. I am not sure if that was in 1978 or in
1980-81, but that change was made. The same thing applies to the
multiple-family site on the other side of the driveway that serves 560 San
Antonio Road. That was also an LM site. That housing may have come in as
non-residentially zoned about 15 years ago.
Commissioner Carrasco: During the rezoning to residential from LM for the
Rose Walk, it seemed like the planning commission and council did not
rezone this parcel that we are talking about.
Mr. Schreiber: The Rose Walk site had been vacant. It was undeveloped,
and that is why it stood out at the time.
Commissioner Schmidt: How about the other parcels that you mentioned?
What was on those sites?
Mr. Schreiber: I cannot remember what was there. The Palo Alto Gardens,
the low- and moderate-income project, has ~been there for longer than the
21 years that I have been with the city. That goes back to the late
1960s.
Commissioner Cassel: In the current Comprehensive Plan, there are some
differences between the plan and the zoning ordinance, in that in some
cases, we have listed them as potential housing sites, but have not
actually changed the zoning for many of those~ In this one, are we saying
that this could be a potential housing site without changing the zoning?
lO/11/9S
Mr. Schreiber: Essentially, the city’s nonresidential zones, with Public
Facilities being the major exception, allow housing as a permitted use.
So whether it be Service Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial or Limited
Manufacturing or Office Research, etc., you have a multiple-family density
incorporated into that zoning. So those sites could develop with
residential as a permitted use, and it applies to th~s site.
Ms. L.ytle: I think the only exception to that is the Midtown area, which
does not.allow residential, and neither does the Charleston Shopping
Center allow any residential.
Commissioner Ojakian: I note in the staff report.and stated tonight in
the public hearing that the office spaces on these pieces of property rent
for substantially less than downtown or other areas in Palo Alto. That is
what makes it ideal for incubator space. Do we know roughly what the cost
per square foot for rental is here?
Mr. Strock: I am informed that the Nearon Properties rent from $1.25 to
$1.50 per square foot. My properties are from $1.55 to $1.65 per square
foot. That compares to the downtown rates of $2.50 to $3.50 per square
foot.
Commissioner Carrasco: I think that generally, San Antonio Road is a very
busy street. Intuitively, one would think you would keep residential away
from busy streets and you would put commercial on busy streets.
¯ Otherwise, you want to have big buffers if you did put residential on a
busy street. As the lady who lives in the Rose Walk said, those back
yards that face a busy street are noisy and not conducive to raising
little children. So in general, the idea of putting commercial on busy
streets and residential on quieter streets excludes this area for
housing. In addition, the idea of some diversity of rentals, some
low-income rentals for commercial business, is a good ~dea. Downtown, as
the speaker pointed out, it is much more expensive, and we do need areas,
as we discussed in the Comprehensive Plan meetings, for incubator office
space. This would seem to be one of those areas of Palo Alto that does
contain incubator space. For that reason, I feel this should remain
commercial. In any event, if the need to put residential in here arises,
it is available to a developer, if the sense is that that would be a
better use from the market demand.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would agree with all of Tony’s comments. I would
also relate to a comment that Bern made about the previous piece of
property, that in looking at this, you look at something that is about to
change~ It would appear that the owners and tenants of the property would
like to maintain it as it is and improve it. It does not seem like it is
something that would be changing in the near future. So I would support
keeping it in its current land use, which does allow housing, should the
current situation change.
Commissioner Schink: I agree with Tony and Kathy. The other problem with
this site is that there are no serious mass transit options available that
would help in cutting down the congestion that may evolve from a
multiple-family housing development.. Considering all of those factors, I
agree that this site should remain in its current land use.
o/i /95
-21 -
MOTION: Commissioner Ojakian: I move that we recommend retaining the
current Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning, which are
Research/Office Park and Limited Manufacturing, in essence, denying the
staff recommendation for a land use map change to Multiple-Family
Residential.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
Chairman Beecham: One member of the public said that we need to not just
work from maps but to go out and look at the city. We always do that. We
are familiar with the area. Many of us have been in these buildings,
either on business or for other purposes. We do know the area. We do not
necessarily know your intent, however, so we were quite happy to have you
come tonight and share those with us. They have been important and
valuable for us tonight.
The second thing I would say is to reiterate that we are not trying to
force change in what we are doing~in all of the parcels we are considering
tonight. We are merely trying to anticipate changes that may be coming so
that we can help make them work out optimally.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: All those in favor of the motion by
Commissioner Ojakian, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, to retain the
existing land use designation on this parcel, please say Aye? All
opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
That completes Agenda Item 3.
AGENDA ITEM 4 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
USE MAP CHANGES (Public Hearing Closed)
Chairman Beecham: This item is not a public hearing. We also have Agenda
Item 5 which is a public hearing, I would certainly entertain discussion
on pulling up Item 5 so that people present could hear the item and then
leave.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I move that we adjust the agenda to hear
Agenda Item 5 at this time.
SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any discussion? All those in
favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM 5 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP
CHANGES IVARIOUS LOCATIONS AND IN GENERAl)
Chairman Beecham: Are there, any staff comments on this item?
Mr. Schreiber: As a brief introduction, this item contains three
different areas. This public hearing was scheduled at the request of the
planning commission in response to a letter from the property owner at 560
Oxford Avenue (Area #9). We have gotten a note that the property owner is
ill and unable to be here tonight. The staff report on this site notes
lO/11/95
that the property owner’s issue is a zoning issue, not a Comprehensive
Plan issue. The site is already designated Multiple-Family Residential.
The property owner would like a higher density zoning, and also has a
nonconforming site. His request is a zoning issue, so we recommend no
change from the Multiple-Family Residential designation.
The second site is Dinah’s Garden Hotel, Area #10. This was put on for
public hearing at th~ request of the propertyowner, Mr. Handley. He
requested a change from Service Commercial and Multiple-Family Residential
to Commercial Hotel. The staff recommendation, as outlined in the staff
report, is to recommend further consideration of that change in the next
round of the Comprehensive Plan update. The multiple-family residential
portions of this are tightly integrated with the functioning of the rest
of the site. A number of the commissioners were here for the
consideration of a Tamarack Court site, which is what Dinah’s Court used
to be called. The city council, turned down a single-room occupancy type
low-income housing for an existing building in that area. Mr. Handley
subsequently purchased it, and it is now incorporated into Dinah’s Garden
Hotel as longer-term residential suites. The other multiple-family
building has been used for a motel use since its construction in the
1960s, when that was permitted under the multiple-family zoning. Given
the tightly integrated nature of all of this now, we think it functions as
a unit, and should appropriately be designated as a Commercial Hotel site.
The last site of the three is the property at the rear of 4170 El Camino
Real on Maybell Avenue, Area #11. The city changed it from Service
Commercial to Multiple-Family Residential in 1989 as part of the Citywide
Land Use and Transportation Study. The site has a variety of
environmental problems, including the adjacent major city electrical
substation, .which generates a constant noise problem. Also a nearby auto
use, Lutz Ford, which creates a significant visual problem. We have had a
number of attempts to develop this site as residential as part of a larger
redevelopment of that area, but none of those efforts was successful.
Every site planner had a major problem in dealing with the back of the
site because of the environmental constraints. Now that the front part,
which has remained commercial, has been approved for commercial
development, the rear area is even less likely to have a multiple-family
development. So we recommend going back to where we started out in 1989,
putting it back into the Service Commercial category, letting the use of
that continue. Right now it is being used as a parking lot and access for
Lutz Ford. That would be consistent with Service Commercial if that
change were made.
Commissioner Carrasco: I will abstain from discussion of Areas 10 and 11
as Mr. Handley is a client of mine. I am designing a project adjacent to
Area #11.
Chairman Beecham: Then let’s take Areas #10 and 11 next.
perry Matters. 4261 El Camino Real, Palo ~Ito: I am the manager of
Dinah’s Garden Hotel representing the hotel.and Mr. Handley tonight.
Recently, we became aware of a new land designation in the Comprehensive
Plan called Commercial Hotel, and we felt this would fit us quite well.
We have four different addresses. This came about through a long history
of Dinah’s, and some of you are aware of it. We feel that we should
certainly be considered for this, as it would h~Jp consolidate the four
10/i 1/95
-23-
areas. We have two different zonings, as well, with one zoning running
right through the center of one building. In any case, this has all been
presented by staff, and I am essentially here to answer any questions that
you might have tonight.
Commissioner Ojakian: I remember this site very well. I am curious, in
all of the changes that have happened, does this mean that this site,
which used to be h~n~ycombed with easements, now that it is under single
ownership, have they gone their way?
Mr. Matters: Essentially, yes. Staff could better answer that. As it
is, we have a cohesive plan for what we are doing. Of course, we are
going to rebuild Dinah’s Shack Restaurant. We are expanding our front
of Zice to have a four-star lobby, and we also have plans being considered
by the city to build other units in that particular area, which would be
within the area that we would like to have configured as Commercial
Hotel. Our aim is to become a four-star hotel. We are now three. We are
making every effort and expending a great amount of funds. Our benchmark
had been the Dinah’s International Suites, the executive suites. We have
been constantly under renovation now for 18 months. We will continue to
be for the remainder of this year, and will begin new projects at the
beginning of next year.
Commissioner Ojakian: What I am getting at is, part of the decision I
made a few years ago, which the council did not support, obviously, had to
do with a lot of the bizarre circumstances around this site. I would hope
that if we are going to do something in terms of changing the zoning, that
hand in glove with that, those circumstances would go awBy. One was the
criss-crossing of easements through the pieces of property. The whole
concept around the dual ownership, with the back lot being owned by
Handley and the front lot being held by the estate of John Rickey, that
has gone its merry way, but I would assume under the single ownership,
does this become a merged piece of property under the new zone? Would the
easements no longer exist?
Ms. Lytle: This is a consideration not of a new zoning but of a new land
use designation, potentially, in the draft Comprehensive Plan. By virtue
of the action before you tonight, you do nothing to either consolidate
lots, abandon easements or anythingeise. We would welcome an application
from the property owner to take care of some of that criss-crossing of
easements if they are no longer needed, having the properties under common
ownership. It would make the parcels eminently more developable in the
long run, if you were to get rid of them. To my knowledge, we have not
received any such application. That could be done through a Certificate
of Compliance if they would like to come in and apply for it. That would
be a separate issue having nothing to do with what you are considering
tonight.
Mr. Schreiber: A Certificate of Compliance is an internal city staff
process for cleaning up property line issues and related issues. It is
not a public process and is relatively simple."
Commissioner O.iakian: That could happen separate from a land use change,
and then the potential rezoning of the piece of property, when we get
around to doing that.
10/1t/95
Ms. Lytle: Yes, it would need to happen separately.
Chairman Beecham: Jerry, thank you for your comments. For Item H, Area
#11, Maybell Avenue, we have three speakers.
Patricia Murakami~ 550 Pefia Court~ Palo Alto: With the explanation given,
_it was not exactly clear to us. This is a very new court, and there are
eight lots. Seven are new homes with new families happily occupying
them. One is currently undeveloped but is sold. The reason this is not
clear to myself or my neighbors is that there currently is the Chez Louis
restaurant which has closed. Then there is this parking lot which you
referred to. So what are the plans for this? Is it to have two separate
businesses, commercial or otherwise? Or one large business? This is our
concern, because obviously, if we have a restaurant, it is not as
effective to our lives as it would be with a Walgreen’s, which has been
rumored. That could mean up until Midnight, or sometimes 24 hours,
dangerous to our street in terms of traffic, dangerous to our children in
-terms of the sale of liquor and tobacco, dangerous probably as well in
terms of our property values. Something like Chez Louis is maybe, nice
families going to have a nice dinner. Everyone is copacetic and goes
home, and leaves our neighborhood friendly and happy. There is also the
consideration that there is a Payless and a Long’s pharmacy just down at
San Antonio Road on opposite sides of the street from each other, so I
suppose we need some clarification, my neighbor and I, as to what is to be
done with this site before we can go much further with our comments.
Mr. Schreiber: Let me provide that clarification. We are talking about
two different parcels. For the front parcel on El Camino where the
restaurant has been for many years, there is an approved application for a
Walgreen’s Drug Store. Within the next week or two, construction will
start. It was approved by the city some months ago through the
architectural review board after a number of public hearings and rather
extensive discussion.
What we are dealing with here is the rear of the site, which is a separate
parcel. That is not part of the Walgreen site. That is the issue that is
in front of the commission tonight in terms of what to consider for it in
the new draft Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Murakami: Are there any considerations as to what we, as new home
owners, having young children and traffic considerations and this timing
of 24 hours?
Mr. Schreiber: The Barron Park Association representatives sitting in the
audience tonight can probably address this in more detail with you. The
Walgreen proposal received rather considerable support from the Barron
Park Association. The association was quite intimately involved in the
design development of that site~ working with the architect, the property
owner and the city. So we had a lot of input and a lot of support of the
idea of having a Walgreen’s at that location.
Ms. Murakami: This is from the business community only?
Mr. Schreiber: No, the Barron Park Association consists primarily of the
residential property owners in the Barron Park area.
Chairman Beecham: The best thing to do, at this point, Patricia, would be
to chat with Bob Moss and Will Beckett in the audience. They will help
get you up to where the rest of the city is in terms of the process.
Bob Moss~ 4010 Orme~ Palo Alto: I am speaking as a representative of the
Barron Park Association, and you have the letter from us. We unanimously
oppose the staff recommendation to rezone this site from Multiple-Family
Residential to Service.Commercial, and we unanimously recommend a
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone. I will go into a little detail as to
why, with a little history on that site.
At the time that the entirearea was annexed and the area was zoned, what
they did was to basically square off that whole corner, that little
triangle, zoning it all .CS, which made sense, because it was
automotive-related, and there were two auto dealers there. In 1989, when
it was rezoned residential because the city was desperately looking for
sites to rezone residential, it was pointed out that putting housing
adjacent to a substation was not the smartest thing in the world, and that
it would probably not go over too well. That is exactly what happened.
In 1991, when Fresh Choice made a proposal to occupy the front part of the
Chez Louis site, there was a coincident proposal to put a small,
three-store unit on the back portion, the area we are talking about now.
When the Fresh Choice deal fell through because of parking problems, the
other development also fell through. To get into why we oppose the CS
zone, if you look at the description of CS, "Facilities that provide
citywide and regional services that rely on customers making trips by
cars." The last thing we want to do is to get cars going down Maybell.
That is a very strong position of the Barron Park Association, that is,
not to encourage, especially out-of-area traffic on a residential street.
Maybell is the only street in Barron Park that has significant amounts of
cut-through traffic, about 14 percent. No other street in Barron Park has
even 5 percent of through traffic on it. Making this Service Commercial
and encouraging auto uses would only exacerbate that problem.
Also Service Commercial allows noxious uses. For example, auto repair and
veterinarians and animal hospitals. If you want to know how welcome
animal hospitals are, just talk to the people in Villas de las Plazas who,
until a veterinarian closed a year or so ago, constantly complained about
noise from the dogs that were being boarded and odors. So the last thing
you want to do is to allow a veterinarian to go into an area that is
adjacent to single-family homes, both the new ones on Pe~a Court and the
ones out on Maybell. So we would strongly oppose a CS in that area. The
CS that was there before was kind of a simplification. It was easier to
draw a single zone in that area than to try and adjust it, Since it
wasn’t used for anything else at the time and in fact, now is still
vacant, it didn’t seem to create any particular problems.
To answer the questions about Walgreen’s, they will be open from8 a.m. to
10 p.m. They will not sell liquor, and there will not be a 24-hour
operation. We took a lot of that into account. I talked to Mr. Borel
last weekend, and he said the buildingwould be coming down in less than
two weeks, so there will be a new Walgreen’s there sometime early next
year. As to whether we need a Walgreen’s when they already have a Long’s
and a Payless, that is a business decision. We asked exactly the same
question. Walgreen’s thinks they can make a go.of it, and who are we to
10/11/95
say they can’t.
In summary, I would hope that you would rezone this particular site CN and
reject the staff recommendation for CS. Thank you.
Commissioner Schink: Did anyone participate from the adjacent homeowners
association?
Mr. Moss: Yes, there was active participation from Barron Square, the PC
at 3023. They were violently opposed to Chez Louis selling out and
Walgreen’s going in, but it was pointed out that this was a completely
legal use. Once they got used to the fact that people have the right to
develop their property, as long as they do it within the boundaries of the
zoning, they then realized that the modifications that would be made to
the appearance.-- landscaping, the parking lot -- were beneficial to what
could have been there before, and they did .accept it. Most of the people
on Pe~a Court did not live there when this came up. So there was not a
lot of opportunity to talk to them. Those houses have only been occupied
for the last year or so. This has been going on for a-year-and-a-half.
Interdale people also participated. Interdale is the little street that
is just above Thain Way, and those people were also involved. There were
meetings in the Barron Square clubhouse, and they also had input into the
design of the site.
Commissioner Schink: In those meetings, you discussed your
recommendation.
Mr. Moss: Yes, the Barron Park Association discussed our meetings with
the developer and the architect. The developers and architect were at the
meeting with the Barron Square people and the Interdale people. There was
extensive discussion and correspondence back and forth.
Commissioner Cassel: Bob, what do you anticipate would go on this site?
Mr. Moss: I’ll tell you what we would love to have go on there -- a very
small group of shops that would include a coffee shop, bakery, small
hardware store. We are looking for neighborhood-serving uses. Oddly
enough, we have been getting a significant number of those along El
Camino. They are coming in. I understand Happy Donuts is finally getting
a building permit, and they will be building at #3916. We have been
waiting for that for almost a year. I believe that there are viable uses
that can go in there, even small offices. But that is a commercial
decision. What we are trying to do is to put a zoning envelope on it
which would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Something that
people could walk to from all of the housing.there. You know, Arastradero
Park is just a half block away, and there are a fair number of people
there. It would be very much welcomed.
Commissioner Cassel: You are hoping that the parking that exists there
now would go away?
Mr. Moss: Yes. The parking has been a bone of contention used by Lutz
Ford and the easement for Lutz Ford to drive their cars out and go down
the street. They used to drive the cars down Maybell toward the school,
and we managed to talk them out of that. Now they come out and go only
onto El Camino and loop around, so they do not go through the
Io/11/95
-27-
neighborhood. But parking is not the best economic use of that site. I
would like to see it developed for a small shopping area. I think there
is no reason why that cannot be done.
Lorene Salcido~ 552 PeAa Court. Palo Alto: .What I have to say may be a
moot point, since the Walgreen decision has already been made, but let me
start by saying that I would never have purchased the home I live in
today, knowing the Walgreen decision had been made. Those are new homes,
and as everyone knows, the home cost in Palo Alto is quite high. Also, in
general, having anything else built in that area that we are talking about
today, there are some issues that need to be addressed and looked at. One
is that there is an elementary school down the street. There is Juana
Briones Park which is down the street. There are no sidewalks for kids to
walk to the park or to the school. Obviously, this will increase the
traffic for us residents, especially those of us in PeAa Court, who are
looking directly at that area. As it is right now, we already have people
coming into our court, going in and out, and we do not want any more of
that. There are no stop signs except at the very end where the school is
located, so again, you have cars going in and out and it is very difficult
for us to get in and out of our area. Again, I feel that the Walgreen’s
itself and anything you add is going to decrease our property values. I
am going to talk to my real estate agent, because as far as I am
concerned, this decision was made awhile ago and should have been
disclosed to us homeowners. I will be taking action on that. Just on
Pe~a Court itself, we have seven homes and 12 small children who play
there, who go to the school, who go to the parks, and we are very
concerned about anything that would increase the traffic and decrease our
property values.
Chairman Beecham: Thank you for your comments, and I am sorry to hear
about your situation. With that, I will close the public hearing on
Agenda Item 5 and bring it back to the commission. Let us handle Areas 10
and 11 first so that Tony can rejoin us.
Commissioner Ojakian: I will make a motion if there are no comments.
Commissioner-Cassel: I have a comment. I was wondering if we might not
consider doing for Area #10 what we were considering doing for Rickey’s
Hyatt House. In other words, change the underlying land use designation
to multiple-family, and add the Commercial Hotel overlay to this site so
that we would not have this problem with the other being the predominant
use. The reason for suggesting this is because if something then happens
to the hotel site, we would have a fairly large site that could be used
for residential purposes, and there are other residential housing zones in
this area.
Commissioner Ojakian: I was going to make a motion to support the
Commercial Hotel use in the staff recommendation. In my own case, I am
happy with staying with the staff recommendation and not creating some
underlying land use designation for the area.
Chairman Beecham: My sense is along with Vic’s that unless we see.that
something that is likely to change, and we have a reason for changing and
directing where it is going in the future, I think we are better off where
we are now, especially where we have the owner coming in and saying that
they have every intent of staying and improving ~he site. In this case,
lO/11/9S
there is absolutely no problem with the site. The use is appropriate, and
I feel we need to support that use, so I would also support the staff
recommendation.
Commissioner Cassel: The reason I have suggested this is that I hate to
see a single use on asite. The only approved use on this site will be a
hotel. I am finding that to be uncomfortable on this site and also on
another site that we will be discussing later, that it be the onl~option
on that site, by right. So under those circumstances and the way it sits
now, you have a commercial site and it is a hotel. I just felt that it is
wise to have some other use at that site, as well as the Commercial Hotel
designation.
Commissioner Schmidt: The Commercial Hotel designation is still just a
proposed designation which has not been approved, correct?
Mr. Schreiber: That is correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: In regard to what Phyllis is asking about defining
what the Commercial Hotel is, might it be similar to other land use
designations where everything "below" it is allowed on it, such as higher
density housing? Or is the intent indeed to make it absolutely one single
use and nothing else?
~r.. SchreibRr: I.don’t believe we had a staff discussion as to whether
you would allow Multiple-Family Residential, but I think the essence is
probably not. The intent has been to have the land use focused on a.
variety of hotel and hotel-related facilities. In this case, staff is
comfortable with the concept of a Commercial Hotel, even though right now,
we have several parcels there, and one of those would have a restaurant on
it, because the restaurant concept there is being integrated into the
hotel concept. We see that as a logical grouping of uses, recognizing
that the Commercial Hotel concept, from staff’s standpoint, came out of
considering the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road site, where we are
definitely looking for a land use designation that would not open up a
broader range of commercial activities, for traffic reasons. Certainly
multiple-family could be added into that in the definition process, but
that has not been our intent thus far.
Commi~.sioner Schink: I would prefer the staff recommendation. While
Phyllis has a unique idea and it is ibtriguing, I am not inclined to go in
that direction, because I think that in this situation, a commercial hotel
is best situated there. That is what should be there. If you make it
available for housing, you might end up with housing, and then, someone
may want to build a commercial hotel at-another location that was intended
for housing. This is a better location for a hotel, and the other
location would probably be better for housing. So since this is the best
location for a hotel, I prefer to call it Commercial Hotel and leave it at
that.
Chairman-Beecham: Also, as regards Phyllis’ concerns, the city is always
responsive if something should change dramatically on some large parcel.
If we find out there is an interest in building housing there and we feel
it is appropriate, we are happy to talk with people about that. I think
developers generally know that, so there would not be an issue of their
saying, "No, we could never put housing in there, because the city won’t
10/11/95
allow it."
MOTION: Commissioner Ojakian: I move that we support the staff
recommendation to consider changing the land use designation for the sites
at 4261-71 El Camino Real (Dinah’s Garden Hotel) from Service Commercial
and Multiple-Family Residential .to Commercial Hotel.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
Commissioner Ojakian: I am happy to make this motion tonight because as
Mr. Matters knows, we had another issue with this site several years ago,
in which we did not agree on theuse for the site at that time. Frankly,
I got a little bit of a surprise, coming out of that issue. We have ended
up with a single owner on this site, which I did not think would ever
happen. In thinking about Phyllis’ comments, we have a site that I am not
concerned about its not being a commercial hotel area because even at that
point in time, when we had the issue two-and-a-half years ago, this was
one of the top-notch, first class hotels I had ever seen, and I probably
have stayed at a hundred hotels in my life, being a frequent traveller at
one stage in my career. The fact that they have taken over the whole
piece of property and made advances toward significantly upgrading a lot
of it leads me to believe, as Jon was commenting, that this is the best
use of this site. That has been corroborated, in essence, by the amount
of work they have put into it. The reason why I made my comments earlier,
knowing this site very well, is that it is one of the most unusual sites I
have confronted in my four years on the planning commission. Hopefully,
the message got across, even though we cannot deal with it in this land
use setup, to try and clear up that site so that we have something in
perpetuity there that makes a little more sense than what has existed
there.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? All those in favor of the motion by Commissioner Ojakian,
seconded by Commissioner Schink, to accept the staff recommendation and
change the Dinah’s Hotel site from Service Commercial and Multiple-Family
Residential to Commercial Hotel, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a
vote of 5-I, with Commissioner Cassel voting no and Commissioner Carrasco
abstaining.
Commissioner Cassel: It isn’t that I object to the use as a commercial
hotel on this site. I am concerned about having only one use on the site
itself.
Chairman Beecham: Next is Agenda Item 5.H., Area #11, the Maybell Avenue
.property behind the future Walgreen store.. Are there any questions?
Commissioner Schink: In regard to the Maybell property, staff had
mentioned some serious environmental concerns. I suppose that was in
regard to the electrical power substation there. Is there anything other
than the power substation, the car lot and all that?
Mr. Schreiber: No, those are the two concerns.
Commissioner Ojakian: Given the fact that we have a measure currently on
the ballot in Palo Alto, and given the fat that this piece of property is
currently zoned residential, and we are trying to change it from
10/i 1/95
-30-
residential to commercial, is there any impact, down the road, if that
measure were to pass?
Ms. Cauble: To continue our constant effort to distinguish between our
Comprehensive Plan changes and zoning, the staff recommendation before you
is to recommend further consideration of a Comprehensive Plan change from
a residential designation to a nonresidential designation If Measure R
were to pass, then for 20 years, ~e would not be able to consider that as
part of the Comprehensive Plan process.
Mr. Schreiber: If Measure R passes, since these commission actions will
not get to the city council until after that, staff will certainly
reconsider its recommendations. I would not envision, for example on this
site, recommending a change from Multiple-Family Residential to a
nonresidential category if what that meant would be that you had to have a
citywide referendum on it. At that point, I think the staff
recommendation would be to keep the Multiple-Family Residential. It is
not worth the effort of going through the referendum process. The same
thing would occur with Dinah’s Garden Hotel situation. The commission has
just recommended taking some multiple-family-designated land and
considering it for Commercial Hotel. If you had to go through a
referendum process, I doubt if we would recommend that.
Ms. Cauble: I would like to thank Ken. I did not quite finish what I was
trying to say, and he mentioned the referendum process. Obviously, I was
not precluding the potential for that.
Commissioner Qjakian: I appreciate staff’s Comments on that, because that
is my same opinion of this particular change if Measure R passes.
I was pleased to hear tonight that on this particular area where seven
houses have been added in the last year, that we had so many children
living there. That is something that is near and dear.to my heart and is
one of the reasons why I sit on the planning commission, trying to make
those opportunities available to people. Frankly, I feel a little
uncomfortable for you folks because you have not been involved in the
process, and some of these things just came along either before or while
you were here. In Palo Alto, we are always vigilant when we own our
houses, and I understand some of your issues. Some of them were beyond
us, and I hope they get addressed. You do have an active neighborhood
association. Sometimes they disagree with each other, so you will get
several viewpoints and you will have the whole picture.
I am looking at the particular site, though, and this little niche is one
that I do not think should be Service Commercial. As Mr. Moss pointed
out, there is a wide range of activities that can happen in it. I do not
think those activities are in the best interests of people who live in the
housing in the adjacent area. So I am more inclined to go along with
changing it to Neighborhood Commercial or CN, and hope that that is a land
use designation that sticks, down the road.
Chairman Beecham: Does staff have any information or opinion on CN versus
CS?
Mr. Schreiber: Neighborhood Commercial is notably more restrictive than
Service Commercial, to the extent that this is off of El Camino and
io/11/9s
-31-
adjacent to residential, I think You could make a very good argument for
Neighborhood Commercial. Staff is also cognizant of the ongoing use of
the site by Lutz Ford for parking and access. Recognizing that as an
existing use was probably the major factor, plus the history of the site,
that led us to the Service Commercial recommendation.
Chairman Beecham: Would CN allow that to continue to be used as parking?
Mr. Schreiber: Not indefinitely.
Commissioner Cassel: But the current use can stay as long as the current
owner wants to use it there, couldn’t it?
Ms. Cauble: It could be dealt with if the Comprehensive Plan were to be
amended to the CN designation and if the corresponding zoning change were
made. Then provisions could be made at that time in the zoning ordinance
if the planning commission and city council wanted to, to grandfather in
that use.
Commissioner Schink: I am still not moved away from the residential
designation. Do you really see any overwhelming friction that would occur
if there were some kind of residential use on this site, along with the
existing uses?
Ms. Lytle: I think Ken was referring earlier to the problems we had seen
with previous applications and potential applicants in trying to design
around the multi-structure parking for Lutz and the transformer as an
aesthetic issue, as a noise issue, and there has been some concern on the
part of members of the public.about Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF). We
have had tons and tons of problems -- people trying to put up 20-foot
walls as a buffer, and that was when there was more flexibility with both
properties. With just this site in isolation, it is going to be a tough
one to redevelop into housing. That would be my guess. There is a public
utility access easement there to get to the transformer site. The parking
structure looks higher than it is, the way they park on top of it. So you
look right up at the cars from the property.
Commissioner Cassel: I walked that street, as I always find walking the
neighborhood streets to be very, very helpful, as we all do. It is always
surprising the next time, even when,I have been there .before. I walked
extensively in that area this week, and I am very concerned about that
site being a housing site, due to what is in its backyard. The
transformer is very noisy, and even worse is the Service Commercial
business there. You can hardly hear the transformer over all the noise
coming from the Ford dealership, yet the transformer is making a fair
amount of noise. I walked around so that I was on other properties
backing up to that, and those properties that are immediately adjacent to
it on other streets are also not developed well. There is a vacant lot
next to it, and there is one house that is not in the best of condition
that is right next to it.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: Therefore, I move that we recommend that
further consideration be given to having the land use,for this location be
Neighborhood Commercial.
SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian.
lO/1!/95
°32°
Commissioner Schink: I amstruggling with the change for a couple of
reasons. While I recognize it is not a perfect housing site, and is
actually a marginal housing site, at times, there are benefits to having
marginal housing sites. What happens is that you end up with somewhat
less expensive housing when it does get developed. That is a benefit.
The other reluctance I have is that commercial enterprises have had such a
difficult time succeeding on El Camino Real that I feel somewhat
uncomfortable pulling energy away from El Camino Real. We might finally
have an opportunity for a Noah’s Bagels or a Starbuck’s, and it would be
unfortunate if that were to suddenly occur stuck back behind the new drug
store instead of El Camino where we have been striving and struggling to
attain vitality for a long time. Those are the problems that I have. I
see this as an opportunity for some inexpensive housing, be it rather
imperfect, and I hate to pull the energy away from El Camino. Therefore,
I will not support the change.
Commissioner Cassel: Jon, maybe you could think of it as a small business
that might end up with a sidewalk out front that would help people walk
by. The Barron Park Association would be keeping their eye on what goes
in there and negotiating with the architectural review board. We might
have something that is more attractive. You don’t want something that is
poor housing. We are not trying to put in poor housing in the city. No
one is going to build poor housing.
Commissioner Schink: No, just housing for poor people.
Commissioner Ojakian: I can hear where Jon is coming from, and I
appreciate his efforts to try and find different ways to get housing into
the housing stock in Palo Alto, even some that might create additional
diversity. But as we all know, since we took a field trip out to that
particular site, a lot of us who have lived in the city for a long time
have gone out there and know that area, and I am very uncomfortable with
putting housing up against the transformer. If we have people here
tonight who are upset about some of the uses that are allowable on that
site, I wonder what the people who would live in those houses would come
back and say to us after living there for awhile in that sort of
condition. So I have always been a supporter of housing and trying to get
it in everywhere possible, but I cannot see it at this particular site,
Jon. I am very uncomfortable with what it would do.
Commissioner Schmidt: I support Vic’s and Phyllis’comments. I am sorry
to lose any housing sites, but I just cannot see anything happening with
housing there. I believe it would remain a vacant parking lot. There is
a lot more likelihood that something would happen if it becomes
Neighborhood Commercial. I just do not think housing is appropriate with
the transformer looming over the back property, line, and it really does
loom.
Commissioner Eakins: Has the Housing Corporation ever looked at this
site? I wouldn’t think a private developer would be very interested in
the site for small unit housing. I think that is what Jon is talking
about, small units for people who could walk to work.
Commissioner Schink: Yes, and I think this is an excellent opportunity
for some group like the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to develop.
Commissioner Eakins: I do not see it as a site for someone who wants to
make a normal profit. It would have to be a special group. Has the
housing corporation or any like-minded group ever looked at it? Maybe our
comments going into the record will bring it to someone’s attention.
If we change it to CN, which it sounds like the way we might go, then
housing c~uld be built there, could it not?
Ms. Lvtle: Yes, RM-15 is still a permitted use in a CN zone.
Commissioner Eakins: Then I feel comfortable with that. It is only
two-thirds of an acre, but I think Jon is imaginative. It could be a nice
place for a few people who could hopefully walk to work.
Chairman Beecham: I want to make a comment about going to Neighborhood
Commercial versus Service Commercial. I think that CN, as you wrap around
onto a residential street, is appropriate. In fact, part of Jon’s
comments about this being a difficult site and therefore, less valuable, I
hope that may imply also that rents would be such that neighborly
businesses can go there at a reasonable rent and enhance the
neighborhood. So I am happy to see that happen here.
Commissioner Schink: I agree that if you are going to go in a commercial
direction, that CN is appropriate. But I will still vote against the
motion.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this
motion by Commissioner Cassel, seconded by Commissioner Ojakian, to
consider changing the land use designation on the Maybell property from
Multiple-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial? All those in
favor, say Aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-I, with
Commissioner Schink voting against and Commissioner Carrasco abstaining.
Next we have Agenda Item 5, F, Area #9, 560 Oxford Avenue. We have no
speakers on this item tonight. We do have a note that Michael Couch was
hoping to speak, but he is not well tonight. We do have some information
in the packet from him. Does staff have anything to add?
Mr. Schreiber: No additional comments.
Chairman Beecham: Are there questions of staff?
Commissioner Schink: I wondered if there is a reasonable time in the
future that we could hear this matter thatworks for scheduling purposes?
Mr. Couch has been to a number of meetings, and it is unfortunate that he
cannot be here tonight.
Chairman Beecham: If we did not finish tonight, this would be an
appropriate one to put off, but we may finish tonight.
Commissioner Eakins: Wasn’t this a zoning change he is requesting, and
was it not appropriate for discussion?
Chairman Beecham: Yes, he would like to have a zoning change and we are
talking about land use designations.
10/11/95
-34-
Mr. Schreiber: The point is that what he wants can be applied for if it
is an RM zone. There may be great difficulty in trying to zone some
property RM-30 or 40 in the midst of this, but at least, there is an
option for him to pursue to try and get this issue before the city. The
city would normally not initiate this type of zone change. It would be up
to the property owner to file an application.
Chairman Beecham: We have heard him before the commission previously, and
he will have a chance to talk. to the city council on this.
Ms. Lyt]e: I have had some conversations with the person who wrote the
letter. His concern is that our current multiple-family regulations do
not allow the type of housing prototype that he would choose to construct
on this site. He does not know whether or not our Village Residential
concept would allow it, because we have not fully developed it. The
option that he sees available to him now is a Planned Community zone,
because there is no other good option for doing the type of prototype
building he is talking about. I think hewanted to try and leave open the
possibility that might come out of the Village Residential category, once
it is defined as a courtyard product or something like that or another
housing prototype that would suit this property.
Commissioner Carrasco: Does the housing prototype that he is talking
about conform with one of the land use categories that we are thinking
about, such as Village Residential or high-density residential or any of
the others?
~s. Ly~le: We couldn’t answer that question for him, because we have not
fully conceived of what that Village Residential is. We have talked about
it in a couple of different ways as a lower-density multiple-family
product, such as courtyard housing, or as a small lot single-family
product. We have gone in two directions with it, and I think he is
looking at more than a single-family product of multiple-familycourtyard
design. Staff, I know, has had a concern about the fact that we do not
h~ve regulations to deal with that prototype which is present in our
community now. Some of our most cherished multiple-family projects in
town are that courtyard style of housing. Our regulations make that
product noncomplying, so people are in a freeze-dry mode on those
projects~ They can only apply for a PC to get any kind of modernization
of some of them, and then we have no opportunity to recreate that style of
housing, should we so desire, since there is not a good designation for
it.
I have not seen the plans that he has come up with, but in conversations
with him, that might be a direction he would choose --something in higher
density and attached, which is what I think he is talking about.
Commissioner Carrasco: So it sounds like the zoning that is on there
could accommodate his use down the road -- the RMD and P?
Ms. Lytle: The RMD iF a two-unit multiple-family product. I think he is
thinking of more units than two.
Commissioner Cassel: Nancy, the land use designation, which is what we
are doing tonight, does not forbid what he wants, to do. The land use
lO/1!/95
designation we are looking at is multiple-family, and that land use
designation does not forbid him from doing what he is doing tonight.
we are okay and he is okay.
Ms. Lytle: That is correct.
So
Commissioner Schmidt: But he would still some need some sort of zoning
change in order to have more than two units there.
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, he would need a zoning change, but there is no other
land use category than multiple-family residential to achieve what he
wants to achieve. He already has the land use category, which is why we
have recommended No Change. ~
Commissioner Schmidt: Many or most of the properties around the site are
higher density than two units, because it preexisted, I assume.
Chairman Beecham: So to clarify what we have before us tonight, there is
no better land use designation than what is there now for what Mr. Couch
has indicated as being his future desires.
Mr. Schreiber: Nancy has reminded me that there is the Village
Residential, which may, at some point in the future, be applicable in this
sitdation when it is more clearly defined. I would not be comfortable
pursing Village Residential at this point in the process, given our
generalized definition of that and the very specific nature of this one
property.
Commissioner Carrasco: But it is conceivable that his one RMD zone could
become a zone that is compatible with Village Residential, or it could be
a zone that is compatible with Multiple-Family Residential.
Mr. Schreiber: RMD allows two units. He wants to have more, so RMD does
not work, from his standpoint. That is what he has right now, and he is
saying that it is not appropriate.
Commissioner Schink: Isn’t this a good prototype piece of property that
fits the concept of Village Residential? If we called it Village
Residential, then when you are looking at defining what it would be, you
would look back at this and say, this is what it needs to be to work at
this site. So maybe this is a good one on which to introduce the concept.
Commissioner Ojakian: If somebody is going to make that motion, I would
be happy to hear the argument for it. Staff has a recommendation for no
change at this site, which would allow the owner of the. property to still
pursue his interest at some future date through already available
channels.
MOTION: Commissioner Ojakian: I will move that we accept the
staff-recommended land use map designation, no change from the current
Multiple-Family Residential designation.
SECOND: By Commissioner Eakins.
Commissioner Carrasco: We have developed a concept called Village
Residential, but we have not applied it anywhere: yet. This seems like an
10/11/95
-36-
ideal place to apply it. This whole RM area is close to commercial, it
has buffers between it and single-family and commercial, and it seems like
an ideal place to apply a whole area of Village Residential. There are
other areas downtown that similarly apply. I am also asking the larger
question -- where did Village Residential go as a land use category, and
don’t we need to consider it in these kinds of areas? That is what Jon
was getting at. Shouldn’t there be other sites for staff to recommend
back to the commission around California Avenue or around downtown as
being appropriate areas for Village Residential?
Ms.......Lytle: Our concept was that the prototypes that we are thinking of
under that designation are largely prototypes that fit into the older
neighborhoodpatterns. They are more pedestrian-oriented in design. You
can have a smaller lot pattern or you can have a courtyard design and have
it fit in with housing that has been there for many,, many years and not
look out of place. It is actually a type of pattern that would blend in
very well with some of the traditional architectural styles and
neighborhood patterns in older neighborhoods. The Village Residential
concept was that it was in transition to commercial areas that you would
want to apply it. This is certainly one of those transitional
neighborhoods.
It is tough to have this discussion, as we have not yet fully worked
through the concept. We did talk about another site in town being
potentially suitable for it, and that is the Spangler School site, which
is on your agenda.
Mr. Schreiber: We also raised it in conjunction with Rickey’s. What we
have been focusing on are somewhat larger, redevelopable sites, using it
as a way of getting at the market situation, in part, where smaller lot,
single-family is a very desired product. We have no mechanism at all to
do that, other than the Planned Community zone and a multiple-family land
use category. So that has been the focus. We wish we had had it for the
Times-Tribune site, for example. We have suggested it for Spangler, and
we have suggested it as one option for~the Rickey’s site. My concern is
that the comments here flow between this particular site and the whole
area. I am not comfortable that the land use concept is defined precisely
enough to start applying it to one particular parcel in the midst of an
area. We can talk about it in generalities. We can talk about five acres
or ten acres, but when you talk about something that is an infill site of
a third of an acre or a quarter acre, that is a different situation, and I
am not comfortable with it.
Chairman Beecham: My thought aligns with Ken. We ihave one parcel here,
amidst several others. To select one parcel and say, let’s make that a
different land use designation I think is not exactly the right way to
go. In the best of all worlds, we would speedily go through the Village
Residential, resolve it, and then say, now that we really know what it is,
we know what areas in Palo Alto are appropriate for the new designation.
The other possible solution for this particular site and for what ~he
applicant is looking for would be when we go ahead and make adjustments to
the Multiple-Family Residential zoning, to make some of the aspects of
that less onerous and more practicable. For tonight, in looking at the
land use designation, to keep it as is would be the appropriate way to go
for. this one parcel. ..
Commissioner Schmidt: We would not even be talking about this site if the
owner had not brought it forth. I feel uncomfortable with giving it a new
designation without having some input from the owner. Since he is unable
to be present tonight, I would feel that it is more appropriate to leave
it as it is.
Commissioner Carra~co: I.concur with Bern. Your comments describe very
well the process under which the new zone could be applied, so I will vote
for the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Schink: I think we should keep this particular site in mind,
as it is of a rather typical size. It is a good property for us to look
at our regulations and see what the real effect is. This should be
something that will help us to find the right ordinance.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? Shall we vote on the motion by Commissioner Ojakian, seconded by
Commissioner Eakins, to accept the staff recommendation to make no land
use map change for Area #9, 560 Oxford Avenue? All those in favor, say
Aye? All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
That completes Agenda Item 5. In order to take up Agenda Item 6 next, we
need a motion to bring it forward for consideration.
MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move that we bring Agenda Item 6
forward for consideration.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: All those in favor, say Aye? All
opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM 6 RECONSIDERATION OF LAND USE RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA #4
.(491-493 CHARLESTON ROAD AND 4201-4227 EL CAMINO REAl)
Chairman Beecham: Does staff have any comments for us?
Ms. Lytle: This is Something that we felt you had probably overlooked
taking formal action on, so we have reagendized it for your
consideration. It is the landscape~combining overlay policy at the rear
of the property and along Charleston Road.
Chairman Beecham: We will now go to the public. We have two speakers.
David Corliss~ 3180 Crow Canyon Court, Pleasonton~ CA: I am here before
you tonight representing the owners of the property, the Hyatt
Corporation. I think you are in receipt of a letter last month on the
12th that I gave to Nancy to distribute. I will just reiterate their
position, which is that they have no forethoughts of doing anything with
the property except operating i~like they have been for a number of
years. They oppose any land use changes to the property whatsoever, or
any other changes. They do not think it would be for the betterment of.
their property, and certainly, the current operation that is ongoing is
thriving through some fairly tough economic times. They feel very
strongly that they want you to do nothing with ~he property. Thank you.
10/11/95
-38-
Commissioner Ojakian: Having looked at the video tape of the last meeting
and having heard these rumors, how much truth is there to the fact that
Rickey’s might desire in some near future date to move out of this site?
We keep hearing this, and we would like you to be able to respond to that.
Mr. Corliss: The gentleman I have been in communication with over the
last three years on the property is Nick Pretzger-. He is the president of
Hyatt Development, and Hyatt Development is also oneof the owners of this
particular property. That question has come up at least three times that
I can remember in discussions with him. He is puzzled and perplexed as to
why something like this has come up. It is nothing that the Hyatt
Corporation has instigated. They have not carried on any conversations,
to the best of his knowledge, with any city people or any real estate
brokers or anybody else in the community about doing something else with
the property, except to operate it as it is. I cannot speak to five, ten,
fifteen or 25 years from now, and I am not really sure that he can, but he
is a relatively forthright person, and he has no interest and no desire at
this time to do anything with the property other than to operate it in its
current configuration.
Commissioner Ojakian: Do you have any plans to renovate the property or
sink some capital into it to upgrade it? Also, what type of convention
facilities do you have there, and do you have any expectations on
expanding those?
Mr. Corliss: Yes, I can speak to that. A little less than a year ago,
they had a couple of consultants involved in the property as far as some
¯ renovation possibilities, not only to the convention facility but also to
the older units at the rear of the property. They got some bids and
estimates, and there was some dialogue carried on in Chicago, not directly
with myself. I know that the end result was that he has an idea as to
what he wants to spend to upgrade the property, and whether he goes ahead
and does that or not, I have no way of telling.
Mr. Schreiber: Perhaps it would help if I gave you some reassurance. The
planning commission recommendation last month was to recommend that the
site be considered for a dual designation of Commercial Hotel, a
continuation of the current operation, combined with a Multiple-Family
Residential or Village Residential option. So if the objective is to keep
the site functioning as a commercial hotel, that is consistent with the
planning commission action last month.
Mr. Corliss: It was the desire of the Hyatt Corporation for their
property to do nothing with the property except to keep it with the
current land designation.
Lane Liroff, 4221Wilkie Way~ Palo Alto: I spoke to many of you last
month. As you will recall, I face directly across the street, and I would
like to think that on some level, my wife and I are the homeowners that
are perhaps the most affected by what potentially could happen here. My
wife bought this property some 17 years ago, and we are now about to
celebrate our tenth anniversary. While I may not be a veteran of the
meetings here yet, I am quickly becoming one. We have obviously had a
long-standing concern for the community. I have comments prepared, and
you may know that I am a lawyer, but I hasten to. add that I am not the
type of lawyer that deals with these issues. I work for the county as a
criminal lawyer, as a prosecutor. So please do not expect the things that
you might expect from my friend, Debbie.
I thought the purpose for all of this was the anticipation of the rumors
that Hyatt was going to change. Last month, we told you that the all of
the neighbors spoke because they felt that the F1yatt was a good neighbor.
Its usage does not intrude upon the enjoyment of our property. Our real
concern is that this area is becoming incredibly congested. I understand
that you have state-mandated requirements to locate available housing
sites, but this area has already been the recipient of a number of those
efforts. If you look at the map where the word Charleston starts to
appear, I~believe there is a condominium right there. I do not know the
name. There is also Camino Place which is shown partially, a very large
development. Around the corner, there is Jacobs Court. This is what I
saw this morning when I left my house. There is complete blockage. There
are cars waiting on Charleston almost all the way to El Camino, and that
is what it is like now. We know that the Hyatt usage does not interfere
with that, so it is compatible with the needs of the neighborhood. My
concern is this. If I look at your recommendation, there is a
recommendation that you believe that the better treatment for this would
be Multiple-Family Residential or Village Residential. What I know is
this, that right now, it is congested. If there ever was a possibility
that it will become Village Residential, we are looking at what, 200
homes? 100 homes? 300 homes? This is a 15-acre site. This is very
large. The effect of that will cause incredible congestion on El Camino
and on Charleston and back it up onto Arastradero. We are at saturation
on some level. What is happening now is, in the mornings, people are now
driving down Whitclem and Edlee on the other side. They are driving down
the streets that are truly residential to avoid the blockage on
Charleston. It is very congested.
What I was going to suggest to you as a possibility., because we now.have
the assurance from the Hyatt Corporation that they intend to stay. If you
did look at the tape last month, you know that everyone who spoke said,
wow, what a fantastic thing, because Hyatt truly is a treasure for us. We
know that if they ever ~build that eight-story hotel on the corner of Page
Mill Road and El Camino, we know that it will never be the same and never
have the type of character that the Hyatt provides to Palo Alto. If they
are going to stay,then they would have no objection to perhaps the same
designation, and it would appear appropriate that it would be what the
Dinah’s Garden Hotel was seeking. In other words, if they are going to
stay as a hotel, there won’t be a problem with a pure designation as a
hotel. And there will not then be that need for that other possible use
that staff, that Mr. Schreiber addressed, which would be the possibility
of building some colossal commercial development. So what we have is a
concern that our neighborhood have some, because it intrudes so
dramatically into a residential neighborhood, that the character remain
the same. We also, of course, want the landscaping overlay. It is a very
attractive landscaping set of trees. All we are asking from you now is,
if you are going to consider this matter, I really want to express our -
concern about the village concept, because I think it will be absolutely
so great an influx of residents into the neighborhood in an area that I
don’t think can stand it. Since Hyatt is going to stay, there appears to
be no reason to change it to add the residential. If there is going to be
any consideration of a change, I would ask you to just guarantee that
lO/11/9~
there just be that hotel there. Thank you.
My wife asked me to mention that in terms of the landscaping overlay, you
have to be concerned about the roots. There are very lovely Dutch elms
there, and they truly are a treasure for our community. Inside them,
there is this old growth of pines. For the past month, I have made a
point of truly admiring them, as_a result of the proposed action. Thank
you.
Chairman Beecham: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public
portion of the hearing and bring it back to .the commission. I thank you
for staying and bearing with us on this. To ensure that we know what our
task is tonight, it is to solely discuss retaining, or not, perhaps, the
landscape combining overlay zone there. Certainly, as someone who voted
for the motion to change the land use designation at a previous date, if
they wanted to reagendize that, we would consider it, but otherwise
tonight, we have only in front, of us the consideration of a landscape
combining overlay zone. Certainly, if there is anyone here who does not
want to do that, please speak up now. If we are going to be in support,
are there any comments or discussion?
MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move that we accept the staff
recommendation in which we recommend to council a policy in the
Comprehensive Plan to retain the existing landscape-combining overlay zone
on Wilkie Way and Charleston Road..
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
Commissioner Schink: I have a procedural question. I do not understand
how we can reconsider a portion of it if we are notreconsidering the
whole action?
Ms. Cauble: We have a problem with the Brown Act. The reason for this
being placed on the agenda, as the staff report explains, is that there
was one element of a complex staff recommendation that did not appear to
be specifically addressed by the commission. Staff thought it was
probably inadvertent, so they brought this forward for your consideration
on reconsideration. Because that is the only element of your action that
is contained on the agenda, as Bern indicates, if there is a desire on the
part of someone who is prevailing on the prior motion to reconsider some
element other than that which is on the notice, then it will have to be
brought up at a subsequent meeting, because it was not properly noticed
for consideration tonight. ¯
Commissioner Carrasco: The staff recommendation is in regard to an
overlay zone. Is this a land use category?
Ms. Cauble: Actually, this is a short hand of the staff recommendation,
which was that as part of the Comprehensive Plan, there be some sort of
text which indicated a policy that there should be a continuing landscape
overlay zone on the property~ They short-handed it on the agenda and
referenced zone, but as the prior staff report discussed in more detail,
the staff recommendation was for a Comprehensive Plan policy language
which would preserve the zone.
Chairman Beecham: Actually, it was my shorthand~ng in the way I
summarized it. The summary here does say, "Consideration of a policy..."
Commissioner Ojakian: I apologize to my fellow commissioners if I got too
side tracked. I realize what is in front of us tonight, but because I
missed the prior meeting, somewhere in my statements, I will comment on my
thoughts on this particular area, making those inclusive in what we do
tonight. I am comfortable with adding the landscape combining overlay
zone to this particular’site. I think that is consistent with what the
commissioners decided at a previous meeting. It is also compatible with
what people in the neighborhood would want, because it retains that
tree-lined buffer there, and I heard nobody comment to the contrary (nor
would I expect anyone to do so).
Chairman Beecham: I think it is clear from the record and discourse that
~t was an oversight.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? We have a motion by Commissioner Carrasco, seconded by
Commissioner Schmidt, to accept the staff recommendation in which we
recommend to council a policy in the Comprehensive Plan to retain the
existing landscape-combining overlay zone on Wilkie Way and Charleston
Road. All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes unanimously
on a vote of 6-0, with Commissioner Eakins absent at the moment.
Commissioner Ojakian: I heard the arguments on both sides of this
particular issue, and I am a little uncomfortable with the decision that
was made before, although I realize that is the standing decision. If I
had been here that evening, I think I might have voted to just make this a
Commercial Hotel zone. The reason for that was confirmed by what Mr.
Corliss brought up tonight, that is, there were a lot of assumptions made
that somehow, because this site was going to change, that we needed to go
ahead and make some change to the site to avoid the potential excessive
development that would have been allowed under the current land use
designation. My goal for this particular area is to fit in housing where
we can, and hopefully that does happen. I think we can do that tastefully
in a way that does no~ affect the people who currently live in the
neighborhood. Separate from that, I have been a big advocate on being
very careful about what we do on Charleston Road, because to me, that is a
de facto bike corridor that shuttles kids between a couple ofmajor school
sites. We have had some city studies on what needs to be done to rectify
the problem out there. I hope we keep on that particular issue until we
do get it resolved.
Chairman Beecham: That completes Agenda Item 6. We now can returnto
Agenda item 4.
AGENDA ITEM 4. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COMPREHENSlVE PLAN LAND
USE MAP CHANGES (Public Hearing Closed)
Chairman Beecham: First is Area #2 - 3880 Middlefield Road (Spangler
School Site). Does staff have any comments for us?
Mr. Schreiber: Only to note that the staff recommendation, which was
initially transmitted to the commission in September, is that
consideration be given to redesignation of this #ite from Major
10/ii/95
-42-
Institution/Special Facilities to either Multiple-Family Residential or
Village Residential. It is a site owned by Santa Clara County, although
we found out that the land is owned by the county but the buildings are
owned by the County Board of Education. So we have a rather strange
ownership situation here.
Again, we are not trying to lose county facilities, but the use of these
facilities has been reduced over the last few years. Again, we have
contacted the county staff by letter and also by telephone, and urged them
to attend the meeting last month, as well as tonight, if they had concerns
or objections, or to communicate in writing to us. We have not had any
correspondence from them.
Chairman Beecham: Has staff had any further correspondence with the Heads
Up group? We have a letter dated September 29th.
Mr. Schreiber: No, I do not believe so.
Chairman Beecham: Is there any discussion?
Commissioner Cassel: I am really concerned about this site being taken
out of public school use and out of the Public Facility use. My concern
here is that it is already in public hands. I understand the school
buildings had some problems in meeting safety standards. However, our
schools are getting more and more crowded, and we need sites desperately.
If we change this to Multiple-Family Residential, it increases the value
of the site, making it more tempting for the county to sell it to the
private sector for multiple-family use, rather than back to the city for
-some other use.
The schools right now are in very high demand. I am getting some very
i6teresting comments from people not wanting children to live in this town
because their schools are too crowded. I am getting very uncomfortable
with this. On the one hand, we are zoning housing so that we will have
more residents,~ because we need a jobs/housing balance. We need people
living closer to their jobs because we have a requirement from the state
and because we need housing locally. On the other hand, even the houses
that now exist are producing more children for the very logical reason
that people who have been living here for 35 years are now moving out to
other kinds of facilities, and people having children are moving in, or
having children after moving in. Even in the apartments, they are having
children. I like children, and somehow, when I was younger, people were
allowed to have children. I believe in family planning and every child is
wanted and all of that, but I don’t believe that we shouldn’t have
children, and that is where I think we are going with some of these
arguments. So I am really concerned. That means we need to make sites
available everywhere we can that are available for children, and not lose
them. That means we may have to change our taxes, and we may have to do a
couple of things to make it possible for people to have kids and not be so
frightened about doing so.
Based on all of that, I think we really should keep this as a Public
Facility. The site is large enough to hold a school, if it had to be
rebuilt or redesigned. It is large enough to be used as a temporary site
as we move facilities around. The school on the other site in that nearby
area is supposed to be used for a temporary school site while they do the
-43-
Measure B projects, but it may be needed rapidly for a permament site
because the overgrowth in the schools is so rapid. So I am going to
oppose the staff recommendation and recommend keeping it as Public
Facility.
Commissioner Schmidt: Can you explain the use a little more? Is it a
county-run school? Phyllis alluded to the buildings not being in
appropriate shape. Do yoq know anything about the facility not meeting"
code in order to have a school operating there?
Mr. Schreiber: Santa Clara County has used the site in the last year or
two for a high school equivalency type program for individuals who have
had serious problems both with the school system and, I believe, with the
law enforcement system. So this has been a magnet location for those
hard-to-reach young adults. We have had some rather casual, second-hand
type comments coming back that the county would really like to phase out
of this site and that they do not have a prime use for it. The
correspondence you received, the September 29th letter in your packet f.rom
Heads Up, a child development center, indicates that they are attempting
to lease part of this site or the entire facility. I am not sure where
they are in the process. We do not have anything more specific than what
is in the letter.
Commissioner Schmidt: I also wondered about the condition of the
buildings. Since they are county buildings, I don’t know if you would
know that.
Mr. Schreiber: I have no idea in terms of the condition of the
buildings. School facilities, whether at the county level or at the Palo
Alto Unified School District level, are not subject to local code
enforcement and building permit procedures. That is regulated through the
state, so we do not issue permits and we do not do inspections of
schools. We do not have the authority to do that.
Commissioner Schink: How would you compare the current educational use,
or even various possible future educational uses, the traffic generation
from those, as compared to some Village Residential designation that we
may end up with?
Mr. Schreiber: It is extremely hard to speculate about that. If you put
a use in there that is oriented.towards young adults from the northern
third of Santa Clara County, which I think is essentially the type of use
that has been there, the sense is that most of those people are driving
there by themselves, so there are at least two car trips per day per
student. You can have other types of schools, schools that would have far
less traffic than that. I really do not know enough about the numbers to
compare a high school with a high level of driving to a single-family,
Village Residential or low-density multiple-family alternative.
Commissioner Cassel: There is good bus transportation on that corner,
which is frequently u~ed by people going to the site. It is timed for
school hours, because I go by that corner on a regular basis.
Commissioner Ojakian: I am a little uncomfortable with changing the
current designation on this site, given the fact that we have heard
nothing to substantiate from the county or the board of education that
they are not going to continue to use that site. We think we used that in
some ways as a premise earlier this evening on some issues, so I am just
uncomfortable changing what is going on there. Maybe, sometime between
now and before the Council gets this in their hands, we will have some
additional feedback from them. That will give the council an indication
of what direction to take. So in my mind, I would prefer to leave this
site with its current land use d~signation.
Commissioner Eakins: One of the things that has been said over the years
about that long stretch of Middlefield Road is that it is so dead at night
because ~t has so many institutions. It has a bunch of churches, and it
has a library and it has these special schools. It would bare been
better, had there been more diversity of land use designations when that
part of Middlefield Road was developed. When I first heard that the
Spangler site was likely to be available and that the county had
discontinued Spangler’s use there, I thoughtthat could add some human
vitality to that part of town. That is.a long stretch with just
institutions that are largely dark at night. It doesn’t help the safety
of that general area. So while I understand about not having quite enough
information about the county’s intentions and the complication with the
county school board owning the buildings, maybe we should just defer
this. I do want to go on record, however, as saying that I feel that the
Village Residential would be a fine anchor on that corner.
Chairman Beecham: In the staff report, it says that there have been
several indications that the county is considering ceasing their use and
getting ready to sell the site. Can you explain what is meant by that?
Mr. Schreiber: The original Spangler use ended several years ago. The
use that has been in there for last year and this one has not been
presented to us in any discussions as a permanent, long-term use. We know
that the county has initiated appraisals of this site to determine value.
That, plus some other casual comments, would seem to indicate that the
county probably does not do that without having the site on somebody’s
list in terms of potential sale and disposal. The county has enough
things to do without going around and just running miscellaneous
appraisals on their property. So that is what raised it to our attention
as a site that the county might well be interested in disposing of. At
that point in time, we were not aware of the split land/building
ownership, but if the county wants to.sell the site, they will have to
work out a deal with the board of education to come to an agreement in
that situation. So it is basically the ceasing of the longer-term school
use, the installation of a more interim school activity, and the
triggering by the county of appraisals as part of their property process.
Commissioner Carrasco: Ken, do you know how long is the lease that the
board of education has on thissite?
Ms. Cauble: According to an internal memo from county staff to Supervisor
McKenna, that was done by resolution of the board pursuant to a policy
that all special schools are "deeded" to the county board. So as far as
we know, it is not a lease. It is irrevocable. The County Board of
Education apparently owns the improvements.
Chairman Beecham: Does that mean they take them with them when they move?
10/11/95
-45-
Ms. Cauble: I am not familiar with the reason for the split ownership.
It apparently does not apply only to this particular building, but.
uniformly to special schools. I do not know if that had to’do with some
financing mechanism or some state regulation. I cannot explain what was
the cause, but it was an across-the-board decision by the county board of
education and the board of supervisors to do that.
Chairman Beecham: Perhaps it was reliability and responsibility issues.
Commissioner Cassel: In most places, the land is not valued more than the
buildings that sit on it. In this area, however, that "is true, but in
other areas where I have lived, it is not true. The land is usually worth
less than the house built upon it.
Ms. Cauble: It depends upon the basis for the appraisal. My assumption,
when the county or any public agency begins to look at the potential (and
this memo says the appraisal was done in June, 1993), I presume the
appraiser was not looking at the value of the land for the purposes of the
school but the value of the land perhaps for Multiple-Family Residential
or Single-Family Residential. It does make sense in this instance that
the land value would be significantly higher than the improvements.
Mr. Schreiber: In looking at the information fromthe county, it is
interesting to note that in one paragraph, it talks about the county board
of education indicating that they want to keep the school open. Yet in
the next paragraph, it says ~hat the county board of education staffhas
indicated that they might consider presenting an offer of $1.1 million to
the county for the improvements. That is an opening negotiating statement
spelled out rather more bluntly than it is usually done. Yes, we really
want to keep it open, but if you give us $1.1 million, we will take it to
our board. That is a maneuvering position.
Commissioner Carrasco: This has been a difficult one for me. On one
hand, I think it is a good idea to keep a Public F~cility open right to
the corner, given that there is Public Facilityall along that entire area
of several acres. On the other hand, there is a beautiful stream and a
culvert going through that area. In CPAC, several people talked about
opening up that stream, and that might be the most ideal place to open up
a stream. I think the idea of Public Facility being close to residential,
the idea of Village Residential is very appropriate for this corner. You
could design a project that fits in with the commercial across on
Charleston, with a streamon one side and the ability to use the tennis
courts at the back of the school site. Personally, I think it could be a
beautiful residential setting. So I agree with Sandy that this should be
a Village Residential land use designation, even grandfathering the
existing use in there until they buy the building. So I would like to
designate it residential and grandfather in the existing use.
Commissioner Schink: I was moved for awhile by Phyllis’ comments that we
should be looking out for the school sites and preserving them for future
needs, but then my thinking changed. The reason it changed is simply that
the property is owned by the county board of education. It is their job
to look after the schools. If they have determined that it makes the most
sense to sell these improvements, then they will take that action. So
considering that we have to trust them to look out for their constituency,
we should just focus on what is the best land u~e designation for this
site. If we were to start with a clean slate, which is the way I see this
exercise, I see this as a wonderful location for multiple-family housing.
If you were to put a senior housing project there, for example, you
couldn’t pick a better site in th~s town. So I would prefer to see a
change in the Comprehensive Plan designation to Multiple-Family
Residential.
Mr. Schreiber: I might add that as long as it-is owned by Santa Clara
County, as long as the county board of education has the buildings, they
are not subject to our building permit process, our land use regulation
process, etc., as long as they are using the site and the buildings for
legitimate county purposes. They couldn’t lease it out to somebody and
have it violate the zoning, but as long as you have that legitimate county
purpose, our designation is not relevant. But from staff’s standpoint,
the issue here is, what happens if the county decides that they do not
have a legitimate purpose for it and they want to sell the site. Is it
better to try and address future use in the Comprehensive Plan update
process, or wait until somebody comes in with a development proposal and
then, we have a specific developer in front of us and a specific
Comprehensive Plan change? That is a question for the commission, too, in
terms of whether you want to get out in front on this, or is it better to
not stir up the issue and just let it lie. Maybe it will just stay this
way for a long time.
Commissioner Cassel: There are developers sending letters to churches and
to people who own property in that area, routinely making an initial offer
for their property. So that does exist in that neighborhood.
Commissioner Schmidt: You are saying that it still could be used by the
county for county purposes, and they could not lease it to someone doing
something else. Could they lease it to Heads Up as another private school
operBtion?
Ms. Cauble: The letter we hava in the packet is for a commercial use. It
would be subject to the permitting requirements of a conditional use
permit under the. code if it were switched to a private, commercial use.
What Ken was talking about was some sort of governmental activity on the
site.
Chairman Beecham: But in any case, the city woul~ have the option of
allowing that under the current designation.
Mr. Schreiber: Right. It is no different from a number of sites owned by
the Palo Alto Unified School District where they lease them out to child
care centers and other uses. Those, then, are subject to the use permit
requirement.
Commissioner Carrasco: I thought this would be aVillage Residential in
the sense of its being a mixed use such as live/work or some incidental
commercial in this kind of place, perhaps a small business to continue the
feel of the ~eighborhood. I am not saying it should be only residential.
I imagine that this will allow some kind of mixed use.
Mr. Schreiber: No, the description of Village Residential that the
planning commission has forwarded on to the council speaks only to small
lot, single-family duplexes and/or lower density multiple-family at a
10/11/95
-47-
maximum density of between 15 and no more than 20 dwelling units per
acre. It may well be appropriate in areas with commercial land uses, but
it is not viewed as a mixed use category having a commercial component.
Commissioner Cassel: The commercial area in that district right across
the street could use the support of housing on this site.
Commissioner Carrasco: How do ~e get a category that might allow for a
little bit of incidental commercial?
Ms. Lytle: A mixed use category would allow that.
Mr. Schreiber: As part of your earlier land use recommendations to the
Council, there is a mixed use residential/nonresidential category. The
description of that is, "Versions of this mixed use category include mixed
use within a structure and mixed use in side-by-side situations."
Commissioner Carrasco: Then I think that is a more appropriate category
for this site.
Chairman Beecham: I would probably agree if you did not have a
Neighborhood Commercial district directly across the street from this
site, which is very convenient. In this case, I am not sure that would be
the best application for this site.
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I move that we support the staff
recommendation to consider changing this from Major Institution/Special
Facilities to Village Residential.
SECOND: By Commissioner Eakins.
Commissioner Ojakian: In light of my previous comments, I want to make an
additional comment. After hearing the comments of Commissioner Eakins and
some of the other commissioners here, and in light of what Mr. Schreiber
said about the fact that the county could continue with the types of
services they are providing there and the way he described it, I will be
happy to support the motion.
Commissioner Schink:-My only reluctance with the motion is that it only
says "Village Residential" and I think we are really squandering an
opportunity here if we do not include multiple-family. This is a superb
location for any kind of senior housing as we get close to the Charleston
Shopping Center. I would not want to preclude that as an option. So I
would encourage my colleagues to look at that as an opportunity. If we
couldsay Village Residential and Multiple-Family Residential, and at some
point in the future, designate which portion should be Multiple-Family
Residential, I would be more comfortable with that.
Commissioner Schmidt: Would the environmental impact report then look at
both .uses? There probably is not that much variation. The variation
would be mostly in traffic.
Mr. Schreiber: That could be an option. You could do Village Residential
and/or Multiple-Family Residential, if you wanted to set a course right
now, and become more precise later on. As for the environmental review
from a traffic standpoint, I do not believe the~e would be enough
10/11/95
difference in traffic between the alternatives to be noticeable at the
level of traffic analysis that we will be doing in the EIR on a citywide
basis.
Chairman Beecham: But it may still be useful if one wished to include it
at this point, to assess both.
Commissioner ~chmidt: I will modify the motion to include Multiple-Family
Residential, as well as Village Residential.
Chairman Beecham: In reference to Phyllis’ concern, my thought is that it
seems that here we have some credible indication that there is likely to
be a change at this site within the mid-term, and that does warrant our
taking the time and attention to say how we would like to have it in the
future. As Vic indicated, this does not, in any case, force a change to
happen~ With that, I have no reluctance to support the motion.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? All those in favor of the motion by Commissioner Schmidt,
seconded by Commissioner Eakins, to change the land use designation on
this property to Village Residential and/or Multiple-Family Residential,
say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-I, with Commissioner
Cassel voting no.
We next go to 4.B., Area #3 - 2650-2780 El Camino Real. This is a
primarily a vacant parcel at Page Mill Road and EI-Camino Real. The staff
recommendation is to change it from Multiple-Family Residential to
¯ Commercial Hotel, Does staff have any additional comments?
Mr. Schreiber: No additional comments.
Commissioner Schink: I am wondering if we have time to argue out these
next two issues tonight.
Chairman Beecham: How heavy is our next agenda?
(Discussion followed as to the next agenda and continuance of these
remaining items)
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move that we continue Item 4.b., Area #3,
the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real site, and Item 4.C., Area #5, which is
1795-1885 El Camino Real, to the planning .commission meeting of November
8.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: We have a motion to continue these two
items, due to time and energy level tonight, to November 8 when all
commissioners will be present. All those in favor, say Aye. All
opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote ~f 7-0.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
AGENDA ITEM 7 Annual Retreat - Review Draft Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 8, 1995 M ! N U T E S
Regular Meeting
ME~t’INGS ARE CABLECAS’T LIVE ON GONVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
EXCERPT MINUTES
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
.OF POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE pLAN LAND USE MAP
~HANGES: (PUBLIC HEARINGCLOSED)
A.Area #5:1795-t885 E1Camino Real
B.Area #3:2650-2780 E1 Camino Real
UTILITY,,DEPARTMENT PADMOUNT EOUIPMENT POLICY:
Plavming Commission review" of proposed policy change to disallow
undergrounding-and require all future installation of transformers in the
City of Palo Alto to be padmounted.
o GENERIC CITYWIDE T1L4FFIC CIRCLE DESIGN:
Planning Commission review of a generic design for traffic circles.
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.
Reports on Council Actions.
29
19
45
45
The planning commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, November 8, 1995 at 7:35
p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Beecham presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present:Commissioners Beecham, Carrasco, Cassel, Eakins, Ojakian, Schink and Schmidt
Absent:None
Staff present:Sue Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official
Marvin Overway, Chief Transportation Official
Larry Starr, Assistant Director of Utilities
Engineering Operations
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Beecham: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications, At this time, any
member of the public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda. Is there anyone who
wishes to speak this evening? Seeing no speakers, we will move on to Agenda Item 1.
AGENDA ITEM 1 CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
POSSIBLE C.OM. pREHENSI~E..PLAN LAND USE MAP
CHANGES: ~UBLIC HEARING CLOSED)
Chairman Beecham: On September 13th, we had hearings on a number of areas. There were
two areas on which we did not have planning commission discussion, so we will take them up
tonight. There will be no public hearing on them as we already had the public heating on these
items in September.
A.Area #5:1795-1885 E1 Camino Real. This area is on both sides of Park Avenue to
Leland Avenue. Does staff have any additional comments?
Mr. Schreiber: I will just note for the record and the .viewing audience that this area is currently
designated Neighborhood Commercial inthe Comprehensive Plan. It is about 1.1 acres. The
four parcels are vacant except for the Foster Freeze site at 1805 E1 Camino Real. The staff
recommendation is to consider in the Draft Comprehensive Plan a Multiple-Family Residential
designation.
Chairman Beecham: Are there any questions for staff?
Commissioner Carrasco: I tried to see how you could design a residential project on this site,
Ken, and t cannot come up with a good design. It seems to be too shallow. It is on E1 Camino
and the traffic moves reasonably fast there. I could get perhaps one depth of a unit with 20-foot
setbacks front and back, using present definitions of RM. So I do not understand, from a
configuration and b~ilding point of view, how you could fit multiple-family there and make it
work in an environmentally compatible way. Of course, I am coming purely from an architect’s
point of view.
Mr. Schreiber: Regarding this section of E1 Camino, when we looked at it, we felt that there was
a very different feel to this section of E1 Camino than there is farther south. The trees, plus an
almost total lack of retail activity, except for the Foster Freeze, make it a section of El Camino
that has a somewhat calmer feeling, with the vegetation across the street, etc., than farther south.
So we felt that this section of E1 Camino could be worked with in terms of Multiple-Family
Residential.
As far as development of the particular sites, for the three parcels between Park and Leland, there
certainly would be advantages to mergers of two or all three of them, to create more site area. If
that came about, you would then have some options, but of course, you are the architect, and
your expertise is important here. The site on the other side of Park Boulevard is a little deeper,
though not much. If units were perhaps oriented toward Park rather than E1 Camino, again the
thinking is that you could do something there. These are not large parcels, certainly, but to us,
they did seem to have enough flexibility and potential to be viable multiple-family sites.
Commissioner Qiakian: If it is a site that Tony is feeling uncomfortable about for housing, why
would it be any better for commercial?
Commissioner Carrasco: You can do commercial with a 35-foot depth. I am hoping that under
new regulations, commercial could come closer to the street as occurs with the rest of the
commercial farther down E1 Camino. With a reduced parking ratio and counting some parking
on the street, you could develop viable commercial on that site, as compared to residential.
Commissioner Ojakian: We received in our packet a letter dated October 19 from Shell Oil
Company. Does staff wish to comment on it? What impact does it have when we are in the
midst of a draft land use map change and someone is selling a piece of property, and I guess they
are indicating to the buyer that the current land use is different from what it might be.
Mr. Schreiber: I think what they are describing is a potential sale process. I am not aware of any
development applications that have been filed. -In this situation, certainly its inclusion in the
draft plan with a different land use designation may well have a negative effect on the interest of
a buyer to acquire the site. That is part of the land ownership/land sale exchange and
development process. There. is probably never a point where these types of things are not going
on in a city as large as Palo Alto, unless you are talking about a moratorium. When you are
involved in reassessing the appropriateness of a land use plan, you run up against a variety of
these types of things.
From the city’s perspective, that land has been sitting there vacant for some time now, and that is
really what called it to our attention as a potential change site. In trying to look at the longer
term framework, we did not contact Shell Oil or the property owners to try and figure out their
current desires or plans for the property. This is the feedback that you need to take into
consideration in assessing the appropriat~ess of the recommendation.
Commissioner Schmidt: In regard to Vic’s question, we have talked about this with other pieces
of property. I would like to go through this one more time. If the property were to be rezoned
and either Shell Oil continued to do something with it or sold it to someone, that owner could
continue the use. Would you describe what that owner could continue to do if the zoning
changes, and it was a commercial use of some sort?
Nr. Schreiber: At this point in time, we are not talking about changing the zoning. We are only
talking about considering a possible change in the land use plan. So we are at least two years
away from any change in zoning. If Shell came in, or if the property were sold and the new
owner came in with a development proposal in the reasonably near furore, within that two-year
period under the existing zoning, it would be processed as per the zoning ordinance. So there is
no moratorium with this type of action with the city, and any development would be processed.
If one of these sites were developed and the zoning was then changed to multiple-family, the city
would have the option of imposing an amortization period, which for a new structure would
probably be fairly long. We tend to think in terms of 15-year amortization periods, but generally
those periods apply to older buildings. A new building would most likely have a longer
amortization period than that. Or the city could provide some type of grandfathering clause that
would allow the building in perpetuity, at least for the life of that building. Those are the options
that would be available at the time the city took action. The same thing, of course, applies to any
other property where we change the zoning. The same rules apply.
Commi~.sioner Schmidt: Thank you. I just wanted to ensure that we included discussion of that
again.
Commissioner. Schink: If, when we approach the rezoning of this property, we feel
uncomfortable with our ability to park cars on the site because of the narrow depth or some other
reason, would we be allowed to craft some type of special parking exceptions for these parcels at
the rezoning stage?
Ms. L_vtle: You can do it in the zoning implementation, or you could have a policy statement in
the Comprehensive Plan about this action, this designation in this area. You could do both.
Commissioner Schink: So we could bring up the problem now? (Correct) Then let me ask a
followup question. I have looked at this property many times and have struggled with this. I
have come to the conclusion that it is probably best suited as multiple-family, but there is no way
to develop the property and get reasonable parking. You would have to take advantage of the
street parking in the front, and that is not currently allowed, as I understand it, under our RM
zoning. So if we do make this change, which I think is appropriate, especially given the
4
proximity to Stanford and there are so many people who use bicycles and alternative
transportation, that we are going to have to have some flexibility in parking. Would some
statement along those lines be reasonable at this stage?
M~........L_vtle: Yes, you could make that statement in this action.
Ms. Case: Let me add something else for your consideration. This kind of issue has come up
before, and it seems like one of the situations we always find ourselves involved in is that we get
very site-specific on things, when what we really have is a situation that happens all over town.
So another possibility would be to have some sort of policy that says that to accommodate things
that we like, such as multiple-family housing, we will consider flexibility in parking, etc., so that
you would have something that could be applied elsewhere without having to go territory by
territory, at least on a Comprehensive Plan basis.
Chairman Beecham: Along with that, we have also talked about how the multiple-family
housing regulations and restrictions do not work very well. It has been our intent, at some point,
to address that. I do not quite know how to fold that intent into what we do tonight, but it may
give some sense of confidence in the future that if we now talk about evaluating this for a land
use change, as opposed to a zoning change, by the-time things get rolling and we get through the
Comprehensive Plan and a zoning change does perhaps come about, that may give us time
enough to play with the multiple-family housing regulations and restrictions to help ensure that
they do work and to relieve some of the parking considerations, such as Jon brought up.
Commissioner Carrasco: I do not know how we can anticipate new regulations that come
through a zoning ordinance, and zone something that might not work with existing zoning
regulations. How do we overcome that chicken-and-egg issue?
Chairman Beecham: That is not for us to judge, I think. There is no clear way of doing that,
because we cannot firmly base our decision tonight on the expectation of doing something,
because we do not know that.
Commissioner Carrasco: Can I add to Jon’s request for adding some other criteria, maybe not
site-specific, such as Village Residential or some other land use category that we are looking at
that relaxes parking requirements and to look at how you might shape a multiple-family project
in this land use configuration, even if it is very preliminary and even if it is very simple? In
staffs mind, you can draw a new concept as to how people would live on this site. That is
essentially the bottom line of what we are talking about here. Eventually, it is easier to conceive
of someone else living on that site than yourself. I ask that we look at how you would live on
that site and how you would configure your space.
Ms. Lytle: Thereis lots of housing in the community that might not meet your particular needs
and life style today, but I can tell you that in college, I lived in an apartment above a fish market,
and it worked very well for me at that point in my life cycle. I am sure it could work for other
people to have a product to live in at a certain point in their lives, although it may not necessarily
be what you might choose today. We are trying to reach a variety of housing types.
I don’t think either Ken or I are prepared to come in with sketches tonight. If the commission
feels that it is something for which you would need a potential site sketch as to how housing
could fit on these parcels, we could certainly do that exercise for you at a later time. You would
need to continue the item for that purpose. You have time.
On the other hand, it sounds like Jon has thought a good bit about this issue, and maybe he could
provide a little more insight into how to fit housing into this narrow configuration, using some
flexibility in the ordinance. I know that you have already adopted policy in the Housing Element
to do what you are talking about -- to relook at the multiple-family regulations. You do not need
to do that tonight, because you did it previously. Parking and different housing prototypes was
one of the areas that you identifie~t, prototypes that are more street-oriented or less
auto-dominated in terms of their design style. So the policy is already there. As for the question
that Tony raises about whether this could be a Village Residential designation or a
Multiple-Family Residential, we have not fully fleshed out the distinction between them, and our
staff discussions are continuing on that topic as to the distinction between the two. In our minds,
one is a more street-oriented, traditional set of housing prototypes, whereas our current
multiple-family regulations are really suburban in their character and fit a large portion of our
community, but may not be the type of multiple-family that we want to see applied in new areas
or retrofitted into some larger sites in some of the fnore suburban parts of the community.
Chairman Beecham: These parcels have characteristics that are not good either for commercial
or multiple-family. They are ~hallow, they are on E1 Camino, they are not in a healthy
commercial site surrounded by other retail that would bring people in, and whatever goes in there
will be hard to fit in. It will not exactly fit into a neighborhood because there is not a
neighborhood there. You have open land on one side and you have a restaurant on another side.
You have the insurance building and housing behind it, so whatever goes in there will not be a
good fit. I think what we are looking for is what will have the best chance of being healthy in the
long run. Either way. these sites have problems.
If we recommend to the council tonight that this go into the Draft Comprehensive Plan and be
evaluated, that pushes it toward having a land use change. It does not confirm it, and it would
require more evaluation and continued study. So it is not a firm decision to do it, but it does
push it in that direction.. If we are unsure of the way to go, we may want to do that so that it is
studied some more, and give it more attention and thought over the next year.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: Based on what you have said, I will move that we consider
changing the land use designation for these sites to Multiple-Family Residential.
..SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
~hairman Beecham: We have a motion and second that we recommend to the council that this
be included in the Draft Comprehensive Plan for consideration as Multiple-Family Residential.
Commissioner Schink: Could I ask that we include some kind of language in this motion that
recognizes that at the time we consider rezoning, that some parking exceptions will probably be
necessary to accomplish multiple-family? I think that is an important direction to give someone
a few years from now when they start looking at this. Otherwise, I am afraid people will take a
look at it and ask, what was the planning commission thinking? You cannot squeeze housing in
here.
Commissioner. Cassel: I will accept that as a friendly amendment.
Commissioner Schmidt: I will also. I support what has been said tonight. It has the likelihood
of greater success as multiple-family. I, too, think it would be important to do something
different with the parking. I feel fairly confident that we will look pretty thoroughly at parking in
a lot of interesting locations in Palo Alto. During the last few evenings of discussion at the city
council, it has come up time and time again that parking regulations must be reexamined in order
to bring some of these ideas to fruition. So I think it will at least be examined, and hopefully,
there will be some improvements made to bring about some of these things we are trying to do.
Commissioner Eakins: When I visited the site, I felt the positive impact of the Stanford land
across the road. That really made me think that a residential land use was appropriate there, and
there is the residential behind it. I do recall the night when we had the public heating and this
item was discussed. There were several neighbors who were very concerned about what they
perceived Multiple-Family Residential would be there, so I hope that at the time anything
happens there, there is good, structured involvement of the neighborhood in the planning, such as
a workshop or some kind of tabletop exercise, so that people can have a chance to see what their
neighbors might be like, allaying some of those fears.
I think that if this were infill in a more urban area, it would be like found gold. It would be
considered a ti:emendous opportunity. I think about some of the infill sites I have seen designed
in San Francisco. It can be done, but I agree that the parking diffxculties would be an awful
obstacle under our current regulations. I really support the amendment to the motion to have
relaxed or altered parking standards for this site.
~ommissioner....Carrasco: I will also support this motion because of the amendment. If you relax
the amount of parking and look at a different kind of land use than we are accustomed to with
multiple-family, it could work. It is still the chicken-and-egg issue, and I do not "know what that
multiple-family is going to look like, but I feel confident that staff will come up with a vision
that will work for these small sites. These kinds of sites are all that we have left in Palo Alto,
sitting on heavily travelled streets and buffering residential areas.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? Then
let us vote on the motion made by Commissioner Cassel, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt,
that we recommend to the city council that this site on E1 Camino be included in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan for evaluation for a land use change to Multiple-Family Residential, and
7
include in that section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan a reference to consideration of parking
exceptions, if and when the rezoning occurs. All those in favor, say Aye. All opposed? That
passes unanimously on a vote of 7-0.
Chairman Beecham: Next is Item B, Area #3:2650-2780 E1 Camino Real. Commissioner
Eakins is excusing herself from this item, due to a conflict of interest. The staff recommendation
on this item is to change the vacant parcels at the northwest comer of E1 Camino Real and Page
Mill Road from Multiple-Family Residential to Commercial Hotel. Are there any questions for
staff.
Commissioner Carrasco: Do you have any history as to why this site was zoned Multiple-Family
Residential after all of your negative recommendations as to why it should not be residential?
Was it just ideology, or what happened here?
Mr. Schreiber: I think you have hit right on it. This site originally consisted of three separate
uses. The bulk of the site, which is #2650, was at one time the Mayfield School. It was a school
operated by the Palo Alto Unified School District. It did not go to Page Mill Road. It is a
straight rectangle going back from E1 Camino. The school was in operation for a long time. In
the mid-1970s, it was closed, as it’had a variety of seismic problems. There was declining
enrollment, and it finally became a continuation school for late adolescents and young adults.
That was finally phased out and the use was ended.
The land then reverted back to Stanford. Actually there was a payment from Stanford for the
school district. I assume you are aware that there are a variety of school sites, such as Gunn High
School and most of the Palo Alto High School site as examples, where they are built on land that
was acquired from Stanford. and there is a provision in the original sale agi’eement that if the
sites cease use as a school, the land reverts to Stanford. In this case, Stanford actually paid the
district a moderately small amount to facilitate the transaction. Stanford reacquired the site
sometime in the mid-1970s.
In the late 1970s, there were countywide pushes again to look for more housing sites. In the
1980 update of the Comprehensive Plan, the Mayfield School site, which had been zoned as PF
and designated Major Institution! Special Facilities, was changed to Multiple-Family Residential.
It was part of an effort to find housing sites wherever we could. There was great pressure to do
so. Stanford was not totally unreceptive. They were not urging to housing, but they were not
strongly opposed to it, either. In fact, there was some discussion with the Stanford West project
in the mid-1980s of this site being used for housing in conjunction with Stanford West and a
tradeoff for below-market-rate housing. That never came to fruition. About the same time, as
we got into the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, the comer parcels -- the former gas
station and former restaurant site, which is the L that wraps around the comer -- were also
designated for housing to fill out that area.. That, again, was part of an effort to find housing
sites, and this was an effort to build on the existing housing designation of the adjacent parcel.
What also happened soon after that point in time was that the toxic groundwater concerns
became very evident. Stanford subsequently made a decision that they would not develop the
site for housing under any circumstances, at least within any known time frame. As staff has
learned more about the toxic groundwater problems (and part of the Superfund site is right across
the property line), as well as our increasing concerns about how to put housing there, given the
noTse and traffic and everything you have at this intersection, we came to the conclusion that at
best, it was an extremely marginal housing site, for which the property, owner had no intention of
ever building housing.
Due to the environmental factor of the underground toxics, the environmental factors of the
traffic and noise, combined with modified thinking in the 1990g as to what sites really are
appropriate, and perhaps, more importantly, is it appropriate to put almost any site into housing,
that all gets us back to where we are right now. Our conclusion is that it would be an extremely
difficult site to develop for housing. Due to these various problems, it is very unlikely to be
developed for housing, and at the same time, we feel that the cit3’ has a substantial need for a
commercial hote! site. This site has been identified numerous times by various people in the
process as a site that would be appropriate for a commercial hotel. That fits into the Stanford
Research Park planning. You have heard Stanford testimony in that regard.
We started out with the best of intensions in the 1975-76 period. We have learned a lot about
toxics, and have increasingly become sensitive to other environmental issues. We have now
concluded that it is not an appropriate housing site, even if you did not have the commercial
hotel possibility, out there.
Chairman Beecham: Now, the site is rectangular. Prior to this, up until two years ago, it had
been L-shaped.
Mr. Schreiber: About three years ago, the Mayfield school site went farther back from E1
Camino, and yes, it was an L-shaped parcel. The site was squared offwith the adjacent 620-640
Page Mill Road site leased by Hewlett-Packard. It was squared off to make both parcels more
feasible in terms of future development.
Commissioner Schmidt: I ~,’ould like to refresh my memory as to what we have done so far in
the land use map discussions. We have retained the Rickey’s hotel site as some type of hotel use
so that the entire propert), could be a hotel. Dinah’s Garden Hotel is now also a commercial hotel
zone. Were there any additional sites where we applied the commercial hotel zone?
Mr. Schreiber: There have been no other sites identified in the Comprehensive Plan process.
Clearly, the Holiday Inn fits the general sense of what a commercial hotel would be in terms of
not only having the rooms, but also the meeting facilities, a restaurant, etc. Dinah’s Garden Hotel
was a request by the property owner, which we supported and on which the commission
concurred. The Rickey’s action was to combine Commercial Hotel with Multiple-Family
Residential.
9
Commissioner Schmidt: Are there other sites in the city that would be appropriate for a hotel
use?
Mr,.......Schreiber: I would say no, after Monday night’s council direction regarding Town and
Country Village. That is a-site that I have raised in the past a number of times. The council
direction Monday night, in terms of the Draft Comprehensive Plan, was to put in a goal and
policy to maintain the character and ambience and physical appearance of that site, even if it
were redeveloped, and also to retain the retail-serving basic function of Town and Country
Village. Other than that, you would probably need to go out and assemble property, because you
do not have a lot of other sites that are large enough. This site is on the small side for a
commercial hotel.
Co~missioner Schmi.dt: But it is not impossible to assemble sites, as with the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation. It was once at one location and is now going to be at an assembled site location.
Also, there has been an economic analysis of the hotel at this site, I believe. Have we gotten
figures on how many rooms, how many parking spaces, etc. would be possible at the site? I do
not recall seeing any analysis about that.
Mr. Schreiber: There has been some very conceptual design work done by a contract that is
managed by the City Manager’s Office’s of the Economic Resource Program. It is general
enough that it is hard to move it to a specific answer. I would say that in this location, based on
the workup that I have seen, it certainly would be feasible to get a hotel in the range of 300
rooms. It would take a floor area ratio of more than one -- probably something in the 1.25 to 1.3
or 1.4 range. With that type of FAR, you could probably accommodate 300 rooms, meeting
facilities, a restaurant, conference rooms, but not convention type facilities.
.C.o~missioner Ojakian: Having stayed in several large hotel and conference room centers
myself over the ?’ears, a 300-room hotel really is not a very substantial hotel conference room
complex, I would say that it is on the very small side. So my question is, what is the need that is
driving us to look at such a complex here when it does not seem like what we are talking about
putting there really meets what is a typical standard for that type of building.
Mr. Schreiber: I think the need is several-fold. One is that there are very strong indications from
tenants in the Stanford Research Park, as well as other parts of the community’, that they are
looking for a hotel and meeting room facility that would serve their needs for modem,
convenient meeting facilities and hotel rooms in the same type of complex. So there has been a
strong level of support from the Stanford Research Park occupants for a hotel with meeting
rooms in close proximity to the park where people could be shuttled back and forth, would not
have to drive, etc. That is certainly one major factor.
A second major factor is that in the past three years, we have seen the closure of the Palo Alto
Hyatt site, and the redevelopment of that site is coming forward for review fairly early in 1996.
The loss of the 200 rooms at that site was essentially absorbed by higher occupancy at the
remaining hotels in Pa!o Alto. But there certainly has been no lack of community discussion
10
about potential loss of the Rickey’s site. We have discussed this before when discussing the
Rickey’s site. From staffs standpoint, having an adequate and appropriate number of hotel
rooms and also having meeting facilities is an important community resource. Right now,
Rickey’s is the only place left in Palo Alto where you can have larger meetings. Clement Chen
testified before you, in supporting a hotel at this location, that his facility, the Holiday Inn,
cannot handle the larger types of meetings, whether they be school functions, nonprofit
organizations, professional meetings, retirement parties, etc., that Rickey’s can handle. If
Rickey’s were lost, those types of activities would probably have to be located outside of Palo
Alto. So from our standpoint, having an adequate hotel room count in Palo Alto and having
up-to-date, usable, available meeting facilities is an important commercial resource for the
community in general, also for the business sector and for the nonprofit sector. We are not
comfortable that the current inventory, of hotel rooms in Palo Alto is either adequate for the long
term or will be maintained in the long term. This is the site that has stood out, in looking for
hotel sites. This is the site that has stood out as being physically appropriate in size. We are not
talking about a large one at all, as Vic said. This would be a fairly, small facility located
appropriately for the research park to serve the needs of that part of the community, plus the
broader community in terms of special functions.
Commissioner Ojakian: I am a little troubled, in looking at this site, as to whether this is an
appropriate land use designation for it, and what we are trying to accomplish here. We keep
talking about the Rickey’s site closing in some sort of veiled way. We had a Rickey’s
representative come into these chambers several weeks ago and suggest to us that in no way,
shape or form was Rickey’s thinking of closing. If there is something we do not know" about, I
would certainly like to have that put out on the table to help us in our deliberations. That is one
comment.
Also, if there is a driving need in this particular area for an updated hotel and conference room
complex, we all know from prior deliberations we had on the planning commission a few years
ago that the two hotel sites you just talked about have FARs of 0.6. They are not built out to that
in any way, shape or form. Why isn’t there some driving force to go back and encourage the
people who own those two sites to expand their facilities? It sounds like that would be to their
benefit to do so.
A third thing I want to say is that since we are looking at conference room facilities, how much
have people in the research park gone in and researched what conference room facilities are
available in the area that might accommodate different meetings? I bring that up only because I
happen to know that a couple of the businesses that are in the research park have conference
rooms of certain sizes that they will lease out to the public.
Mr. Schreiber: Regarding Rickey’s longer-term future, over the course of the last two or three
years, I have talked to numerous people in the hotel business -- operators, consultants, advisors,
etc. -- and I don’t believe that in any of those conversations, I have found anyone who expects to
see Rickey’s in operation in the year 2005. Ten years from now, there is a unanimous sense that
Rickey’s will be gone. The reason for that is that you have a low-density hotel and an aging
infrastructure on some veD’ valuable land. It is a site that, in order to be maintained as a viable
11
¯ conference/meeting room!business-oriented hotel, it would’need an infusion of money such that
again, I cannot think of anyone I have talked to that envisions that as being likely, just given the
relationship of land and land values to the facilities that are there.
Has Hyatt contacted us and said, we are leaving? No. Have we ffeard rumors? Yes. Have we
talked to people who seemed to have a pretty good idea of what sales conditions and transaction
content would be? Yes. I don’t know if they are blowing smoke at staff or not, but my sense is
that they are probably not, as they seemed to be quite specific in terms of how the site would be
acquired, including sale provisions. So we get ongoing indications that this site, if not on the
market right now, has been talked about with enough realtors and enough potential developers
that there is some very real potential for redevelopment activity there.
As far as expansion on the existing Hyatt site, it would have to be almost total scrape and
redevelopment. Right now, nobody is building hotels. They have not been building hotels for
the last four or five years. We went through a large number of hotel bankruptcies in this country.
For a long time, you could buy hotels at 50¢ on the dollar from the Resolution Trust Corporation.
It made no economic sense at all to build a hotel. We are starting to come out of that, but we are
not yet to the point of seeing any really serious indications of building activity. To put a hotel
deal together right now, it is going to have to be pretty much a sweetheart deal. You will have to
work the land value down. You will have to have some very. strong willingness on the part of the
property owner to be receptive to that type of transaction. Generally, it is not the highest and
best land use for a lot of locations.
Stanford has indicated that they would be receptive to working with people to try and get a hotel
built at this location. They would be receptive to structuring an economic arrangement because
they see it as an important feature for the research park. Regarding conference room facilities,
when the Director of Finance and I did a lot¯of interviewing in the research park in 1990 and
produced the Stanford Research Park study that came out in 1991, we heard repeatedly from
corporate leaders, chief executive officers, chief financial officers, senior vice presidents, etc., as
well as facility, managers that they had a strong need for better meeting room facilities than were
available on a regular basis in Palo Alto. Even some of the occupants that had large facilities
still expressed a need for off-site facilities. Many of the other users in the park want something
off site and do not necessarily want to go to somebody down theblock or across the research
park. They would prefer to go to a meeting-type facility.. They are primarily using Rickey’s, but
not very happily, both in terms of the quality of the facilities at Rickey’s and the insecurity in
terms of the long-term use of those facilities.
Commissioner Schmidt: You have mentioned a number of times that the Stanford Research Park "
is a primary, user of these facilities. Do you know if Stanford has looked at locations within their
lands? I know that several years ago, a hotel was considered near 1-280. Are there other
locations within the research park or closer to the shopping center that have been examined?
Mr. Schreiber: I am not aware of any other sites being examined. I am also not aware of other
sites that would be relatively unencumbered. A research park site would have to be redeveloped.
There would have to be an existing, developed site cleared and redeveloped.
12
Co, mrnissioner Schmidt: But they have leveled several buildings in the research park within the
last few years and redeveloped them.
M.r., Schreiber: Stanford has not. The lessee has done that. I am not aware of any of those sites
coming back to Stanford as the primary owner. It has all been done by people who hav_e leases.
Sometimes those leases have had to be extended. They have at least 20- or 25-years leases, and
sometimes longer leases than that.
Commissioner Schink: My biggest concern with this site is the distance from mass transit and
the inability of employees, who often, in hotels, are rather low-income people, not having
convenient ways to get to work. Are we mistaken in thinking that it is not a good location in
relationship to mass transit?
Mr. Schreiber: It certainly has far better bus service than most areas of Palo Alto because of the
number of lines running along E1 Camino and the number of express buses that also serve that
area. There has been some discussion, certainly, that the shuttle bus type service could be
expanded, from the university standpoim, as the commission heard from Andy Coe and Julia
Fremon last month. There may be some possibility of serving locations in the research park as
they expand the service. At this point in time, they are going to bring Marguerite buses along
California Avenue, if they have not already done so. They are in quite close proximity already
from the California Avenue train station to this site. There may well be some possibility of
connecting up this site to the CalTrain station, if it were developed.
Ms. L.vtle: There are also airport shuttles that run in this general proximity to San Francisco and
San Jose from E1 Camino hotels to the airports.
Commissioner C..arrasco: I have just made some very quick calculations for this site. Looking at
300 rooms on the site, with a toxic problem under it, and parking to accommodate those 300
rooms, even with a 0.6 parking space per unit or 0.75, somewhere in that range, it seems that in
order to get 300 rooms, you would have to exceed the 50-foot height limit. Is that so?
Mr. Schreiber: I think that is a very good possibility. It is an issue that would need to be sorted
out if the basic concept of a hotel is feasible. Then what type of facility would be desired? You
do have taller buildings across Page Mill Road. From staffs standpoint, this site, as the major
entry into the research park, certainly coming from Highway 101, could certainly stand to have
some type of physical entry statement. We are not uncomfortable with the idea of having a
building higher than 50 feet.
. Commissioner C,arrasco: Let’s assume that we have a site here which has community resistance
to exceeding that 50-foot height limit, and let’s assume that maybe we would only get 200 rooms.
Would it still be worth putting a hotel there? Or is it not better to put a hotel where other hotels
exist and there is potential to add more conference centers, such as closer to do~aatown or closer
to Rickey’s, etc.?
13
Mr. Schreiber: I cannot speak to the feasibility of a 200-room hotel either physically or
financially. My sense is that it may be quite marginal to do that size facility, but again, I cannot
speak to that with any authority. If a hotel is located somewhere else, we get back to the basic
question of what is a land use for this location. That is the starting point tonight. Staffs
conclusion is that Multiple-Family Residential really does not work in this location. I would say
that staffs conclusion also is that conventional retail does not work in this location either, due to
the traffic problems of a highly congested intersection. If you want to go the next step up from
Multiple-Family Residential, it is a hotel use. So it would be the next lowest traffic generator in
this location. That is certainly a factor in our being receptive to a hotel in this location. We feel
it would be able to have a better chance of fitting the intersection capacity than alternative,
non-residential uses.
Commissioner Carrasco: What is lower than a hotel?
Chairman Beecham: We have talked about a park there.
Mr.. Schreiber: I suppose you could have extensive retail with outdoor storage. It might be
lower, or maybe not. In terms of major commercial type uses, as you go up the line, you come to
more conventional retail, and your traffic figures go much higher.
Commissi.oner Schmidt: What is Office Park or Research Park, the adjacent LM designation
right next to it? There is a new building there, and I do not know how much traffic that
generates, and how much parking is allowed.
Nr..~.....Schreiber: I do not have the specific numbers in my head, but my recollection is that it is
somewhat less than retail but greater than hotel, especially in terms of peak hour load. The hotel
use tends to be more off-peak than peak hour. Of course, the office use tends to load the peak
hour. That is the problem at Page Mill and El Camino. It is the peak period hit that any future
development will cause at this location.
Commissioner Schmidt: Is the hotel use off-peak even with conference facilities that might have
an 8:30 or 9 a.m. arrival and a 5 o’clock departure?
M~.~......Schreiber: In terms of traffic distribution, it still has a greater spread of traffic than office
uses or retail. For retail, it is the afternoon peak that causes a major problem.
..Chairman Beecham: I believe two major reasons for leaving this as residential are (1) just the
need for housing, and (2) the perception that housing has less impact on traffic. I have become
convinced, in reading staff reports and other analyses, that this type of hotel is less
traffic-intensive, particularly at the peak hour at this location-. I think that all of the other reasons
that staffhas included in their report as to why this is inappropriate for housing I certainly agree
with. One of the more recent problems is the hazardous waste below it. We have seen this at
14
other sites around here. So I see a good reason for going ahead and including this in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan for evaluation. I would certainly hope that if and when that is done, there
would be a detailed analysis done of the impact on traffic of the current zoning and land use
versus the proposed new land use. That would help clarify for us which direction it goes in.
Commissioner Cassel: I suggested this earlier, and you have not agreed with me, but I will make
it again. That is that we leave the underlying designation of Multiple-Family Residential but
allow the hotel use, as well, as an overlay zone, so that that could proceed, but if it does not, we
are not then left with no zoning on that site. That is what concerns me, unless you do something
with a mixed use. I walked all the way back into that comer, and it is all surrounded by
commercial. So there is a tendency to stay away from housing, in that sense. On the other hand,
if you cross the street and walk the same distance back, you are well into a residential area. So
some of the rear portion of that site could easily be developed for residential, if it mixed well
with something that came out to the street. I do not know exactly how you would do that, but at
this time, with the toxic problem, it is the thing to do right now. But we are talking about a
longer term period of time; we are talking about the site being cleaned up. I would be
comfortable with having a double use on that site, allowing the landowner to make some choices.
Chairman Beecham: How does staff feel about that?
Mr. Schreiber: It is what the commission recommended for Ricke.y’s. I would not have any
negative reaction to that type of combination land use at this location.
Commissioner Schmidt: At the present time, I agree with the staff comments that it is not a great
location for housing. It certainly could be cleaned up and have some use as housing later. I am
still very troubled thinking about this as a hotel use. I think what we are trying to do in the
Comprehensive Plan with our land use is to try and make walkable centers, trying to create nodes
where people congregate. This location (and it is a public gathering place if it is a hotel) if it
becomes a hotel, will be 99.9 percent accessible by car or other vehicle. It is just not a walkable
location. That comer is traffic logged all the time. It is not inviting to walk out of that.location
-and walk across the street. There are a couple of restaurants, but not lots of places close by. One
could walk over to California Avenue, but it is not terrifically inviting. It would be much more
inviting to me if it were on the other side of E1 Camino on the California Avenue node side.
I really do not feel good about saying, let’s put a public use there that will draw people and
everybody will drive there, and everyone who is staying there will either eat there or they will
drive somewhere else. It seems to be going against many of the things we are trying to do with
the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Schink: I agree with a lot of Kathy’s comments. I came here tonight with my
mind pretty much made up that I did not think a hotel was appropriate. However, after hearing a
lot of the comments that Ken has made, and in thinking about it some more. I am coming down
on the other side. My thinking is that, to start with, what Ken said about hotels is really true. We
should take particular note of his comment that he thinks there is a chance that Rickey’s might
not be here in ten years. It is important for us to start planning for the future. Ten years comes
15
along pretty quickly. That is why we have a planning commission. We have to start looking out
for those things, and I cannot imagine our industrial park working very well without a hotel. The
Holiday Inn cannot support all the business, so it is essential that we have a hotel, and the
question becomes, where? IfI had my choice, I would put it at the E1 Camino ball park site, but I
don’t have my choice! That still leaves the question of what to do with this site. As Ken pointed
out, this is the next best use, from a traffic standpoint, after residential. We have a serious traffic
problem there, so since we probably cannot put an office building there and put the hotel where I
would like to put it, a hotel makes the most sense on this site.
The point Kathy has raised is a serious concern. We do not get any synergy for our retail areas
from having a hotel there, so if we do end up with a hotel there, we must look at alternatives like
having the Marguerite closely connected to California Avenue and University Avenue. If we
have that connection, then we are solving two out of three of the problems that we get with a
hotel. It is one of the best sites we have, so I will support the land use change.
Commissioner Cassel: I have some comments about how close this is to public transit. Across
the street, there is a special bus spot where we make connections with Park and Ride. Right
across the street from the middle of this site is an underpass that used to be used for the school
system to cross E1 Camino. If you walk towards the Page Mill Road~l Camino intersection, that
is indeed a horror tc~ cross, but if you walk one block in the other direction, you get a crosswalk
right into California Avenue. It is not that far. The Marguerite bus goes along California
Avenue, which is that half block in the other direction. It is now running all day long to Stanford
University, and they have intentions of connecting this to it. So there are lots of options for good
public transportation. With the exception of the University Avenue Dream Team Area, it is
probably the next best public transit site in town. The bus that runs on E1 Camino to San Jose
runs every ten minutes. The #300 bus you can pick approximately every half hour and runs
fairly quickly. Also, you can take the train all the way to Gilroy. So in terms of public
transportation, we could not do better.
Some arrangement of the buildings certainly could be made, although I am disageeing with the
people who are skilled in this area, to make this friendly at least along the corner. Andrus Duany
also told us that we do not have to make everything in town pedestrian-walkable. That was
probably an unreasonable expectation.
Commissioner...Carrasco: When I came here, I had decided after reading the staff report that this
is not a suitable housing site, for the reasons that Ken described. The streets around the site
almost equal half of the site area. It is an enormous amount of hard surface. I cannot imagine
how you would design a housing project there that would be livable and that connected with Palo
Alto, and all of the ideas that CPAC has discussed and Duany has talked about. I cannot imagine
how you could create a neighborhood of a small number of units isolated from everything else.
So the question arises, what other kind of use is appropriate at the site? At one time, I thought
we could swap the ballfields from E1 Camino Park and move the hotel near other hotels, thereby
creating conference facilities closer to Stanford Shopping Center and downtown. People would
indeed be able to xvalk, and it would not be much farther for someone to shuttle the residents to
places in the industrial park.
16
Let me then examine how hotels would work. I have talked to friends of mine, and I have
listened to Clem Chen and to Stanford, where they talk about this site being an appropriate site
for a hotel. I tend to agree with that, reluctantly. There are different types of hotels. They do not
all have to be walkable. You can have a hotel that is more urban, less walkable, and you can
have a hotel that j,s hardier than the Stanford Park Hotel, for instance. I am just not sure we can
get the 300 rooms there. That is my question, but we could examine that down the road.
Perhaps staff can bring forward some plans the next time this comes up so that we can
understand whether this really does or does not work as we go through this process. It is not
walkable, as Kathy said. It is more automobile-oriented, but I think we need a hotel like that.
Since it is not a perfect world, in the best of all possible worlds, this could be open space, but I
think a hotel is a better use than housing. I will support the staff recommendation.
Chairman Beecham: I, too, would like to respond to Kathy’s comments on this not being a
walkable area. Whatever goes in there, .the area has not changed. It is either walkabte, or it isn’t.
For Phyllis, walking a long block is not so far, but for me, it would be a good bit of a piece. I am
sure some people would not mind it, but whatever goes in there, housing or retail or office, you
will have the same walkable issue.
Something else to consider is that if there is a need for a conference hotel, and the need is felt
primarily by Stanford Research Park, you want to have it close to the research park to minimize
whatever traffic there is. If you have it close to the users, you will not have traffic rolling up and
down El Camino. So if we can get it near to the demand, that should reduce traffic overall,
assuming that one way or the other, the city will have the required hotel site available
somewhere.
Commissioner Ojakian: I, too, have been grappling with this site in the same way that the other
commissioners have been. I still find myself not seeing this as a good site for a commercial
hotel. The reason is that I think it is problematic, at best, that you are going to shoe-horn in a
300-room operation with conference room facilities added to meet the needs of the research park.
What you end up with, if you make this a commercial hotel, is something less than what the
research park would even want. Then I am trying to decide on what purpose does that serve. I
cannot think of a hotel/conference room complex housed on E1 Camino anywhere on the
peninsula. I cannot think of a 300-room site being sufficient to meet the needs we are talking
about.
I would suggest that it would be better to go back and in some way, formally poll the businesses
in the research park, finding out what their exact demands are, and then work with Stanford to
determine what a good location would be. It would almost strike me as being more appropriate if
it were closer to the I’280 side of Page Mill Road or situated somewhere closer to the shopping
center. I understand, in making those comments, that I cannot think of a site where that would be
in raising that issue, but I am left in a real quandary. I am also left with that same sort of sinking
feeling that other commissioners have in looking at this site, because regardless of some of the
conversations that have gone on recently in the elections, we do have a dilemma at this
17
intersection with traffic. I don’t know what the solution is, but it would sure be helpful to try and
delve into that problem initia!ly before we start talking about impacting the particular.
intersection again. At the peak time hours, I concur with what Ken was saying. It is getting
atrocious there, and I am not sure if that won’t get even worse at some stage.
What other use should we have at that particular site? I do not know if I have a suggested better
use. I am almost leaning towards what Phyllis was saying, which was to leave the underlying
zone as housing, realizing what I said before, which is that I have a real problem in thinking
about that site as a hotel. I don’t think it resolves anything.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I move that the planning commission recommend that the
2650-2780 E1 Camino Real be considered for a potential commercial hotel site as an overlay to
the RM-40 Multiple-Family Residential zone designation.
SECOND:. By Commissioner Schink.
Commissioner Cassel: We cannot not designate this site or not recormnend a land use for this
site, unless we want to purchase it for the city. We cannot do that because Stanford owns it and
is not about to sell it to us. It is also a very valuable site, so we have to make a difficult decision.
I think we have gone through all of the different options and agonies that we have. It is a
difficult intersection.
Commissioner Schink: Suppose Tony is right and you cannot fit a 300-room hotel here, but a
developer comes forward and wants to take one or more of the properties to the north and make
that part of their hotel. How would that fit with what we are doing tonight?
Mr. Schreiber: From staffs standpoint, I would not have any immediate objection to that, if the
need was to expand the site to the north. While those are developed sites, they are not very
recently developed sites. If the site had to be expanded, certainly that is the viable direction.
You are not going toward the Hewtett-Packard or Wilson Sansini site. If you go that way, you
have an even cl6ser linkage to California Avenue, which, from my standpoint, would be a
positive. It would reduce the distance to the commercial facilities on California Avenue.
Commissioner Carrasco: I would like to make a friendly amendment to look at building plans
that would justify some kind of 300-unit hotel when the council considers this item.
Mr,....Schreiber: The City Manager’s Office has been working on an assignment with a design firm
that does a lot of work on hotels. I am not aware of the status on that, but I would anticipate that
sometime in the next months, and probably before we even start preparing the Draft
Comprehensive Plan. that information will be finished and available. When it is, that will go
back to the council, and I will make sure that the commission has an opportunity to participate in
that review and discussion of whatever product comes forth.
Commissioner ’Casset: If this is a draft plan they are bringing back to us, they will have to give
us some information as to whether it will work.
18
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Beecham: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All
those in favor of the motion by Commissioner Cassel, seconded by Commissioner Schink, to
recommend to the city council that this site on Page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real be included
in the draft plan for adding a commercial hotel land use overlay designation, maintaining the
existing Multiple Family land use designation benea~ it, say Aye. All opposed? That passes on
a vote of 4-2, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schmidt voting no and Commissioner Eakins not
participating,
(Commissioner Eakins returns)
Commissioner Eakins: I move that we move Agenda Item 3, Generic Citywide
Circle Design, forward for consideration before Agenda Item 2, Utility Department
Equipment Policy.
SEC(Commissioner Ojakian.
MOTION
passes unanimousl,
Chairman Beecham: All those in favor, say Aye. All opposed? That
a vote of 7-0.
AGENDA ITEM 3 CITYWIDE TRAFFIC CIRCLE DESIGN: Planning
review of a generic design for traffic circles.
Chairman Be~.cham: Does staff have additional comments?
Mr.. Overway: This item comes to you from e experience back in June when staff was
moving towards the implementation of a traffic e at the intersection of Bryant Street and
Addison Avenue. That particular process did not At that point in time. council directed us
to move forward with what we have come to call the of a generic traffic circle that was
lower in cost and could be adapted to various locations Palo Alto. It is not related
specifically to the Addison!Bryant intersection, but it certainl’be applied there. It would
¯ probably be the first application of that.
The design before you this’evening is that generic circle design. It this commission
tonight, then will go to the Historic Resources Board and the Board, and
then it will go on to the council with your comments. After this issue has at the
council level, the next step would be for staffto take the generic design and the
neighborhood around the Bryant!Addison area to apply it to its first location there.
The illustration in the staff report is similar to those that people have seen in other cities.
particular one is more similar to the ones in Seattle and Portland. The estimated cost at this
in time is $25,000. That completes my comments.
Chairman Beecham: Are there any questions for staff?.
!9
Attachment D
Excerpt Planning Commission minutes:
June 28, 1995
July 12, 1995
September 13, 1995
October 11, 1995
November 8, 1995
Wednesday, June 28, 1995
Regular Meeting
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MEETINGS ARE CABLECA.~T LIVE ON GONVERNMENT A~E~ CHANNEL 16
EXCERPT MINUTES
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
I. Approval of April 26, 1995Planning Commission Minutes.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS: Review,
discussion and any further recommendation to the city
council on the Land Use, Housing or other map exhibits
accompanying the Phase II Policies and Programs Documents.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
=
230 PARKSIDE DRIVE: Appeal of the zoning administrator’s
decision approving a single-story addition to an existing
single-story residence located 17 feet instead of 20 feet
from the front property line, six feet instead of eight
feet from the side property line, and with 42% lot coverage
instead of 40% lot coverage. Environmental Assessment:
Categorically exempt. File No. 95oHIE-6.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
no Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.
Reports on Council Actions.
3 and 21
41
41
J. Sl ocum
06/28/95
-I"
The planning commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, June .28,
1995 at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Ojakian presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present"Commissioners Beecham, Carrasco, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink
and Schmidt
Absent:None
Staff Present:Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official
Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community
Environment
kL COMMUNICATIONS
Chai akian: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications.
At th time, any member of the public may speak to any item that is not
on the mda.
nn Chi 631 Colorado Avenue. Palo Alto: I have a question about
streamlining permit process, which is under way right now in the
Planning De nt. I think that streamlining of the permit process is a
good idea and make it easier. The question I have is in regard to
when there are two ~nes that bump up against each other, such as in
Midtown, where you a CN zone directly next door to residential. I
have two examples for The first one is a lighted sign that came up
that staff approved, onl lighted sign is aimed directly at the
neighbor’s living room~~. There is no buffer or mitigation through
landscaping or anything because these are all old buildings. So in
cases where you have two hat butt up against each other, such as
residential against commercial,c., ormixed use kinds of zonings, it
seems to me that it would be a ’iate to notify the neighbors. For
example, I have looked at that lar lighted light, as well as the
other neighbors, for many years now,have not been able to-get the
owners to turn the lights off at night example, when there is nobody.
there, and it shines into my side wi and into the living room
windows of the next door neighbor.
Another thing is that that building was re(repainted with a very
bright.white color. On first glance, it looks ly nice, but if it
comes In at your window at four in the afternoon ~ the western sun
setting on it and hitting that directly, which it literally you
cannot open your windows in the afternoon or leave ,apes open because
the glare from the white is so strong. So it seems you have
that kind of situation, that should be considereddiff~than just
automatically stamping them through. Thank you.
~hairman Ojakian: I have a comment to make. In today’s Peni Extra
Section of the San Jose Mercury, there is a column called "Late its."
What it says is, "Do you like late nights and long meetings? Or ’ou
at least willing to endure them in the public interest? Then we
job for you. Palo Alto is accepting applications for two positions on
06/28/95
-2-
Cpmm~.~sioner..Beecham: We should clarify for the record that if we should
finish~e 9 o’clock, we will pick up Item #3 immediately.
BO.TIDN PASSES: Cha~Oiakian: The motion is to move Item #3 back to
the second item of the even~nd at 9 o’clock this evening, regardless
of where we are, we will pick up~3.and hold the public hearing on it
then. Is there any further discussion o~ motion? All those in
favor, say Aye? All opposed? That p sa ses on--of 5-I, with
Commissioner Carrasco opposed. We are now back to o-~r--QJ~Lg" inal Schedule.
I apologize for any Confusion.
AGENDA ITEM 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS: Review,
discussion and any further recommendation to the city
council on the Land Use, Housing or other map exhibits
accompanying thePhase II Policies and ProgramsDocuments.
Chairman Ojakian: We are at that stage where, having gone through the
draft part of theComprehensive Plan, the Policies and Programs, we are
now at the stage where we are going to apply some of that to the maps that
we have in front of us. Are there any staff comments on this item?
Mr. Schreiber: I would like to start by providing some background, and
then we are going to use a new tool, a computer, as part of the
presentation. First, this part of the Comprehensive Plan update process
was originally taken up by the commission in November of 1994. Rather
rapidly, both commissioners and staff concluded that additional time and
research was needed on land use map-related issues. To put that into
context, the city council last November started reviewing the draft Goals,
Policies and Programs that they would like to see included in a draft
plan. So we at a stage in the process where we do not have a dr~ft plan
in front of us, but we are moving toward trying to decide what should be
in the draft plan. That would then be subject to extensive public
review. That process the council has continued on with these many months,
and that is certainly not a criticism, since the council has been very
productive in that regard and has been giving it very careful attention.
Part of what the council needs to provide direction on in Phase II will be
the Land Use Plan Map. That is the only portion of the draft
Comprehensive Plan on which the planning commission has not made
recommendations to the council. So last November, this was in front of
the commission. At that time, Phase II was expected to go faster than it
has. That not being the case, it is back to the commission now, and there
is still considerable time available before the council will take this
up. So again, the bottom line issue will be, what should be on the Land
Use Plan Map that goes into the Comprehensive Plan? The Plan Map becomes
the basis for future zoning designations, zoning decisions, and other
actions.
In the staff report, we first identified three land use designations that
we think should be added in the repertoire that the city can use. One is
a land use designation called "Village Residential." That is a Peter
Calthorpe term. When the Assistant City Manager asked me if I had a more
precise term for that, I said, low-density, single-family and
multiple-family, a string of planning terms. He agreed that probably
"Village Residential" was the better term.
06/28/95
"9-
Essentially what this responds to is what we see occurring both in the
market and also what has occurred in Palo Alto historically, especially
pre-1940 or 1945 where you have single-family development and low-density
multiple-family, such as duplex type units, located on smaller lots, lots
smaller than 6,000 square feet. The commission reviewed the residential
project that is beginning construction at the Times Tribune site, and you
saw a re_turn to that. You saw single-family lots in the range of 3,000 to
3,500 square feet. We are seeing that type of housing product in the bay
area, as well as nationally. We do not have a land use designation,
neither do we have a zoning category, that allows that type of
single-family development. That is the basic impetus behind raising the
concept of Village Residential. In other words, this would be
single-family and low-density multiple-family on lots smaller than
6,000 square feet. We would see this as applicable around a number of the
older parts of Palo Alto, certainly in areas close to downtown. In
College Terrace, most of the lots are less than this size already. In
fact, some have raised concerns because of efforts to create 6,000-square-
foot lots with commensurably bigger houses. That is one land use
category.
The second area of categories, although it may be one, or it may be more,
is Mixed Use. That term came up a lot in the CPAC process. It really
meant three different things, depending upon what area we were talking
about. Mixed use is residential and nonresidential. We have had that in
Palo Alto in the past. In 1970, a zoning ordinance strongly encouraged
it. The multiple-family regulations that were adopted in the latter part
of the 1980s probably significantly discouraged a mix of residential and
nonresidential on nonresidential land. The second mixed use concept that
came out was retail and office to allow, especially in someNeighborhood
Commercial areas, greater flexibility for office as a way to stimulate
upgrading and renovation and cleanup of properties. The third concept is
live/work, where you have a unit that is designed both for residential use
and for work-related use in the same unit. That is a concept that has
popped up around the bay area in a number of jurisdictions. So we have
identified in the material in the CPAC process three different concepts of
mixed use that we feel are worthy of discussion in the plan process.
Finally, the third land use category we have identified is Commercial
Hotel. We called this out for a number of reasons. One is that
commercial hotels, Rickey’s Hyatt or the Holiday Inn being examples of
that, are commercial uses that tend to generate lower amounts of traffic
than a lot of other, retail and nonresidential uses. So in many ways, they
are a desirable land use, especially in areas where traffic is a concern.
On a per-acre basis or a per-thouusand-square-foot basis, they definitely
tend to be on the low side in terms of traffic generation.
Second is a concern that has~been kicked around in the city’s planning
discussions over the last years, which is the role of commercial uses in
city revenue. Clearly, commercial hotels are major revenue generators for
the city. Clearly, there has been a concern that Rickey’s Hyatt would
close somewhere off in the future. That has been rumored and discussed
publicly for a number of years now. The sense has been, certainly at the
city staff level, that a commercial hotel as a replacement for Rickey’s or
in addition to Rickey’s would be a desirable thing to add to Palo Alto.
If we are going to continue that pursuit of a commercial hotel, then
having a land use designation called Commercial Hotel may be a more
06/28/95
desirable alternative than to designate a site as Service Commercial and
hope for a hotel. Also, a commercial hotel would tend to have a higher
floor area ratio than the normal commercial zones. So those are three
land use categories.
Briefly, we also talked about a couple of other concepts in the staff
report that we think the commission should discuss. A major one is the
use of amortization and what type of policy the city should have.for
amortization. The city has used amortization since 1968 through 1978 and
early 1980s, amortization being the forced closure and conversion of sites
from one use to another. In many cases, it has worked quite well. In
some other cases, it has not worked well at all. It has been, at times,
very contentious, yet it is a way of bringing about change that might not
occur in other instances.
We have raised the issue of gas stations, not that we have any idea on
what to do about it. In 20 years we have gone from a concern over having
too many gas stations, ugly intrusions into the community, etc., to
concerns about not having enough gas stations. Again, I am not sure there
is anything we can do about it. We have raised the issue for your
consideration.
The last issue we have raised before map changes deals with parking. In
attempting to bring about change in some nonresidential areas of the
community that are almost exclusively nonresidential, in the CPAC process,
concepts were raised that would encourage flexibility in providing parking
and, at times, providing less parking thanwe have traditionally
required. That is a concept certainly worth discussing. The providing of
parking is often the biggest deterrent in bringing about upgrading and
change in areas. That is a set of land use designations of poli~y issues.
We have also identified a number of potential map changes. Let me briefly
talk about the process, and then I will use the screen and the new tool.
The process that I am going to suggest (and this came up in yesterday’s
precommission discussion) is that the commission, at this point in time,
identify sites, land use properties that you would like to discuss further
for considering land use change recommendations, rather than making a firm
recommendation to the council at this time. That concern is triggered by
staff’s concern regarding the public notice process. On the one hand, we
are in Phase II, a general phase of the Comprehensive Plan Update. We are
going to have a specific plan. That is when the work program says that
extensive notice goes out. On the other hand, we are down to talking
about people’s property. Staff is uncomfortable with making
recommendations on specific pieces of property but not noticing those
property owners. Thirdly, as you have seen from the packet, the CPAC
process generated a vast array of potential land use changes, most of
which staff has not endorsed. If we were to notice everybody on the list
for a particular meeting, we would probably have to rent Frost
Amphitheater and spend a couple of days there. A lot of those concepts
and sites are probably not of great interest to either staff or the
commission, and it probably would only serve to rile folks up
unnecessarily.
So what we are suggesting tonight is that the commission work its way
through the potential map changes, those recommended by staff and the
others that came out of the CPAC process, and have you identify certain
06/28/95
-11-
ones that you would like to pursue further, prior to making any
recommendation to the council. I assume this item will continue to July
12th. We would then come back to you in September with a public hearing
on the sites you have identified. In that way, we will have a better
basis for public involvement and public notice. That will certainly not
jeopardize the council’s review process, as I see the council’s review
process of policies and programs continuing on into the fall.
Regarding the CPAC map, there was a whole variety of sources that were
identified as part of the CPAC process~ There were 14 potential change
areas that the CPAC process identified as being likely change areas over
the next 15 years. That became a source of potential land use map
.changes. The community design workshops, Cal/Ventura, Midtown, South El
Camino, generated other large numbers of potential land use changes, both
area planning concepts and specific site changes. We had CPAC
subcommittees that identified land use changes. A couple of years ago, we
had a staff-initiated housing ad hoc committee of housing advocates and
developers and city staff that went over city maps. We came up with a
potential list of sites that might be used for more higher density
housing, conversion to housing, etc. That became a list. We had
suggestions from property owners; we had suggestions from staff; we had
suggestions from members of.the public at CPAC meetings. They all got
into the hopper. The map that was transmitted to the council last
November as part of the CPAC recommendations contained all of those in a
very schematic form of dots and squares and blobs, etc. Given the scale
of the map, which is one small map for the entire city, that was an
appropriate designation. The problem that we ran into in the staff report
that came out two weeks ago and corrected in the staff report that you
received in this week’s packet was that we took that map and blew up
little portions of it to go along with the 14 change areas. As one of the
staff members noted after the fact, one lesson in architecture school is,
always beware of blowing up a map to a much different ~cale. You may end
of with all sorts of strange things. The map we put in the commission
packets two weeks ago had some very strange things. What may have made
sense on one scale did not make sense at all when you blew it up.to 8-i/2
x 11 and you had someone’s neighborhood that looked like someone’s house
being proposed originally, and that was never the purpose at all. On the
original map it was simply a dot that was added and was simply to call out
a potential issue. So we have changed the legend and some of the
terminology on some of those blown up maps. They are still provided as
background information in terms of what came out of the CPAC process~
Let me briefly review the change areas that CPAC identified. What you are
seeing on the screen tonight is a new piece of software that staff has
come up with. What we are trying to do tonight is to incorporate visual
technology into a presentation. All of these efforts are experiments in
process. What we hope to do with this type of technique over the course
of the next few months is to adapt it to frequent use at commission and
ARB meetings as we learn how to use it and learn how to refine some of the
graphics. This is our first attempt tonight. For the areas, we have a
lot of backup transparencies, the technology of the 1976 Comprehensive
Plan update. We will probably use those transparencies when we get to
specific areas. We are trying to learn this equipment. Also my thanks to
Steve Lytle, the very diligent and faithful and hardworking companion and
husband of Nancy Lytle who put in a lot of time and effort in helping us
in this process.
06/28/95
-12-
Area #I is the Sand Hill corridor. This is under review right now in a
separate EIR process. Given the process we are in right now, we may have
more progress on Sand Hill than we do on the draft plan for awhile, but we
have recommended three things that should go into the draft Comprehensive
Plan out of that process. One is changing the old Children’s Hospital
site from Major Institution/Special Facilities to multiple-f~amily
residential. The second is to add the proposed Stock Farm Road, Vineyard
Lane and-modified Quarry Road to the plan map. I would note here that the
Sand Hill extension from Arboretum to El Camino is on the existing
¯ Comprehensive Plan map, so my assumption is that it would stay on the plan
map. It has been on the plan map since 1976. We are not recommending
deleting that from the existing map. Lastly, Bn item that is not part of
the Sand Hill corridor but~is, from our standpoint, a good opportunity for
additional housing, is to change the designation of the approximately
six-acre vacant site between Hoover Pavilion and El Camino from Open
Space/Controlled Development to multiple-family residential. That could
either beMajor Institution/multiple-family residential, in other words,
campus-related housing, or it could be straight multiple-family
residential market rate housing to be developed by Stanford. Here is
another tool. We feel that in the future, we will be able to get aerial
photographs that will be much more precise. So that is Area #I.
(Discussion followed regarding the continuation of presenting all 14
changes without comments, or whether each item should be taken up
individually and take comments from commissioners and the public. It was
decided to have Mr. Schreiber continue with his presentation.)
Area #2 is North El Camino Real to the Alma Area (from San Francisquito
Creek to Embarcadero Road). The Palo Alto Medical Foundation project is
in process right now. The EIR will come through, and before the
Comprehensive Plan process, staff will recommend that their nine-acre area
be changed from Service Commercial to Major Institution/Special
Facilities, consistent with their application. The Dream Team Area would
be a study area with no changes on the map. We recommend that Town and
Country Village go from Regional Community Commercial to a mixed use
Regional Community Commercial and/or either Commercial Hotel or housing.
Staff continues to feel that that site is a very likely private
redevelopment site over the next 15 years. We certainly have no desire to
see the loss of Town and Country Village, but when it does redevelop, some
combination of housing, along with nonresidential or a commercial hotel
and other nonresidential, may be more desirable than just a straight
commercial designation.
For the SOFA/~AMF area, Area #3, no changes in the plan map at this point
in time, pending a study of that area after the medical foundation makes
its decision to actually relocate, as hopefully they will. Area #4 is
downtown. No change is recommended by staff. Area #5 is Edgewood Plaza,
and no change is recommended by staff. There was discussion of housing or
mixed use in the CPAC process, but we really do not see that as very
feasible. For Midtown, Area #6, staff is following up on the council
action to undertake a Midtown Land Use Study. Council has taken that
action, and we suggest that as far as the Comprehensive Plan process is
concerned, that we allow that to go its separate way and somewhere along
the way, that may well lead to Comprehensive Plan changes. It is
obviously too early to tell how that would tie in. At this point in time,
O6/28/95
-13-
we recommend no changes, pending that action.
Area #7, East Meadow Circle/East and West Bayshore Frontage Road/North San
Antonio Road, no changes. We concur with the idea that there could be a
future study out there, but it is well out in the future, and it.is a text
item in the plan, not a map item. Area #8, South of San Antonio Road from
Baysbore .Freeway to Middlefield, no changes. For Area #9, South
Middlefield Road (East Meadow to the Cubberley site), the only change that
we picked up in that area is a 4.65-acre Spangler School site owned by
Santa Clara County. The county is very interested in selling that site.
We would suggest that it be designated either Village Residential or a
lower density multiple-family residential.
Area #10 is South El Camino Real. That, again is a very complicated area
and the subject of a workshop in the CPAC process. We would recommend no
land use changes in that area, pending an area plan for it. Area #11 is
the California Avenue/Ventura area. We have recommended to the council
the incorporation of an area interface through the Comprehensive Plan
update. We would expect that to be taken up during the Community Design
section and/or when the Maximart commercial use extension comes back for
council discussion. Right now, that is calendared for July 17th. I am
not totally confident that it will return on that date, however. At this
point in time, we do not recommend any specific land use changes, although
there are all sorts of them in that area worthy of pursuit. Area #12 is
Alma Plaza and South Central Alma frontage, and we recommend no changes in
this area, with continuation of Alma Plaza as a Neighborhood Commercial
area. Area #13, the vacant Page Mill Road/El Camino site and adjacent
land, has certainly gotten a great deal of discussion. The staff
recommendation, which has been very consistent in the CPAC process, has
been a change to the six-acre vacant parcel on the corner of Page Mill
Road and El Camino from multiple-family residential to a commercial
hotel. Area #14 is South El Camino Real-Charleston to the south city
limits. The Palo Alto Hyatt is a major site. That is the site that is
somewhat in process. The EIR is now in the early stages, and the proposal
is to go to residential. We would endorse that in the Comprehensive Plan
process. The proposal-right now is for single-family residential in the
back and multiple-family residential in the front. Staff is certainly
comfortable with that mix of residential on that ten-acre site. The other
site of great note in that area, in terms of change, is Rickey’s Hyatt.
We certainly do not want to see the loss of the hotel, but there have been
so many rumors and much discussion about that over the course of the last
few years. We would recommend, without any type of amortization,
establishingsome land use policy for that site at this point in time.
The back 100 feet along Wilkie Way we would recommend for single-family
residential, consistent with the manner in which the city treated the
adjacent Elks Club site in the Citywide Land Use Study in 1989. We think
the corner of El Camino and Charleston should be a commercial hotel site,
and Village Residential or multiple-family residential for the remainder
of the site, or a Village Residential and Commercial Hotel mixed use
designation. The three uses we see on that site are higher density
single-family and lower density multiple-family on the bulk of the site,
and hopefully a new hotel site. Residential suites would be the preferred
option there on three to five acres, with single-family along the back.
There were a couple of other sites that came up in the process that we
think are worth pursuing. These are not a part of the presentation. We
06/28/95
-14-
have identified a site on El Camino Real between Park Avenue and Leland
Avenue next to the present Duncan Insurance Building. We suggest that
that be changed from Neighborhood Commercial to multiple-family
residential. Most of it is vacant at the current time, except for the
Foster Freeze. 231 Grant Avenue is a Santa Clara County mental health
building and parking lot. We would recommend a change from that to
multiple-family residential. 3901-3981 El Camino Real isthe former El
Cumbre and a series of hotels and motels in that area. Most of the sites
are split multiple-family right now at the back, with commercial on the
front. We would suggest changing that to either multiple-family
residential or a mix of multiple-family residential and Hotel, at least
for the existing hotel sites, rather than seeing the front of those being
developed as straight commercial sites. Lastly, the three parcels from
450 to 560 San Antonio Road are research office park at the current time.
They have residential on all four sides, with three sides along San
Antonio Road. We would recommend multiple-family residential there.
So those are the recommendations that staff is putting forward for land
use map changes. One of the reasons I wanted to get these out is because
there has been great confusion in some quarters over what the
~recommendations are from staff for some of the mapping issues. There are
a lot of sites that have been identified in the various staff reports, but
these are the ones we feel are worth pursuing at this point in time.
Chairman Ojakian: Thank you, Ken. So we have the 14 areas to look at
tonight, some of which we could single out to have publicly noticed. Then
we have several concepts in here revolving around amortization, thegas
station and parking requirements that can also be part of the discussion.
Mr. Schreiber: What staff would recommend, as the commission works its
way through this again, most likely on July 12th, is that you identify
specific sites (which can be a group of parcels), but identify sites for
potential change, rather than areas. Areas get us into all sorts of
noticing issues, so if you can be site-specific, that will help us and
will help the public, as well.
Chairman Ojakian: In the case of commissioners present, is there any area
where commissioners will have a conflict of interest when we do get to
discussing items related to land use? For instance, in the Midtown
Area #6, Commissioner Schink would more than likely have a conflict on
that item.
Commissione~ Carrasco: I want to clarify a letter that Lynn Chiapella
wrote about the land use issues in Midtown. My role in Midtown was to get
from the community more opinions. That was my only role, and I do not
have a conflict of interest.
Chairman pjakian: No money changed hands, and you were not retained for
any reason.
Commissioner Carrasco: That is correct.
Chairman.Ojakian: Will Beckett is present tonight representing CPAC. Do
you wish to make any comments?
Will Beckett: I do not have any comments, but I am here to answer
06/28/95
-15-
questions. One of the things I like to bring up when I get the
opportunity is to talk about the concern that CPAC had to address a myriad
of concerns with regard to traffic and various other things in the city
through this land use plan in front of you. We are looking at this as a
very comprehensive approach, and we are hoping that all of it holds
together for that purpose.
Chairman Ojakian: I will now open the public hearing.
Lynn Chiapella~ 631 Colorado Avenue~ Palo Alto: I want to thank the staff
for clarifying the issues on the Number Three maps, as they were very
confusing. The problem is that even though staff said in the report that
it would not be affected, the maps have continued with the same error, the
same inclusion of areas that were not meant to be included. So I would
hope that the Area #3 maps, the enlarged maps, would either be totally
pulled before the city council hearing, or redefined, as was Area #6.
Thank you very much for that.
In Area #6 in this closeup of Midtown, which was presented at a workshop,
you will see that San Carlos Court was never included. I don’t how that
happened but San Carlos Court was not to be included as a change area. If
the box remains on #6, San Carlos Court should be pulled. You have a
letter in your packet to that effect signed by all of the people who live
on that court, which is the R-I court behind Safeway.
I would like to talk a moment about the cartography of these particular
maps. All the black was to be retained, and only the white areas were to
be changed at the Midtown workshop. Those were the directions we were
given. That would be the first one. San Carlos and Ellsworth should not
be isolated like Olive and Pepper got isolated over in the other area.
The cartography of these particular maps, as you can see, is like an
aerial view that looks from Foothill Park all the way down to the
baylands. What happens is that when you get to the land use changes, the
area that is the urban area of Palo Alto is pretty small on this map.
Most of the map is about Los Altos, Menlo Park, Los Altos Hills and all of
the other areas. When you are dealing with~ the changes on the map, a much
better map is the zoning map used on the fifth floor, which shows
basically the baylands and the Palo Alto urban area, so you can really see
the relationship between all of these different areas. On this particular
map, it is very difficult to see those relationships because you have such
a huge amount to focus on. The map on the wall is much more like the map
that Planning uses. So I would hope that that kind of map would be
included for the city council when you are dealing with things like the
new multiple-family housing sites, the land use changes, which are very
difficult to follow, and there are three or four maps that need that type
of map in order to understand the relationships. One of the things that
does not come through on this large map is the barriers between community
areas. Alma, Oregon, creeks, etc., do not show up very well in this
little area because you have this enormous~area to focus on. You can
barely see where the dividers are in Palo Alto, and we have quite a few.
El Camino Real is a barrier between two neighborhoods. Alma is a very
distinct barrier, as are the railroad tracks, but you cannot follow that
easily, and we do not get a real perspective. So I hope that we do two
maps, one for the big picture. This one happens to be the bike paths, a
somewhat controversial map, but this gives you the big picture of the bike
paths and the natural areas, and then use the smaller ones.
06/28/95
-16-
I like cluster housing, and I hope it includes green space. One of the
things I found missing on the maps is green space. Where we are putting
all the density, it is all focused in one area. Midtown gets some. There
are three or four areas that get a lot of density. You do not see any new
parks or open space or playgrounds or areas for children and adults to go
and relax. That would be very helpful. Also, trees. It does not show
trees, but one of the things on theseland use maps is that they do not
leave any open spaces, and they were recommended in the workshop areas to
actually plunk these open spaces in the middle of this density to see
where it is going to show. We do nothave a feeling of what this is
really going to be like. I don’t have a feeling for how it is going to be
to live there. If all of Park Avenue turns into these gigantic buildings
without a park, you will have hundreds and hundreds of new people with
nowhere to go for a place to just relax, sit and read and listen to birds
and nature. People need a little bit of respite from the busy traffic.
So that would be helpful.
David Wetzel~ 3981 .El........Camino Real~ Palo Alto: I am here representing my
father-in-law tonight, who has his family business at 3981 El Camino
Real. He sent a letter to the planning commission last week, dated June
22, and I would like to reiterate some of the concerns that were in his
letter. The~property that he has is currently zoned as Service Commercial
on the front one-third, and multiple-family residential on the back
two-thirds of the site. The Service Commercial portion provides a great
buffer for the residential portion on the back from the noise and the
traffic on El Camino. The recommendation is to take the Service
Commercial zoning and change it to residential and/or commercial hotel.
If my father-in-law were to look at changing something in the future, that
would not provide the buffer for the residential part in the back. So we
would like to state our concern that the current zoning works very well
for this location. We would ask that the current zoning not be changed.
Chuck Rundell, 23..I Parkside Drive, Palo Alt..n: I would like to state a few
things about the way I feel the city should be planning for the future.
For one thing, on all 14 of these items, I would like to see public
hearings on every one of them. I am personally concerned about these
things that you guys are planning on doing, and there are a lot of people
in town who would be interested, too. Secondly, I think there should be a
restriction on the size of residential housing, as far as the size of the
lots. I would like to see a 6,500-square-foot minimum on every house
built in the City of Palo Alto. I would also like to see the city develop
an architectural and design review board that looks at every single
blueprint that comes into town, and they would have final approval. There
are cities like Tucson, Arizona where you cannot even put in a tree
without approval from the design committee. They have very strict
guidelines, The stuff that is being built in Palo Alto, I see .lots and
lots of trash. I don’t know who is approving it. It is not me. You are
putting in too many houses in too small an area. The lady mentioned high
density. Where are the parks? The trees? I understand we have to make a
buck here and there, but come on, just a little more space. Take out a
couple of houses in a 23-house development, and you have some decent yards
between each house. We need more space between our neighbors. I don’t
think you guys realize it. Partof this problem with the Groners (230
Parkside Drive) is that we are too close. I am a little farm boy from
Wisconsin. I came out here in the sixties. I am used to a lot of space.
06/28/95
When you guys start talking about multi-use, multi-dwellings, no. You are
talking about low cost housing. No. Do you want low cost housing? That
is what Milpitas is for. That is not Palo Alto. I am just telling you
how I feel. I am sure you will start chuckling. That is fine.
Also, I would like to see you guys broaden, widen and raise the speed
limit on Alma Street. Why are you guys waiting so long? That is not an
item in one of the 14 changes, but what is holding up the widening of that
road? You go downto Mountain View and it is a four-lane boulevard,
landscaped on three sides.
Another thing that really bothers me is that when you guys restrict my
access to certain streets in the College Terrace area, it is my
constitutional right to go down any street that I want to go down in Palo
Alto. How come you guys have not been sued yet? Who authorized you guys
to block any streets? I don’t understand it. Isn’t this America? Isn’t
this freedom of movement in this country? Why are we blocking off areas?
That is all I have to say. Thank you.
Bob Moss~ 4010 Orme. Palo Alto: Thank you: Chairman Ojakian and
commissioners. First, I want to address some of the specifics. I was
very appreciative of Ken’s comments, because the clarifications helped
quite a bit. I would first like to address Area #10, South El Camino
Real, an area that you may have guessed I would be interested in. Note
that those mapswere reviewed by the Barron Park Association back in the
good old days when there were a bunch of blobs. One of the blobs was in
the general area of Verdosa and Florales. The Barron Park Association
took a formal position that we would strongly oppose any existing R-I
zoning being changed to multiple-family residential. Our position is not
just no, but hell no. The area on the map which is shown in the
Georgia/Florales area is being rezoned from R-I to multiple-family
residential. It is inconsistent with existing policies on protecting R-I
neighborhoods. It is inconsistent with good planning and good land use,
and it is inconsistent with the desires of the people of.Barron Park. It
will be strongly resisted and ohposed. I hope you get a big eraser and
eliminate that change.
A second comment is about incentives for combined retail and office use
along El Camino. We would like the amount of office use on El Camino
minimized, not increased, because we are trying to get businesses there
that will enhance the local community. Too many offices would be deadly
in terms of vitality along that street. The problem is not a lack of
incentives to develop properties along El Camino. The problem is that we
have some property owners who have totally irrational and unrealistic
viewpoints as to what their land is worth. That is not just my opinion.
It is the opinion of a number of realtors and developers. Incentives are
not going to help those people. The market is, eventually. Some of them
are beginning to get the word. They are beginning to see that they really
cannot get what they think the property is worth. Those properties are
all going to be redeveloped. You may have seen a copy of the letter I
wrote to the city council relative to the vitality of El Camino versus
other areas in town. It is not a blasted heap. We have seen a lot of
development there, including a number of projected developments that I
cannot talk about, which would make significant changes along that
street. It is not necessary to incent people to build along El Camino.
It is necessary to get the property pried loose from the dead, grasping
06/28/95
-18-
hands of unrealistic property owners. That will get development moving
along nicely. I would urge that you not go off prematurely and try to get
incentives for office uses along El Camino or for intensification of use.
The other area, actually on the Ventura side, but it does bear on Barron
Park, is the 3900 block of El Camino Real where I am a little uncertain as
to what you are going to end up with, with a hotel or other type of use
there. I am not certain that having high density or even medium density
residential all the way out to El Camino is necessarily going to be either
successful or attractive. The areas where multiple-family is adjacent to
El Camino, we end of with these walls. The Villas Los Plazas, the new one
on El Camino Place, is not an attractive appearance for a major street. I
am afraid that if you have more housing adjacent to El Camino without any
commercial buffer, you will have more of these white walls. It is not a
good design.
As an aside, in Area #7, talking about East Meadow Circle and Fabian Way,
that area was extensively evaluated in 1978-1978 for rezoning to
residential. A conscious decision was made at that time not to rezone but
to retain it as Industrial. If you are interested, I can go into the
reasons for that, but I have seen nothing happen in the last 20 years to
change the rationale, so I wonder why we would even bother to reconsider
that.
Finally, in terms of the concept of these new zones,~the new types ofland
use, they are very interesting in theory, but they don’t mean anything
until you take that zone and you apply it someplace on the map, and you
actually change the land use. So don’t be enamored of some of these
concepts without attaching them to a specific location and use. They may
or may not work. They should be working or not working concretely and
specifically, not in theory. Thank you.
Herb Boroc.k~2731 Byron Street~ Palo Alto: The staff report and the
Director of Planning andCommunity Environment recommend incorporating in
Change Area #I, the Sand Hill Corridor and in Change Area #2, North El
Camino Real to the Alma Area and San Francisquito Creek to Embarcadero
Road certain changes relating to Stanford University properties, including
those relating to the applications that Stanford has filed last year on
the Sand Hill Road Corridor. If these items are included in the project
that will go under environmental review as the Draft Environmental Impact
Report and for the Comprehensive Plan, then it will need the level of
detail that the project itself will need for the environmental impact
report. I believe it would place in jeopardy other important areas of the
city where large property owners have interests in seeing a valid, usable
new plan in place when this one expires. If there is no valid plan, then
areas in downtown Palo Alto,.along El Camino, and even Stanford property
in the research park may have difficulty getting projects legally approved
because there is not a valid plan.
The greatest risk to having a new, valid plan in place is the
incorporation of Stanford University’s projects, particularly in the Sand
Hill Road Corridor, in the plan. The reason is that Stanford is always
doing-something which results in its own projects being defeated when it
knew, or should have known at the time, that it should not do that. These
have ranged from people that Stanford knew (or should have known) had a
potential conflict of interest that were participating in the process, or
06/28/95
-19-
Stanford advocating, and the city council eventually approving, inadequate
environmental review, or Stanford insisting upon and knowing it would
never receive certain financial considerations for its projects.
Notwithstanding that, city councils have been willing to vote for what
Stanford wanted, always knowing that somewhere down the road, some court
would overturn it, and the process would start again. That is fine for a
project-specific proposal, but when it is linked to the entire
Comprehensive Plan, I believe other people with interests in seeing the
new Comprehensive Plan might want to talk to the council about taking
these items out.
One item I would specifically like to refer to is the six-acre vacant site
between Hoover Pavilion and El Camino Real. I thought that that site was
outside the city and was unincorporated land. It appears to be the same
site that Stanford had, at one point, talked about in its workshops as
potential housing. After receiving input from the public, it removed it.
So I am wondering why that is here now, if it is, in fact, the same site.
As far as I know, it is described in text in the staff report. It is that
site, however, where the map seems to place some dots on what appears to
be part of the shopping center, so I am not sure which is which.
In regard to Midtown, Bob Moss’s comments are right on the mark for that
area in terms of the reasons why people want more intense change. I would
like to point out that for the former Hyatt site, the neighbors
demonstrated that it is just a question of political power~whether you can
get in a project proposal using the existing multiple-family and
single-family zones that we have. That is the same thing with Midtown.
In Midtown, the assumption is-that the neighborhood is fragmented and that
the process is started. Two years down the road, create a merchants.’
association, I don’t know who the person was, a merchant who never shopped
in the place that she ended up representing. When she got on the board of
directors, she sought to create a residents’ association, a person who is
now an employee of the Chamber of Commerce. Maybe Midtown can become more
intense, but sooner or later, you are going to have to do the traffic
studies in that area, including streets such as Ross Road, Cowper Street,
Colorado Avenue and other local streets. When you do that, you will find
out that it does not make any sense to have a multi-neighborhood incentive
in the middle of a major traffic problem. Thank you.
Chairman Ojakian: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public
portion of the hearing and bring it back to the commission. We did say we
would start Item #3 as close to 9 o’clock as possible, so shall we now
continue this item to the meeting of July 12?
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I move that Item 2, the Comprehensive Plan
Phase II Recommendations, be continued to a date certain of July 12.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote
of 6-0.
06/28/95
-20-
Wednesday, July 12, 1995
Regular Meeting
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS: Review,
discussion and any further recommendation to the city
council on the Land Use, Housing or other Map Exhibits
accompanying the Phase II Policies and Programs Document.
Continued from June 28th.
Change Area #I - SAND HILL CORRIDOR.
Change Area #2 -NORTH EL CAMINO REAL TO THE ALMA AREA FROM SAN
FRANCISQUITO CREEK TO EMBARCADERO ROAD.
Change Area #3 -SOFA/PAMF (South of Forest Area and Palo Alto
Medical Foundation)
Change Area #4 - DOWNTOWN (and adjacent residential areas)
Change Area #5 - EDGEWOOD PLAZA
Change Area #6 MIDTOWN AREA
Change Area #7 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE, EAST AND WEST BAYSHORE
FRONTAGE, AND NORTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD.
Change Area #8 SOUTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD~(from Bayshore Freeway to
Middlefield Road)
Change Area #g SOUTH MIDDLEFIELD ROAD (East Meadow to the
Cubberley site)
Change Area #10 SOUTHEL CAMINO REAL (from Curtner Avenue to
Charleston Road)
Change Area #11 - CALIFORNIA AVENUE- VENTURA AREA
Change Area #12 ALMA PLAZA AND SOUTH CENTRAL ALMA FRONTAGE
Change Area #13 VACANT PAGE MILL/EL CAMINO REAL SITE AND
ADJACENT EL CAMINO REAL FRONTAGE
Change Area #14 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL, CHARLESTON TO SOUTH
~~~C~]~ITY LIMITS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2..Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.
3.Reports on Council Actions.
6
15
21
22
23
24
24
26
28
29
32
32
35
39
39.
J. Slocum
07/12/95
-1-
The planning commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, July 12,
1995 at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Ojakian presiding.
Present:
Absent:
.Staff Present:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Beecham, Carrasco, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink
and Schmidt
None
Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney
Sandra Eakins, Co-chair, CPAC Committee
Nancy Lytle, .Chief Planning Official
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community
Environment
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Ojakian: The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications.
At this time, any member of the public may speak to any item that is not
on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to speak this evening? Seeing
no speakers, we will move on to the next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS: Review,
discussion and any further recommendation to the city
council on the Land Use, Housing or other Map Exhibits
accompanying the Phase II Policies and Programs Document.
Continued from June 28th.
Chairman O,iakian: At our last planning commission meeting, we opened the
public hearing on this item and we took public testimony. That was the
extent that we reached on this item. We closed public testimony, and we
are now at the stage where it is before the commissioners for discussion.
Are there any staff comments?
Mr. Schreiber: At the last commission consideration of this item, there
was the public hearing and some staff comments. Staff made a suggestion
which we will repeat again tonight for the sake of the record and also to
allow you to pick up on it and see if you want.to follow that type of
process, which I will recommend.
The material that you received addresses a variety of definitional and
other land use-related issues. The bulk of the material addresses Land
Use Plan Map issues with specific parcel designations and potential
changes. What staff recommended at our last session two weeks ago was
that the commission review the staff material and identify sites that you
wish to pursue further, since we have some time before we need to give
this back to the council. So the commission might identify sites that it
wishes to pursue further. Then staff will notice the hearing on those
sites. The concern that I expressecT’at the last meeting was that the CPAC
process and past staff work and other miscellaneous collections of
potential map changes led to a large number of sites. We did not have the
.ability to precisely notice individual property owners on those sites.
That is a concern that staff has concerning the relatively weak notice
07/]2/95
that we have had on the map, thus far. So again, staff has gone through.
all of that and we have some recommended changes to be considered. We
would recommend that the commission go through the staff recommendations,
go through the rest of the related material from CPAC and identify what
sites you wish to pursue. Then, we will notice those and hold a public
hearing in September.
Chairman........Ojakian: Thank you. I, too, would like to discuss the process
we will follow. Ken has suggested that we look at the 14 areas that have
been identified, singling out some of those as areas where we feel we need
to have public notice to discuss them further versus those that we might
just want to discuss tonight and pass on them. Then we have a series of
policy questions that were also in the staff report dealing with the
various new land use categories such as Village Residential, Mixed Use,
Commercial Hotel, plus several other items that were in here that are
policy questions on which staff asked that we have some sort of
discussion, if not final conclusions. Those were the issues around
amortization, the gas stations and parking. Also any other items that
commissioners might want to bring up. So there really are two categories
-- the area changes and the policy items. Are there any suggestions on
how we want to proceed tonight in handling these matters?
Commissioner Cassel: Don<t we also have some Transportation maps and
other maps, as well as the Land Use and Housing maps?
Chairman Ojaki.an: Ken, would you like to reinforce for us what we do have
before us tonight?
Commissioner Beecham: I wonder if what Phyllis is referring to is that we
had a number of the work sessions on Saturdays, plus the following regular
Wednesdays. We had a number of maps that we looked at and had long
discussions over them, such as the big one on the wall behind us.
Chairman Ojakian: I think that includes the ones that dealt with the bike
lanes and some of the various paths.
Bs. Lvtle: What happened was that we had agendized your recommendations
on those maps at earlier sessions. So you have already conducted those
hearings, not that you cannot go back and revisit them if you want.
Tonight’s agenda item reads, "Review, discussion and any further
recommendations to the city council on Land Use, Housing or other
exhibits." So you have flexibility, but we had intended to focus on the
Land Use and Housing in this evening’s session.
Mr. Schreiber: The maps that you are referring to, Transportation, for
example, all illustrate policies and programs thatyou have reviewed. In
that sense, you have taken up the substance of what is on the maps. With
the Land Use map, while some of the map recommendations relate to policies
and programs that you have reviewed and on which you have made
recommendations, at no point has the commission yet made a recommendation
on the Land Use Plan Map, which is a distinct part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Commissioner Schmidt: That was my question, as well. I was assuming that
the policies and programs took care of what is in most of these maps, and
some are just illustrative. But it is really the land use. Another
07/12/95
-3-
question I have is that we have 14 different change areas outlined with
multiple pieces of property contained in them. Several of them.suggest no
changes, or wait until further area planning is done. Are you suggesting
that any of thes~ can be prioritized to be discussed, or are you
suggesting that for the ones where you are recommending no change or wait
until further area planning, we just drop those out? What are you
suggesting?
Mr. Schreiber: All of that material is in front of the commission. So if
there are areas where the staff recommends no Land Use map changes, that
is a staff recommendation. You may wish to single out sites in those
areas and pursue those further in terms of map recommendations. The same
thing holds true for the area plan conclusions that staff has come to.
There is nothing to preclude you from addressing.Land Use map changes in
those areas if you think that is the appropriate way to proceed at this
point in time, with this point in time being Phase II of the Comprehensive
Plan process. What we are all working toward -- commission, staff,
council -- is a set of council actions that will provide the direction as
to what should go into a draft plan for further review.
So if you think there are map changes that should be called out in some of
those plan areas, for example, it is perfectly legitimate for you to get
into that and make recommendations to the council. Also, if there is
something that no one has brought up yet as far as a map-related issue,
but you think it is a good idea, it is certainly appropriate to identify
it for further consideration, and we would notice those per the suggestion
that I have made regarding procedure.
Commissioner Schmidt: It is my understanding that if the changes then go
intothe next wave of the Comprehensive Plan, they will go through the EIR
process. It is easier to include them in the final plan, but if something
came up somewhere in Phase II that we wanted to have added, we would find
some way to do that.
Mr. Schreiber: That is a good observation. If something is not called
out at this point and does not end up in the draft plan, certainly the
draft plan can be modified to add policies, programs, map changes, etc.
However, that may well mean an additional modification of the
environmental document when the draft plan comes back through the
commission and goes on to the council. I would imagine that there would
be some of those changes, just because of the nature of the public
process. To the extent that we can identify things now, we are in a
better position, timewise and procedurally, just for getting .things into
the environmental document. We can do it later on; we would just have to
go back and amend it, modify it, etc.
Ms. Lytle: It will cost the city less now, if you can think of your items
to identify at this stage.
Commissioner Beecham: On the set of maps that Kathy and Phyllis are
talking about, which I remember from February or March, the large map_on
the wall, the Housing Use map, is the one where we had the longest
discussions. During those discussions, I took notes as well as I could on
what we were talking about, although we did not reach consensus or
anything like it, of course. But I think that that map may be a guide to
us as we get to the Housing Use plan to indicate items we may want to put
07/12/95
-4-
on the list for future consideration.
Chairman Ojakian: Let me clarify Bern’s comments for the viewing public.
The planning commission held several workshops, all of which were publicly
noticed. Actually, they were more study sessions and field trips, in
which all six of the commissioners who were here participated in almost
all of those. We went out on the field trips and looked at sites together
and had some discussion on that.
Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question regarding the integration of
these maps. While it is probably really clear in staff’s mind about how
all of these maps have become integrated, such as the Transportation
section, the Open Space, etc., I cannot visualize them, not Being familiar
with them, that they.have been merged into this Land Use map. So I have a
question for you. In the Transportation workshops and Transportation
subcommittees, a term called "residential arterials" became identified.
There was some discussion about land uses or use of arterials that are
very integrated and interrelated in this way. The land uses that surround
a residential arterial, when they are single-family, probably need a
hardier building type, for instance. I do not know if that comes under a
map designation or is it in zoning where we consider some single-family
residential building form that is hardier than the forms that are
presently generated. For instance, some people also discussed the
potential for adding a granny unit, allowing two units on those
residential arterials, making it slightly more dense and more protective
of the neighborhoods behind those residential arterials. At the same
time, it could lift the first floor up higher from the constant traffic so
that the people living on the first floor are buffered from such heavy
traffic. I am wondering if those kinds of things happen at this time with
this map, or do they come about in zoning?
Mr. Schreiber: My sense is that those types of concepts, and without
.going back to all of my notes, I am not sure whether that concept was
received with a lot of favorable review by either your colleagues on the
commission or at the city council level, but if there were to be that type
of concept in the draft plan, what I would imagine it would entail would
be policy and program language, and probably with a small, clarifying map
with it. It would be primarily a text issue rather than a map issue. The
residential arterials will be mapped, but probably with no need to call
out on the Land Use Plan Map, for example, some type of special
designation for uses adjacent to residential arterials. That would be a
text matter.
Commissioner Carrasco: Are you saying that it is too late?
Mr. S~hreiber: No, I am not saying it is too late. I am saying that I
believe the idea did not receive substantial support in the review of the
draft policies and programs in Phase II, thus far.
Chairman Ojakian: Let me throw out a suggestion for moving ahead. As we
said earlier, we have tw~sections to talk about tonight. One section is
the change areas, and the second section is some of the policy questions
surrounding these various new designations like Village Residential,
amortization, etc. Just focusing on the change areas for a moment, I
have a question back to the commission. We have several areas in here
that have been designated as No Change. Is it a fair thing to say that
07/12/95
"5-
unless.somebody has some comments to make on those, we can move from those
and discuss the areas that stand out more due to their being areas with
change?
Ms. Cauble: I do not know whether or not it applies to those No Change
areas, but there may be one or more commissioners who may have conflicts
with respect to certain of the areas. So it might add a minute or two to
the proceedings, but I think it would make more sense to deal with each
area individually, even if there is a staff recommendation of No Change,
so that commissioners who might have a conflict can make it clear that
they are not participating either overtly or through omission during any
deliberations on those items. If it does not add inconvenience, it might
make the record clearer.
~bairman Ojakian: That is fine with me. We can take each change area,
one at a time. There might be areas where commissioners have conflicts as
it relates to a portion of the area but not to the entire area. .So we
might divide a change area into sub-areas so that commissioners can
participate in the areas where they have no conflict. Is everyone
comfortable with discussing each change area, one at a time?
Commissioner Schink: I found it very helpful, last time, to hear Ken’s
introduction to each area..It is unfortunate that two weeks have gone by,
but it would be helpful if Ken could make those same introductory comments
again as we take up each area.
Chairman Ojakian: Ken, is that acceptable to you? (Yes) Commissioner
Carrasco has asked whether we could add another area. I think, we will go
through the items we have in front of us, and at the end, if we want to
add areas, we could do it then. In fact, staff has suggested a couple of
areas that are outside of the ones that CPAC recommended. They are on
Pages 4 and 5 of our staff report. It seems as though everyone is
amenable to the approach where we will start with the change areas and Ken
will give us an overview, followed by commission discussion.
CHANGE AREA #I - SAND HILL CORRIDOR.
Mr. Schreiber: As the commission and viewing public are amply aware of,
the city is processing the development of an environmental impact report
for a series of projects, in the Sand Hill Corridor. That EIR should be
available for public review by the latter part of 1995 or early 1996. As
such, at this point in time, the review of the Sand Hill EIR, which
includes the Stanford Shoppipg Center, Stanford West, market-rate housing,
the development of housing for the elderly at the old Children’s Hospital
site, the extension of Sand Hill Road and a variety of other roadway
changes, that EIR is going to be through the city process most likely
before the Comprehensive Plan EIR is ready for review and goes through the
process.
At the same time, we need to identify something to put into the draft
Comprehensive Plan, whether that be the status quo or some set of
changes. In this area, the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use plan
includes the extension of Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real. That has been
a dashed line on the Land Use Plan Map since 1976. Staff would recommend
that the changes to the plan map focus on the old Children’s Hospital
site, now designated as Major Institution/Special Facilities. We
07/12/95
-6-
recommend that for Multiple-Family Residential. Also, incorporate several
roadway modifications identified by Stanford, specifically, the
development of what is labeled Vineyard Lane between Nordstrom’s and the
Stanford Barn, also connecting Sand Hill Road and Quarry Road, and the
development of Stock Farm Road to Sand Hill Road and eventually cutting
over to West Campus Drive.
Other than that, the shopping center would not need any change of
designation. The vacant 46 acres are currently designated as
Multiple-Family Residential. The other lands we suggest would most
appropriately stay the way they are currently designated, whether it be
the office area on Welsh Road or the Major Institution/Special Facilities
for the medical center.
Commissioner Schmidt: Did you mention the six-acre site between Hoover
Pavilion and El Camino?
Mr. Schreiber: Thank you, no, I did not. That was an omission on my
part. There is an additional change that staff would recommend in this
area. There is approximately a six-acre area, unincorporated, between
Hoover Pavilion and El Camino Real. It is right between the PF district
and out toward El Camino. We would recommend that that be changed from
Open Space Controlled Development to Multiple-Family Residential. That
may be a Major Institution Multiple-Family Residential, i.e., campus-
related housing. It could also be a Multiple-Family Residential in. a
conventional, market-rate sense. The bottom line is that we would
recommend that those six acres be,identified as a housing site. Stanford
is in concurrence with that. They have, in fact, changed their land use
map through their internal process to designate that as a housing site.
But it is not a part of the Sand Hill Corridor project proposal as
Stanford has proposed it. So that is the one addition we would recommend
for this area.
Chairman O~akian: Just to point out, that was not in your original
discussion and is not on the summary page for the map. It is discussed on
Page 2 of the staff report.
Let me understand, Ken, on the Stanford Shopping Center potential for
expansion, is that not really a change in the land use map designation?
Mr. Schreiber: Correct. The current cap on the shopping center expansion
is found in the zoning ordinance but is not a part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Commissioner Schmidt: To confirm that, for example, if we said that
changing or adding road desigqations as suggested, if we recommend that,
and it is added to the plan, that does not necessarily mean that we are
agreeing to those, the example being that Sand Hill Road connecting to El
Camino Real is already in the existing Comprehensive Plan. It is allowed,
but it has not been agreed upon nor acted on.
Mr. Schreiber: Right. At this point in time, the commission is not"
adopting or agreeing to anything. It is making recommendations to the
council, ultimately, after a further public hearing, regarding what should
be in the draft Comprehensive Plan, subject to the environmental review.
I would anticipate that the environmental review document certainly will
07/12/95
-7-
have to have alternatives, per state requirements, and that in this area,
almost undoubtedly one of the alternatives would be to not do the Sand
Hill connection. It is a question of what becomes a part of the draft
plan and what becomes an alternative in the EIR.
Commissioner Carrasco: On Page 7 of the potential land use changes, there
is one-quarter of a dot that sits in the Downtown Park North neighborhood,
and it says, "Potential land use changes from Non-Residential to
Multiple-Family Residential." Is that intended?
Ms. Lz.tle: I believe that was a graphic representation of a city public
parking lot near the downtown, where the ad hoc housing committee found
that there was potential for additional housing and air rights over public
parking.
Commissioner Carrasco: But it does not mean that you are changing any
non-residential in the downtown parking lot to residential?
Commissioner Beecham: Was that the well tower site, possibly?
MS. Lytle: It might have been the well tower site. That appears to be
correct, as it is that far down.
Mr. Schreiber: What is important to recommend is that the map you are
looking at is a blowup of a small portion of that citywide map that came
out with the CPAC recommendations. It is a collection of a whole variety
of ideas for map changes. The only staff recommendations are the ones
that we have highlighted in the staff report. Regarding that particular
dot, we have not called that out for any type of land use change.
Commissioner Beecham: I suspect we will see these dots on each of the 14
areas that we have in front of us. We may want to leave the housing
changes .until the very end and discuss them as groups. That is how we
handled them in the work session before.
Chairman...........O~akian: That is a good idea.
Ms. L.ytle: Most of the dots, I believe, are changes either from
lower-density housing to a higher density, or from non-residential to
residential. So they are all housing-related.
Chairman....Ojakian: As a point of clarification, when looking at these
roads like the Stock Farm Road, etc., those.are the roads that we have
some control over because they are within Palo Alto. We are not able to
discuss the roadways that connect between Palo Alto and Stanford.
Mr. Schreiber: St~ck Farm Road is not within the City of Palo Alto. It
is within our sphere of influence and within our planning area. Vineyard
Lane is within the corporate limits of the city. Certainly, roadway
issues within the sphere of influence are legitimate topics in the
Comprehensive Plan. If you get out of the sphere of influence, it is
probably out of the planning area into someone else’s jurisdiction. At
that point, you can perhaps raise ideas, but obviously, we are not going
to amend Menlo Park’s or Mountain View’s planning documents.
Chairman Oiakian: So within the sphere of influence, are roads like
07/12/95
-8-
Campus Drive or Arboretum, as it goes through the campus, within the
sphere of influence of Palo Alto?
Mr. Schreiber: Yes. Let me use the term "planning area." A sphere of
influence has a specific definition under terms of law in terms of Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) procedures. If we look at the color
maps on the board, Palo Alto’s planning area (most ofthe area on the left
map), is incorporatedcity land. As you head out into the foothill areas,
you end up with unincorporated land. Some of that is within the city’s
sphere of influence, per LAFC0, and some of it is not. But this is the
planning area that the city has identified over the course of the years.
Anything within that area is certainly legitimate for us to focus
attention upon. Arboretum through the campus, Campus Drive East-West,
those are within the sphere of influence, and they are within~the planning
area. All of the campus is within the sphere of influence under LAFCO.
That, again,-is certainly something very legitimate for the city to
consider.
Chairman Ojakian: Thank you.
Commissioner Carrasco: Can you define Academic Reserve? What does that
imply? Does that mean it is a reserve for academic uses that could,
potentially, come down the road?
Ms. Lytle: That is correct.
Commissioner Carrasco: And for how many years is it preserved?
~s. Lytle: I believe it is available immediately. It is a category that
has a definition of what uses are appropriate within it. If you are
interested, I could go up and get the Stanford Land Use Plan with the
designation of what it includes. It is in my office.
Chairman Ojakian: Do you see a need for that, Tony?
Commissioner Carrasco: It could become important, because I would like to
add the Coyote Hill area, which is also classified as Academic-Reserve. I
would like to look at that more carefully down the road.
Mr. Schreiber: You are talking about the Stanford Land Use Plan, not the
City of Palo Alto’s plan.
Commissioner Carrasco: The plan up on the wall defines a broad strip as
Academic Reserve. I do not know what that means in terms of Palo Alto’s
land use.
Mr. Schreiber: You are right. There is a designation of Stanford lands
as Academic Reserve which is comparable to our Open Space designation.
Commissioner Carrasco: Open Space meaning that you cannot build on it?
Mr. Schreiber: No, Open Space can be built upon, but just as land within
the city is designated as Open Space Controlled Development, it can have
some limited amount of development. The same general policy is applied to
Academic Reserve and Open Space lands. From the university’s policies and
Santa Clara County’s regulations, those lands are intended to have
07/12/95
"9-
primarily open space and low-intensity uses on them. That is consistent
with how we have treated Open Space Controlled Development.
Commissioner Carrasco: Does low intensity mean horse farms, that kind of
low intensity? Or is it buildings?
Mr. Schreiber: It could be both. Certainly, agricultural uses,
livestock, grazing, etc. and certain low-intensity building type uses,
just as we have regulations for control of Open Space Controlled
Development zones that allow a lower intensity of building use on those
lands.
Chairman O~akian: Under this Sand Hill Corridor change area, wehave
three land use map changes proposed. Bern, if I heard you correctly a few
minutes ago, do we want to hold off on talking about the Children’s
Hospital s~te area until later, or now?
Commissioner Beecham: I suggest we do it now. Also, is it your intent to
take a vote on each of the items before us? (Yes)
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: In that case, I will move the first item
under Change Area #I, "Change the old Children’s Hospital site from Major
Institution/Special Facilities to Multiple-Family Residential." It
certainly seems appropriate to me to have housing at that site. We are in
the process for it, and it is the right time to have it in the plan so
that it can be included in the EIR.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
~r. Schreiber: I am uncertain as to whetheryou are making
recommendations to the council or whether you are calling out things that
you want to pursue further in a public hearing in September.
Commissioner Schmidt: I thought that staff had asked that we select sites
from the recommendations and prioritize them, and that any of those that
we wanted to pursue further would go to further public notice and public
input. We would not be taking anything tonight and making a direct
recommendation. Is that the case?
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, that was the suggestion from staff, but the
commission is certainly free to handle it in whatever way you think is
most appropriate.
Commissioner Schmidt: Is the intention that there be more public notice,
more opportunity for the public to speak on any of this?
Mr. Schreiber: There will certainly be more opportunities for the public
to speak, beginning with the point at which the council takes this up as
part of its Phase II discussions sometime this fall or early winter.
(Hopefully, not later!) After that, if it goes into the draft plan, then
there will be a whole set of notices and public hearings, etc. as the
draft plan works its way through the planning commission and back throug~
the council. So at this~point in time, there is a minimum of three more
public hearing opportunities that will be provided. They are Phase II at
the council level, the draft plan at the commission level, and the draft
plan at the council level for final consideration. If you want to add a
07/12/95
-I0-
fourth review to that, which would be to bring these items back to the
commission in September, that certainly can be done. The concern of staff
is that while the Sand Hill Corridor is a very visible set of issues,
there is a variety of other sites in here that are not very visible to the
public and have not received an awful lot of public discussion. But
again, you set the way in which you feel the most comfortable with
proceeding. Certainly, if you wish to proceed tonight with making
recommendationsto the council, that is perfectly appropriate, as you have
had a public hearing. So that can be done, and we would send it on to the
council.
Chairman. Ojakian: I stand corrected, and I thank Commissioner Schmidt for
bringing it up. One of the first things we want to do, in looking at a
change area, is to state whether we think this is an area that we identify
as.one that we want to have noticed for further discussion. If we decide
we do not want it noticed for further discussion, then I guess we can go
ahead and make whatever recommendations we choose to do. ~Returning to
Bern, I will ask if you want to go ahead with your motion in front of us?
Commissioner Beecham: I believe so, but let me clarify it, because I am a
little tired tonight, and I am better at reading than listening. On Page
2 of the staff report, at the very top, it says, "The following changes to
the Land Use PlanMap are recommended by staff for further evaluation in
the draft plan and related Draft Environment Impact Report." So I am
taking that to mean that we not necessarily study it more, but let’s put
it in the plan and say, in the plan, let’s evaluate them and do the EIR on
them.
Furthermore, on Page 10 of the staff report where it says, "Steps
Following Approval," I assume you mean.approval by the commission tonight,
or is that other approval?
ME. Sch~eiber: Your confusion is the result of staff, comments, not your
own reading or listening abilities. Between the time that the staff
report was prepared and the last commission meeting when you began
-discussion of this, staff, in part at the precommission meeting before
your June 28th meeting, had additional concerns regarding the extent of
notice. So after the staff report was out but before the last meeting
started, we concluded that we would like to see some additional notice.
So the staff report is worded in terms of very clear recommendations --
yes, no, whatever. Our concern is with the amount of public notice.
Since we have the time to bring this back in September without slo~ing
down the council process, we recommended two.weeks ago thatrather than
making definitive recommendations at this point in time, you might
identify items that you would like to see considered further. We would
notice those, and then, you could act on that as a package of
recommendations. Again, the problem of noticing all of this is that there
are probably ten sites not recommended by staff for every one that is
recommended.
Ms. Cauble: I do want to bake the record clearthat the concerns that Ken
mentioned are not concerns about any legal inadequacy of our process. I
know the commission is well aware of that. They were just some thoughts
that staff had about possible desirability and further input. There was
no concern on our part that there is anything wrong with the process, so
the commission has any of these options, and anything else in between,
07/]2/95
available to it.
Chairman O.iakian: Thank you for the clarification.
.Cqmmissioner Cassel: I have a sense of going around in circles. We ha~e
noticed these hearings before; we have delayed. They have been out and
published. The maps have been out and published. We have been available-
for people to talk to us, and we have further public hearings to go.
Somehow, unless we run into an item that seems particularly controversial,
more so than others, which seem plenty controversial at the moment,
another public hearing in September does not seem to make Sense. I have
the feeling that we need to get on with this process, making, some
recommendations at this level, which is only the second level. Then
proceed with our recommendations to the council.
Commissioner Carrasco: I have a suggestion following up on that. I
suggest that we either agree with staff or not agree with staff on the
actual content of what is in here, and then before we do that, if we find
that we need a site that needs more public hearing, as we go through each
of these areas, we so identify them.
Chairman.....Ojakian: Can we just do that with the 14 areas up front and
decide if there are any of them that need to be identified and noticed for
a meeting in September? We are all pretty familiar with the 14 areas.
(Discussion followed as to procedure for this evening. The commission was
polled as to whether certain items should be designated as .areas in need
of further public hearings).
Commissioner Beecham: Why not indicate whether a pBrticular item needs
additional public notice as we take up each individual item?
(It was so agreed.)
Chairman Oia.kian: We have a motion by Commissioner Beecham and seconded
by Commissioner Schink to accept the staff recommendation under Change
Area #I with regard to the old Children’s Hospital site from Major
Institution/Special Facilities to Multiple-Family Residential.
Commissioner Schmidt: I just want to clarify that this motion is per the
statement "...for further evaluation in the Draft Plan and related Draft
Environmental Impact Report."
Chairman ...Ojakian: That is correct, but I havenot heard anyone say that
they want to notice this particular item for further public hearing.
Commissioner Schmidt: That is correct.
Commissioner Beecham: Let me ask, what is meant by "further evaluation of
the draft plan"?
Ms. Cauble: What it means is that in this phase of the Comprehensive Plan
process, you are not making any final decisions on anything. Further
evaluation of thedraft plan and the draft EIR means that this is an idea
that will go forward through the public review process, environmental and
otherwise. When it comes back to you, lo these many months down the road,
07112/95
you can vote in any way that you want°
Mr. Schreiber: To be more specific, let me make an example of the housing
site at the Hoover Pavilion and El Camino. At this point in time, we
recommended it for evaluation in the draft plan. After the EIR is done
and further evaluation is done, we may, as a staff, conclude that it is an
absolutely horrible idea, and might recommend that it not be part of the
adopted Comprehensive .Plan.
~Commissioner Beecham: So to be sure, when we say "evaluation in the draft
plan," that is the same as saying "inclusion in the draft plan."
Mr. Schreiber: Yes. But I am speaking more to the public right now that
nobody is adopting anything in terms of the Land Use P~an. This is all
for further evaluation.
Commissioner Beecham: We are drafting the draft plan!
Mr. Schreiber: That’s it.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Oja.kian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion to change the old Children’s Hospital site from Major
Institution/Special Facilities to Multiple-Family Residential, asstated
on Page 2 of the staff report? All those in favor, say Aye? All
opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0.
That brings us to the second item under Change Area #I, Sand Hill
Corridor, "Add the proposed Stock Farm Road, Vineyard Lane and modified
Quarry Road to the Plan Map." Are there any comments on this item?
MOTION:Commissioner Schink: I move approval.
SECOND:By Commissioner Cassel.
Chairman.. Ojaki.....an: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All
those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0.
Commissi..oner Carrasco: I do not have a map showing the modified Quarry
Road. What is the modification that we are asking for?
Mr. Schreiber: The modified Quarry Road is either within the existing
right-of-way or moved slightly to the north. At this point in time, we do
not need to be extremely precise. The purpose is to have Quarry Road
function as an intersection with El Camino, rather than the one-way-in
configuration that you now have. So the basic recommendation is that
Quarry Road should be modified to be a regular intersection with El
Camino.
Commissioner Carrasco: Would that be a signalized intersection, giving up
the existing intersection at the center of the shopping center? In other
words, would there only be Sand Hill Road potentially signalized plus this
one, or would the one further north of Quarry Road remain in place? -
Mr."Schreiber: Yes.
Commissioner Cassel: The reason I would like to see this in here is that
I feel we need some additional adjustment on the roads, whether or not an
expansion of the shopping center occurs. However we connect to El Camino
depends upon the way this EIR comes out, but I would like to see it in the
plan.
Commissioner Beecham: I, too, look forward to seeing the evaluationsin
the EIR and whatever alternatives they may be able to come up with.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? The motion by Commissioner Schink and seconded by Commissioner
Cassel was to add the proposed road changes, as stated on Page 2 of the
staff report. All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on
a vote of 6-0.
That brings us to the third recommendation under Change Area #I regarding
the approximately 6-acre vacant site between Hoover Pavilion and El Camino.
Real, changing it from Open Space/Controlled Development to Major
Institution/Multiple-Family Residential. Are there any comments? I do
recall Commissioner Schink’s comments earlier that this would be a good
item to notice for further public discussion.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move that we hold this item over for a
public hearing.
.SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco.
Commissioner Cassel: We have been looking for sites for housing
throughout the city, and have been concerned about other sites that did
not end up being used for housing when we had anticipated that they
would. This is one of those sites. It connects with the shopping
center. We have visualized the downtown area and Stanford Shopping Center
as not being so separate, and this could accomplish that, so I hope this
will proceed.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think it is going to typically be the housing
sites where a specific location is identified that we have discussed
less. We have discussed broader areas through the Comprehensive Plan
process. So sites like this might be the ones that we want to notice.
Chairman Ojakian: I am very interested in seeing that we have some public
hearing on this. The first time I heard housing for this particular site
was made by Gayle Aikens at a Dream Team study session. I thought, what a
fascinating idea. I had never heard it suggested before, and it sparked
an interest in me, so I will be happy to support a motion to discuss this
further. I have an interest in seeing where this is going to go.
Commissioner Carrasco: While I share that opinion, I think it would be
interesting to connect Stanford Shopping Center with the downtown through
a more hard-edged building form. On the other hand, it is changing open
space very close to an urban area, and it is super important that everyone
look at it very carefully to understand_what they are getting for what
they are giving up.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman O,iakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? The motion before is that we have identified this particular area
as one of those to be further noticed and come back to us in a meeting,
07/12/95
possibly in September. The motion was by Commissioner Schink and seconded
by Commissioner Carrasco. All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed?
That passes on a vote of 6-0.
CHANGE AREA #2, NORTH EL CAMINO REAL TO THE ALMA AREA FROM SAN
FRANCISQUITO CREEK TO EMBARCADERO ROAD.
Chairman Djakian: Ken, please give us a brief discussion on this area.
Mr. Schre~ber: The area is the land between El Camino Real and Alma from
San FrancisquitoCreek down to Embarcadero Road. It is identified as Area
#2 in the CPAC process. There are a variety of potential changes that
came up in the process. One. that received a lot of attention that staff
is not recommending for Land Use Plan Map changes is the Dream Team area
around University Circle, the train depot. That we have identified as
being appropriate for an area plan and will be done after completion of
the Comprehensive Plan. At this point in time, I feel it would be
premature to change the Land Use Plan Map.
Two Land Use Plan Map changes that are recommended for further
consideration are, one, the land owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
between Wells and Encina. The proposal for the medical foundation~use of
that area is being studied and having an environmental impact report
prepared at the present time. This is another one, like the SandHill
Corridor, where you will receive the EIR well bef0re.the Comprehensive
Plan is back to you. At this point in time, staff feels quite comfortable
with the idea of that area being designated as Major Institution/Special
Facilities for a relocated medical foundation.
The second change we-are suggesting is for Town and Country Village.
Staff’s conclusion is that while no.one wants to see Town and Country
Village changed (and I say that because it has come up with some of your
predecessors in previous commission discussions), and certainly staff is
not trying to encourage change, our sense is that over the next 15 years,
change in Town and Country Village is quite likely, given the land area
and the relationship of the relatively low intensity physical facilities
there to the amount and value of the land. The site is currently
designated Regional Community Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. There
is a cap on additionalsquare footage in the zoning ordinance, but that is
not in the Comprehensive Plan. We would recommend that in the new plan,
we change that designation to a mixed use of Regional Community Commercial
and/or Commercial Hotel combined with residential. The site, again, is
large enough for a real mix of uses there. It is about 20-22 acres. We
can make a good argument for a Commercial Hotel use there long-term, if
the site does redevelop~ We certainly can make an argument for
residential. We can make an argument for Regional Community Commercial.
We can make an argument for mixing two or three of those uses together in
a mixed use approach.
ChairmaD Qjakian: Thank you. When we get to the Wells Avenue and Encina
~,ite, anything dealing with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation is a conflict
of interest for me, so I will step out of the room. My wife is an
employee there. Commissioner Beecham will lead the discussion.
Commissioner Schink: I will not participate in discussions of the Palo
Alto Medical Foundation either.
07/12/95
-15-
Commissioner Carrasco: It seems to me that this area is large enough to
have public rights-of-way and public access points, such as pedestrian,
bicycle, etc.,cut out early enough before we designate large chunks to go
one way or another and rely upon the private sector to create whatever
they might turn out to be, campuses, etc. If we decide that a good way to
develop cities, at least for now, is this traditional method of planning
that actually has happened in the early 1900s, in fact, the 1800s, with
the gridded streets and simple patterns that Palo Alto is composed of,
would it not make sense to look at it, at least in that infrastructure, or
at least in public right-of-way scenario now, rather than down the road
after designation? In other words, should we not look at the entire area
as a place where we could potentially look at gridded streets?
Mr. Schreiber: I believe the question relates specifically to the medical
foundation property.
Commissioner Carrasco: Even Town and Country, Ken.
Mr. Schreiber: Let me start with the medical foundation, and the concept
may well carry on from there.
Bs. Cauble: Ken is answering the question in a general way, and the two
commissioners have clearly stated that they are not participating. I
don’t know that they need to leave and return. We know you are not
participating..
Mr. Schreiber: With regard to the medical foundation project, we have
been working with the foundation quite intensively now for quite a while
.on site planning for that area. The site plan that you will see in the
EIR contains thei~ requested site plan. It will have an internal
connection that would link the University Circle area to Encina. So you
would have the internal connection. You also have the retention of Wells
Avenue which creates a connection back to it, soyou do get some of that
grid connection. They have not recommended, and we would not recommend, a
further dissecting of that land with public streets. It is not that big
for the amount of activity that is being proposed. But the basic concept
of maintaining public right-of-way and obtaining public right-of’way
through that area is one that staff would concur with.
At this point in time, for that area, given the pace of the Comprehensive
Plan process and the pace of the medical foundation process,I think we
will be able to fold in the specific medical foundation street layout into
the Comprehensive Plan process. We would intend to do that, and the
commission does not have to get into that level of detail for the medical
foundation project.
As far as Town and Country Village is concerned, at this point in time, I
would be reluctant to call out a continuation of that internal street
network all the way down to the Embarcadero, because you have some very
significant traffic problems on Embarcadero Road. We may well not want to
encourage even more traffic coming into Embarcadero Road across fromPalo
Alto High School. My sense is that the types of connection issues you are
talking about, in part, are policy and program issues rather than map
issues that would relate to development or redevelopment of larger sites.
That may be the most appropriate way to try and tackle those, rather than
07/12/95
-16-
getting into proposing roadways through a shopping center site where I
don’t think anyone wants to see a change. The question is, how likely is
it to stay the same for the next 15 years. That may be too specific an
area for planning to get into at this point in time at a map level.
Commissioner Carrasco:. Ken, are you suggesting that we put in some
language at this point that says that any site that is larger than some
size has public roadways in it?
Mr. Schreiber: No, I do not have specific wording at this point in time.
That is something that staff would need to contemplate. I would not want
to give you wording in a quick response like this. I am not sure if it is
a size of site question as much as it is the relationship to other parts
of the street network. It may be both of those, but I would be
uncomfortable with giving you specific.wording at this time. We.can
certainly come back to you on that.
Ms. Lytle: When we didthe original charette for that area, we did
include the Town and Country Village as a secondary area. I would suggest
that if a future area plan is recommended here, that you again treat Town
and Country Village as a secondary part of that area plan. You could look
at future circulation issues in that area plan that staff is recommending
be taken up at some point in the future.
~hairman O,iakian: If we are ready to take up the first suggested change
under Change Area #2, regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, I will
turn this over to Commissioner Beecham to lead the discussion.
Fommissioner. Beecham: I have a question for staff on Page 8 of the
report, where you explain how the PAMF is working on their plan, that the
EIR is in process, etc., and that the application from the PAMF includes a
redesignation of the property. Given all of that, is there any advantage
to including it in the draft Comprehensive Plan at this point versus
waiting for that process to go ahead?
~.r. Schreiber: Once the council finishes Phase II of the review, which
will hopefully be in the fall or early winter of this year, we, the city
staff and consultants, then have six months under the work program to come
up with a draft Comprehensive Plan. I do not know whether the timing of
the medical foundation process is going to be such that we will have a
final product from their process before we need to start on a draft
Comprehensive Plan. In doing the draft Comprehensive Plan and the related
draft environmental impact report, we will needto set out very early on
the land use assumptions and the roadway assumptions, because the traffic
and transportation analysis work is, in many ways, the critical path
through all of that. As such, we will need to make some land use
assumptions for this area. If we assume that the medical foundation work
is not going to be adopted by that point in time, I would prefer to err on
the side of not having the medical foundation plan and figure out what we
want to put in the draft plan. That is why we made this recommendation,
rather than trying to hold off and get o.~rselves in a bind later on where
we would not have any direction in terms ofwhether to change ornot to
change. So my sense is that you have a recommendation from staff, and
that is how we got to that recommendation.
Absent the specific medical foundation process, the concept of moving the
07/]2/95
Palo Alto Medical Foundation out of the existing neighborhood setting to
another site in Palo Alto, from our standpoint, has a lot of.positive
things going for it. This is a site that we believe can accommodate that
type of use. Even if we were at the very beginning of the medical
foundation process, we would feel comfortable making this type of
recommendation. It is part of staff’s view that the relocation of the
foundation out of that neighborhood area is, in the long term, in the best
interests of the city.
Commissioner Beecham: Thank you. Are there any comments or a motion?
Ms. Lytle: One thing I would like to note, which gets overlooked
sometimes, is that with that relocation, we are actually putting a major
employment center within walking distance of a transit depot that is not
quite there today. It is consistent with all of those transit-oriented
development principles that we all studied during this process.
Commissioner Beecham: A policy we all.heartily support.
MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move that we accept the staff
recommendation for Item #I under Change Area #2, "Change the approximately
9-acre area between Wells Avenue and north of Encina owned by the Palo
Alto Medical Foundation from Service Commercial to Major Institution/
Special Facilities" without any additional public hearing to be held.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
Commissioner Cassel: This is an area that is currently zoned Service
Commercial, but has been designated in some of our work as a potential
housing site. It is a major site. On the other hand, if there is a move
from this site, we could probably recoup some housing at the site. That
you cannot really say, at this point, but is a presumption on my part, as
that is how I hope that zoning will go.
Mr. Schreiber: Oh, I will be glad to say it{ If the medical foundation
can be relocated within Palo Alto, and their existing sites are freed up
for redevelopment, then within that neighborhood, staff would see the most
logical and appropriate redeveloped use of that property to be either
exclusively, or certainly overwhelmingly, residential. Commissioner
Cassel is absolutely right in raising this, as it is part of the sense of
staff that this relocation process will lead tothe identification of an
important and valuable housing site that we do not have. The potential
for developing housing in the Urban Lane area is far less than developing
housing if the foundation relocates.
MOTION PASSES: Commissioner Beecham: If there is no further discussion
on the motion by Commissioner Carrasco, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt,
that we accept the staff recommendation and move for its inclusion in the
draft plan without further public notice and public hearing. All those in
favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0 with
Chairman O.jakian and Commissioner Schink abstaining.
(Chairman Ojakian returns to the Chair.)
Chairman Ojakian: The next item is the second one under Change Area #2,
"Maintain the current land use designations for the area around the
University Avenue train station (Dream Team area) and identify for an area
plan after completion of the Comprehensive Plan." This is an interesting
item to have before us, because I think some of you followed a lot of this
dealing with the Dream Team~work, in which Commissioner Carrasco was a
very active member. Any discussion on this item?
MOTION: Commiss..~..oner Cassel: I move that we approve the staff
recommendation.
SECOND: By Commissioner Beecham.
Chairman..........Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We
have a motion to approve the staff recommendation dealing with the. Dream
Team area, identifying it for an area plan study, as stated on Page 2 of
the staff report.
Commissioner Carrasco: I have a question of staff. Why does staff
believe we should do this after the Comprehensive Plan, rather than have
an additional public hearing or move it forward at this point?
Mr. Schreiber: For several reasons. One is that our sense is that for
any of the area plan recommendations that need to be pursued, there needs
to be an extensive public process, whether it be out of the CPAC workshop
process or out of the Dream Team process. We are not ready, as a staff,
to assume that what came out of the workshop process should be assumed to
be translated into some type of specific recommendation. Those were
relatively short events, and those areas need considerably more attention
than a one- or two-day workshop. So if an area plan is going to be
pursued, it is a more extensive undertaking.
The second reason, is that we clearly have considerable work to be done
regarding the issue of train and roadway relocation work within this
area. The city council has identified that the next step to be taken is a
more detailed engineering analysis of this area and the potential
changes. We, as city staff, are pursuing funding for that. We are trying
to get some state funding. I have no idea whether we will be successful
or not, but we are trying, at this point in time, to get some state
funding. If we can do that and become more comfortable with both the
engineering aspects and the process aspects, at that point in time, it
would be appropriate to make a decision as to whether to pursue Land Use
Plan Map changes.
We may well find, in doing the engineering work, that there are obstacles
that simply cannot be overcome, or cannot be overcome without inordinate
expense. At that point in time, we may decide not to pursue Land Use Plan
Map changes. If we can identify physical changes that seem to be within
the realm of being financed within some 15- or 20-year period, then we can
move on to map changes, but we must gothrough that next step beforewe
would feel comfortable in plunging into map changes. We are dealing, in
part, with park-dedicated lands. If you are going to start changing
park-dedicated land to other types of land uses, you are probably talking
about a referendum to get land out. of park dedication. You will have
begun a very complicated process, and you do not want to do that until you
are more technically comfortable.
Commissioner Schink: In a previous meeting, Tony raised the concept of
07/12/95
-19-
putting a hotel on the ballfield site. I thought that was an idea that
had a lot of merit and should at least be kept Qpen as a possibility. I
would hope that commissioners could at least incorporate some language
here so that if we studied this, we could look at it in the future. I,
for one, find it hard to fathom that over the long run, we are going to
continue spending half a million dollars a year renting the softball
field. That may be a slight exaggeration, but it is something like that.
So there is a strong possibility that there will be a land use change
there. A hotel seems like a logical thing to study.
Mr. Schreiber: For the listening public, I will clarify that when
Commissioner Schink speaks of the ballfield site, he is talking about El
Camino Park, including both the baseball, softball and soccer field
areas.
Chairman Ojakian: As further clarification, that is all Stanford land
that Palo Alto currently leases at an exorbitant price, to paraphrase Jon
Schink.
Commissioner Schmidt: I thought I heard Nancy suggest that we might be
able to include Town and Country Village as kind of a secondary area plan
with the Dream Team area.
Ms. LYtle: Yes, it would be my recommendation to define a primary and
secondary study, if the commission is interested in circulation planning
for that segment which lies.in between Alma and the railroad tracks and El
Camino. You could look at the connections.
Commissioner Schmidt: But ~t would be under one area plan? (Yes) I
would like to suggest that combination or modification so that the
original Dream Team area is looked at, but also the Town and Country
Village, so that we would combine Items 2 and 3 under Change Area #2 into
an area plan. That whole strip is really defined by the railroad tracks,
El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road. Do we need something to designate
and redevelop the area where the medical foundation is currently being
considered? I really think it would be wise to look at the whole area in
its entirety.
Chairman Ojakian: Would you like to offer that as a friendly amendment?
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes.
Commissioner Cassel: As maker of the motion, I will accept the friendly
amendment. The catch here is that it is too big an area to handle in an
area plan, which is my only concern. I see the Transportation going, and
that is my only concern.
Ms. Lytle: You ~ould need to look at it contextually, in any case. It is
not too big an area, and it was a part of the original Dream Team study
area, as well. So it is not an addition. It was what we looked at the
first time. _
Chairman Ojakian: I agree with Nancy on that, Phyllis. If.you remember,
we looked at various specific plans which we had copies of. There was a
subcommittee of the planning commission that looked at area specific
planning. There were several of them that covered a much larger area than
07/12/95
this, so I think it is a feasible thing to do.
~.o.~i..ssioner Beecham: As the seconder of the motion, I will also accept
it, mainly because regarding Town and Country Village, we are not very
clear yet on what the options are. As staff recommends, it is Option A or
B or C. If we are that unclear, it is only a small step to saying, let’s
wait until we do an area study for it. So I can accept the friendly
amendment.
Chairman......Ojakian: So it has been accepted by both the maker and seconder
of the motion to combine Items 2 and 3 under Change Area.#2 in the staff
report, Page 2.
Commissioner Carrasco: I am in two minds about voting for this
amendment. My reason is that this Dream Team section north of University
Avenue is extremely complicated and involves park issues, etc. They might
better be served looking at them separately, even though you might want to
look at a circulation plan together. So I would ask that the commission
stay with the staff recommendation, looking at it in two different
sectiods, even though you may want to add that we look at an area plan for
the Town and Country Village. I don’t know that it has to be done
simultaneously with the site north of University Avenue. It could get too
expensive and very complicated. I would keep them separate.
Commissioner S.phmidt: I think having the larger area gives us greater
opportunity to look at the issues of considering hotels, considering open
space, considering mixed use, etc., as well as all of the Dream Team
suggestions. I think it gives us greater opportunity to get things in the
right place in that strip.
~ommissioner Beecham: Also, the way we are doing it tonight is not, in
any sense, going to prohibit doing one or the other separately. All it is
doing is saying, let’s not put this into the draft Comprehensive Plan at
this point, so that they can hopefully be developed together, but if one
or the other comes in first~ this will not prohibit that from happening.
.Fhairman OjBkian: It is interesting that for the area near Stanford and
the proposed housing there, the first time I heard about that was in the
Dream Team discussions. For a lot of the ideas coming around Town and
Country Village, the first time I heard those were, again, part Of the
Dream Team discussion. So to me, there is some natural connection between
the two areas.
nOTION PASSES: Chairman O.jak~an: The motion in front of us, made by
Commissioner Cassel and seconded by Commissioner Beecham, is to combine
Items 2 and 3 under Change Area #2, as presented in the staff report on
Page 2, which is to identify for an area plan study after completion of
the Comprehensive Plan both the University Avenue train station area and
the Town and Country Village area. Is there any further discussion on
this motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a
vote of 6-0.
CHANGE AREA #3
Foundation)
SOFA/PAMF (South of Forest Area and Palo Alto Medical
Chairman Ojakian: This is an area for which staff has indicated no
07/12/95
-21-
recommended changes and to highlight the area for future study, pending a
decision by the medical foundation to relocate. If anything further comes
up regarding the medical foundation under this topic, Commissioner Schink
and myself have a conflict of interest. We will now hear from Ken on this
item.
Mr. Schreiber: The commission will probably remember that CPAC
recommended that this area be one of the areas for one of the workshops
that were held in the spring of 1994. The city council, on advice of
staff, including Planning and the city attorney’s office, did not include
this area as part of the workshop process. We recommended that at the
time because we did not want to create a situation where potential changes
in this area somehow got wound into the medical foundation EIR process.
We felt that the time was just not appropriate. The council, at that
point in time, also identified the commitment to have some type of
workshop process, at least that, for this area, if and when the medical
foundation made a decision to relocate. Given all of that background and
still given the uncertainties regarding the medical foundation relocation,
our conclusion is that it is premature to get into land use-issues in this
area at this point in time. This certainly will receive a lot of
attention somewhere in the not too distant future, we would hope, again
based on the staff conclusion that relocation of the medical foundation is
a positive thing. Until that is revJewed by the commission and acted upon
by the council, it will be premature, from our standpoint, to get into the
details of this area. That is why we-recommend no change at this point in
time,
MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move the staff recommendation, which is
no action.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
there.
I look forward to having future study
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote
of 4-0, with Commissioners Ojakian and Schink abstaining.
CHANGE AREA #4 - DOWNTOWN (and adjacent residential areas)
Mr. Schreiber: The downtown area is also recommended by staff for no Land
Use Plan Map changes in the draft plan. Ourconclusion is that the draft
plan should recognize, both from the map, as well as text, the ongoing
role of the 1986 downtown study, policies and actions and the existing
land use designations in that area.
Chairman Ojaki.an: Are there any comment~?
Commissioner Cassel: It is agreeable.
Commissioner Beecham: Phyllis has said it all, and I wholeheartedly
agree.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I move that we accept the staff
recommendation with no change.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
07/12/95
-22-
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussionon this
motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote
of 5-0, with Commissioner Carrasco abstaining.
Chairman Ojakian: Then we will move on to the. next area.
CHANGE AREA #5 EDGEWOOD PLAZA
Mr. Schrei.ber: Edgewood Plaza, in the CPAC process,.was identified for
the potential introduction of low-density multiple-family housing, in the
event of redevelopment or exclusively housing, if it were totally
redeveloped. Staff has discussed this rather extensively, and our
conclusion is that we would not recommend any change to the existing
NeighborhoodCommercialdesignation of Edgewood Plaza. That conclusion
was reached based upon the size of the site and access to the site, which
is somewhat difficult (an understatement) as well as the;adjacent,
single-family uses on two sides. So our recommendation is to keep this as
a designated Neighborhood Commercial site. It serves an important
function both for Palo Alto and at the current time, for East Palo Alto as
well.
Chairman Ojakian: Having shopped at Edgewood Plaza the other day, and
having run into the Chair of the East Palo Alto Planning Commission, I can
wholeheartedly endorse your last comment. Until East Palo Alto finds some
alternative for grocery shopping, this is their main source for a
supermarket at which to shop. Any comments on this item?
Commissioner Schmidt: I would agree with the staff recommendation of no
change on this item.
Commissioner Schink: I would agree with that, as well. I feel it is an
important resource to leave it as it is. As I mentioned in our
subcommittee meetings on this site, I believe that if you did make a
change, you could, in fact, seeredevelopment come along earlier than you
might want to. It could be worth more as a residential site than it is
currently, but it is an important resource for some people and should be
left the way it is. If you do not want to see it change, you should not
change the zoning.
Commissioner Cassel: My reason for wanting it to stay is that we want
walkable neighborhoods where we can work to facilities, and this is a
walkable facility, very important for a small area neighborhood. It would
be nice to see some sprucing up there, but I would like to see it remain
in its present use.
Chairman Ojakian: I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by
Commissioners Cassel and Schink in summing up the importance of this site
and why changes should not be made there.
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I move that we accept the staff
recommendation of no change in the Edgewood Plaza area.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is thereany further discussion on this
07/12/95
-23-
motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote
of 6-0.
CHANGE AREA #6 -MIDTOWN AREA
Chairman Ojakian: Commissioner Schink has a conflict with this area.
(Commissioner Schink leaves the room during this discussion.)
Mr. Schreiber: Midtown certainly is an area that needs some considerable
attention, as everyone agrees. The city council has authorized staff, led
by the economic resource manager, to undertake a study of the area,
focusing initially on what has been referred to as the core retail area,
and eventually, to look at the broader area. At this point in time,staff
believes that that process should play out. It may or may not lead to
potential Comprehensive Plan recommendations, but it.probably will, just
given the nature of the issues there. But at this point in time, we would
not recommend any other action, other than the current council assignment.
MOTIO_.___.~N:. Commissioner Beecham: I feel that staff’s rationale is sound,
and I am happy to support staff’s recommendation that we retain the
current land use designations in the draft Comprehensive Plan, and no land
use change.
SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco.
~ommissioner Gassel: I think the important part of this agreement is
that, indeed, we are proceeding with an area plan or some similar plan.
Actually, it is not an area plan in this case, but a slight variation on
that. Is this the one that is going to be initiated and paid for by the
owners in the area? It is very important that it proceed, and proceed
rapidly and maintain its very high priority.
MOTION .PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? The motion was by Commissioner Beecham, seconded by Commissioner
Carrasco, to retain the current land use designationsfor this area as
recommended by staff and stated on Page 3 of the staff report. All those
in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with
Commissioner Schink abstaining.
CHANGE AREA #7 - EAST MEADOW CIRCLE, EAST AND WEST BAYSHORE FRONTAGE, AND
NORTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD.
Commissioner Beecham: This is another area where staff is recommending no
changes.
Mr. Schreiber: The CPAC process identified the longer-term potential for
change in this area, especially the East Meadow Circle area. The staff
feeling is that, at this point in time, there is no reason for a
recommendation to change land use designations in that area. At sometime
in the future, a design charette type.~vorkshop, especially for the circle
area, may well be appropriate. We do not see that as a high, near-term
priority, and that would not be a map issue. It would be a text issue in
the plan. So our recommendation is for no change in the Land Use Plan
Map.
07/12/95
-24-
Commissioner Cassel: Why do you continue to put in this plan that you
want future study. That was done for the last plan, and the area seems
very stable° It seems to have appropriate uses.
Mr. Schreiber: At the present time, the area is relatively stable. When
you look at the area along West Bayshore Frontage Road, and to a certain
extent, East Meadow Circle, you have a variety of buildings there that,
within the next 15 to 20 years, I think you have some significant
redevelopment potential. These are buildings that, because of their age
or the nature of the construction, the tiltup buildings on the circle,
probably do not have an excessively long life span. Twenty years from
now, I would not be surprised to see redevelopment occurring. That is the
primary reason for looking at the possibility for change in this area. We
do not see it as a high priority item. It is a concept that is worth
keeping alive, because studying the area may well be something that occurs
near the end of the life of the next Comprehensive Plan.
Commi...ssi..pner Schink: I would encourage you to maintain the concept of
studying it more in the future, primarily because I feel this is-one area
in the city that has the greatest potential to attract a big box retailer,
if someone can consolidate some of the parcels. It is better to study the
area and decide howyouwould incorporate that than to have somebody come
forward without having studied it.
Chairman......Ojakian: I agree with Jon’s comments. I am a little concerned
with the area having potential to be underutilized in the future. I agree
that it is an area that would be potentially viable for a big box store
that would not have a lot of impact on the city’s residential areas, while
it could generate some significant revenues. So I would-agree that it
should be an area left open for study.
CQmmissioner CBrrasco: I am inclined to go for no changes at all, without
studying it. It is functioning well, and I think it will continue to
function. The buildings might be tiltup buildings, but that does not mean
the land uses are inappropriate. Living in that area, because it is close
to residential, I don’t think there should be a big box retail right next
to residential. I feel we should not change it.
Fqmmissioner Schmidt: I basically agree with staff’s comments. There
might be some changes, but it is low priority now. It is reasonable to
retain mention of it, but there are many, many areas that have a.lot
higher priority than this.
.FQ.mmissioner Schink: I want to clarify that this includes the area south
of San~Antonio Road.
Mr. Schreiber: No, that is in the next change area. It includes the area
north of San Antonio Road.
CommissiQneK..S~ink: Then I want to take backmy comments about the big
box retailer. It is not too appropriate there, and would not work well
there.
Chairman Ojakian: North of San Antonio Road includes Sun Microsystems and
a vacant area across the street.
-07/12/95
CommissioneK. Cassel: Some of these square, simple buildings become very
adaptable buildings. I was reminded while doing some reading that you are
not afraid to punch a hole in the floor or a wall because it is not a
fancy building. So they become adaptable and very easy for the next
person to move into.
MOTION: Commissioner Carrasco: I move the staff recommendation of no
change for this area.
SECOND: By Commissioner Beecham.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion to accept the staff recommendation for no changes, with plantext
identification of the area as a candidate for future study? All those in
favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-1,with myself
voting no.
CHANGE AREA #8 - SOUTH SAN ANTONIO ROAD (from Bayshore Freeway to
Middlefield Road)
Ch...airman Oja.~kian: Staff recommends no changes here.
Mr. Schreiber: For the areas south of San Antonio Road, the Commercial
Street and Industrial Avenue areas, as well as the areas along San Antonio
Road, but especially Commercial and Industrial, our sense is that those
areas serve some rather valuable economic functions. It is an area,
primarily, of smaller parcels with a whole variety of support services to
other businesses in Palo Alto. As such, we would recommend no change in
the land use designation for this area.
Commissioner Schink: This is the area where Isee the threat of a big box
retailer, whether or not people see that as a threat. I think it is a
likelihood that there will be people trying to consolidate some of the
parcels, because the bigger box concept continues to grow into more and
more areas. That is a likely spot that we should look for. So if you are
thinking about that as being your incubator spaces for a long time, or a
space that is going to house your small specialty retailers or service
businesses, I think they clearly will be threatened in the long run by the
big box retailers.
Chairman Oja.kian: Would the designation for this particular area allow
for a big box retailer now?
Ms. Lytle: I will look that up and let you know.
Commissioner Cassel: This is an area where I have walked very carefully
several times, looking at these lots. What struck me is that this is an
area that could use some consolidation of parking. One place has half the
spots empty, while the next one is overcrowded. Since every place is
required to have a certain amount of parking for its. site, the parking use
is inefficient. So if something came open, some shared parking would
certainly be useful here.
Commissioner Carrasco: I agree with Phyllis. I had not thought about
that before, but if you look at old, traditional patterns of the ways
buildings are built in this kind of configuration, they are built right up
07/12/95
-26-
to the street, and two-thirds of the lot is covered with building. A
consolidation of parking or some kind of parking assessment district in
this area would be well advised. I think we should recommend looking at
that issue.
Mr. Schreiber: The land use designation is Light Industrial. That is
wholesale facilities and storage warehouses, manufacturing, processing,
repairing or packaging of goods. That does not identify retail as a use
within the land use category.
Ms. Lytle: It is also not identified in the zoning ordinance as either a
permitted or conditionally permitted use. The only category that some
communities have allowed this kind of retail to come in under is
warehousing, if you classify it as warehousing, but I don’t think our
definition is broad enough to include a big box retailer in that category.
Commissioner Schink: There are a number of retailers that are working
there now.
Ms. Lvtl~: They might be nonconforming, but there are not any use
designations.. There is General Business Service, or it may be that this
designation became more restrictive at some point. That happens. Which
retailers are you thinking of,.Jon?
~ommissioner Schink: Last year, I believe Tile Source was there, also
Ridgeco Janitorial Supplies.
Ms, Lvtle: I would bet that janitorial supplies fall under General
Business Service, and also. the tile business could be classified under.
that.
Chairman Ojakian: Lotus Printing?
Ms. Lvtle: Definitely printing is a general business service.
Commissioner Carrasco: There is a pharmacy there.
Ms. Lvtle: That pharmacy is probably a nonconforming use.
Chairman...Ojakian: On a corner lot there is a big marine supply store.
Mr. Schreiber: The land along San Antonio road from Charleston down
toward Middlefield is Service Commercial. It is the land along Commercial
Street and Industrial Avenue that is General Manufacturing.
Ms. Lytle: The other three uses that you listed could be classified as
general business services, although they could probably also be classified
as retail. In that instance, the use and occupancy was permitted ~hrough
a general business service classification.
Chairman Ojakian: The discussion ha~been helpful.
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I will move the staff recommendation.
SECOND: .By Commissioner Cassel.
07/12/B5
-27-
Chairman O~akian: Is there any further discussion on this motion? We
have a motion to move the staff recommendation of no changes to the
designation in the South San Antonio Road area.
Commissioner Carrasco: I would like to include Phyllis’ suggestion of
looking at the parking issues in this area. If we are going to promote an
area that is incubator in nature, first we need to look at parking. Ken
has identified for another area that parking seems to be the greatest
limiting factor. An incubator space should look at that space as becoming
more flexible, both in its land uses, as well as in its parking
requirements.
Commissioner Cassel: The reason I did not include it is because we will
be discussing parking later. I am not sure ifthere might be some
informal ways in which we can help that, as well. We have restrictions
more by insurance that you cannot park on your neighbor’s property because
you won’t be covered by insurance. So we have issues not just in this
area but in other areas of sharing parking spaces, so we do not have to
keep covering the ground. That is why I did not include it.
Commi....ssioner Schmidt: I would like to see parking discussed broadly, as I
believe.Phyllis is saying, rather than identifying it just for one area.
Parking is an issue in many parts of the city.
~hairman Ojakian: I won’t vote for the motion because I feel we need a
little more flexibility in the land use designation in that area to
possibly allow for other things.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? The motion, made by Commissioner Beecham and seconded by
Commissioner Cassel, is to accept the staff recommendation of no changes
in the land use designations in the South San Antonio Road area. All
those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-2, with
Commissioners Carrasco and myself voting no.
CHANGE AREA #9 - SOUTH MIDDLEFIELD ROAD (East Meadow to the Cubberley
site)
Mr. Schreiber: The staff recommendation is that the Santa Clara
County-owned Spangler School site atMiddlefield and Charleston Roads.be
redesignated to Multiple-Family Residential, either low-density Or Village
Residential, which was a land use category that we recommended be added
into the Comprehensive Plan. Santa Clara County certainly has expressed
an interest in selling the site. This would establish the policy basis
for residential reuse of this site.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would like this as one site to be noticed. This
is one that I do not believe we have talked about extensively. I would
like to hear more on it from the public or have it available for the
pub-l-ic to respond to it.
MOTION:Commissioner Schmidt: I therefore move that Change Area #9, the
Spangler School site, be noticed for further consideration.
SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco.
07/12/95
-28-
Chairman Qjakian: We have a motion to notice Change Area #9 for future
discussion. Is there any further discussion on this motion?
Commissioner Cassel: Ken, on the map, everything to one side of Adobe
Creek, the Spangler School side, is shaded in. Is it just the school site
that we are going to look at? Is there any other discussion of that
general-area? (Just the school site) You are going to need a large
notice area in there in order to cover anything. That site is all
Multiple-Family Residential and Open Space, so be sure that if you are
noticing it, to make it a larger circle than usual.
Chairman Q~akian: Is there any further discussion on this motion?
Cpmm.~ssioner Carrasco: I would like to add to the motion that the
adjacent Greenmeadow Neighborhood Association should also be noticed.
.Cpmmissioner Cassel: You may have more than one, such as an association
for the apartments on the opposite corners, and you have Stevenson House
and the church.
Chairman O~akian: I don’t know that we need to make that part of the
motion. Staff should notice those areas.
MOTION PAS..~ES: Chairman O.iakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? The motion by Commissioner Schmidt and seconded by Commissioner
Carrasco is to notice Change Area #9, the Spangler School site, for future
planning commission discussion. All those in favor, say Aye? All
opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0.
CHANGE AREA #10 - SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL (from Curtner Avenue to Charleston
Road)
Chairman Ojakian: Staff recommends retaining the current land use
designation.
Mr. Schreiber: This was an area that was the subject of a CPAC one-day
design workshop. There certainly is a lot of interest in trying to bring
about change in this area. It is a complicated area, given a whole
variety of parcel sizes and other issues. At this point in time, we have
identified it as an area for a future area plan to be done after.
completion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Ojak~an: This was an area that Mr. Moss suggested in public
testimony that should stay R-I, and also that the office use should be
minimized.
Commissioner Schink: This is an area where I am wondering if it is
appropriate at this time to try and get some more public input so that we
could measure how much change we think is going to occur in the future.
The trouble I have, in looking at this area, is that the public testimony
I have heard so far seems to suggest to me that the people closest to that
part of El Camino are fairly happy with the way it is. Some of the rest
of us who drive along there think it is pretty ugly and needs to be
redeveloped. So I struggle with the notion that those who are the closest
to it like it the way it is. They are probably the ones who should have
07/!2/95
the most say in the matter, but others feel it should be redeveloped. So
I am wondering if we need to grapple with that issue. Are we going to
push for more development there, or are we going to accept it?
Ms. Lytle: In addition to noticing, you might also want to take a look at
the workshop feedback. We did get over 100 people from around that area,
as well as property owners and merchants in the area, to participate in
that workshop. Many many many of them gave us feedback at those table-top
workshops that speak to the issue of whether or not.change is
appropriate. So it might be helpful to look over that feedback in
addition to getting out notification again. What you are saying is that
the people living near it are not interested in change. What we
recognized from the workshop wasthat they were open to change, although
we hear a lot from individuals in our hearings who are not open to change,
Mr. Moss being one of them. That workshop did show a higher degree of
openmindedness for change. We have a list of the names and addresses of
the participants, along with their feedback, so we could get that to you.
~hai~man Ojakian: If we do have people who are interested in change in
that area, how would the current land use designation impact that? Jon is
bringing up that there are some people who are not interested in change.
He is saying there should be more change or suggesting that there was good
feedback for that. Staff is recommending maintaining the current land use
designation, so are you comfortable that it can accommodate either party?
~s. Lytle: I think we are saying that it needs further study before a
change is made, but not that a change isn’t warranted. In fact, I think
we have concluded that our current regulations are inhibiting the kinds of
changes that people might be open to. Our current regulations, with their
suburban parking ratios, really lead to very small buildings with a lot of
parking around them as the type of change you are likely to see. In fact,
if the property is to turn over in a way that people are expecting, Taco
Bell is an easy use to get into this area, because it is a tiny building
with a large parking area around it, yet if you hold a hearing there for a
Taco Bell, everyone in the world comes out and says, we don’t need more of
this. This is~not what we are looking for. That was confirmed again in
the workshop, as-well, so our regulations go in that direction, whereas
people are expecting to see either more of the same kind of development
that you have out there now, which is mostly noncompliant, because it does
not meet parking ratios and is hard to get occupancy for, because if you
have any increase in intensity, they cannot meet the parking regulations.
So it is tough to get new uses into the old buildings that are
noncompliant, and it is tough to get a redevelopment that has enough
building to it to designwise hold that commercial strip. So we recognize
that there needs to be change, and it needs to coordinated among the
multiple properties out there. It will take additional work with specific
property owners and the neighbors than a one-day workshop yielded. In
fact, out of the three workshops, we think this is the toughest nut to
crack. Frankly, this is a real challenge.
Chairman Qjakian: I stand corrected, in ~hat in the report, you do say
that this is an area identified for an area plan.
Commissioner Carrasco: Again the same question regarding timing. Why is
staff recommending that we do this after the Comprehensive Plan is
completed? Isn’t this area as sensitive and important as the Midtown
07/12/95°30-
area? Shouldn’t we do it now, or on the same schedule as Midtown?
Mr. Schreiber: We have identified three highest priority areas for area
plans, not including the SOFA/PAMF area, which is on a separate track.
There is no way to undertakethat many area plans as a part of the
Comprehensive Plan preparation process without stretching out the whole
process for a really extensive period of time. We believe we can
incorporate one, and maybe one plus Midtown, area plan into the
preparation of the Comprehensive Plan, but we could not go beyond that.
When we look at priorities, our sense is that the Cal/Ventura area and
Midtown are the highest priorities. With Cal/Ventura, you have the
Hewlett-Packard site, which is going to become vacant in the fairly near
future, and certainlyby the end of the year, according to what H-P tells
us. They have indicated publicly that they want to pursue redevelopment
of that site. That, plus the issues that are coming out over the whole
Maximart discussions, really create a situation where a lot of people are
looking for direction. We believe that that could be tackled within the
Comprehensive Plan process. We have indicated that Midtown is on a
somewhat separate track, and it is also viewed as a very high public
priority..
South El Camino, as Nancy has stated, is the toughest nut to crack in
terms of all of these areas, due to the small parcel sizes, the parking
problems, use issues, conflicts between commercial and residential, etc.
It is also the area where we do not have any one particular change or a
small number of particular, large changes clamoring for attention, either
because of situations in Midtown or in Cal/Ventura. So our sense is that,
given the difficulty of the area, and given the other factors and just
given time and resources, we have placed this one further down on the list
and are saying, let’s do it after the Comprehensive Plan. We would all
like to tackle the area, but it is going to be a major undertaking.
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I move the staff recommendation,and Ido
agree that while many of us do feel that the area needs help, we do not
know, at this point, what the help should be. Staff will not be able to
address the area in the near term, so our only real option is to keep it
as it is now, and wait until after the Comprehensive Plan is completed
before addressing it.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
.Fommissioner Carrasco: I am going to vote against the motion because I
think this area deserves to be looked at most immediately. From my
listening to the residents of the city, the most I hear about areas that
need study and upgrading is this area around South El Camino. I think we
should do it, at least concurrently with Midtown.
MOTIQN PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? We have a motion to accept the staff recommendation, as stated on
Page 3, dealing with Change Area #10, South El. Camino Real, which is
essentially to maintain the current land use designation, and which has
been identified for an area plan study after completion of the
Comprehensive Plan. All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That
passes on a vote of 5~I, with Commissioner Carrasco opposed.
07/12/95
-31-
CHANGE AREA #11 -CALIFORNIA AVENUE o VENTURA AREA.
Chairman Ojakian: T~e staff recommendation is to retain current land use
designations.
Mr. Schreiber: The Cal/Ventura area, another one of the CPAC workshop
areas, is an area where we have recommended to the council that an area
plan be done, and that it be done as part of the preparation of the draft
plan. The council has not acted on that. I am not sure if that will come
up this Saturday, when the council has a Saturday session on Community
Design, or whether it will come up when the council takes up the Maximart
issue, which will be sometime after their vacation when they return in
September. At this point in time, we would recommend that an area plan be
undertaken for that area, and that it be a way of trying to sort out the
land use issues in that area.
Chairman O~akian: Thank you. Are there any questions or a motion?
MOTION: .~.om~iss.~oner Cassel: I will move the staff recommendation.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
Chairman Ojakian: For Change Area #11, we have a motion to move the staff
recommendation to retain current land use designations pending completion
of an area plan. Is there any further discussion?
~Commissioner Carrasco: I have the same comment as I did for Area #10.
While I think this is an important area to study, I feel that the South El
Camino area is a far more important one to study. I think we should do
that one ahead of this one. I cannot see why~ we are going forward with
this study ahead of the other one within Phase III of the Comprehensive
Plan. However, I will vote for it.
Commis...sioner Schink: I can appreciate what Tony is saying, however, I
feel that this specific area is probably one of the best areas for us to
try a specific area plan soon, because wehave some major, large property
owners to whom we could look to help support the cost. We know that
redevelopment is fairly eminent, so we could recover the cost. It has all
of the ingredients for the experiment to take place here first, so while I
appreciate Tony’s frustration with those areas that really need it, I
think the ingredients are present for it to happen here first.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with Jon’s statement. Also, it is close to
public transportation.
MOTIONPASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further, discussion on this
motion? Again, the motion by Commissioner Cassel and seconded by
Commissioner Schmidt is to accept the staff recommendation for Change Area
#11 as is. All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a
vote of 6-0.
CHANGE AREA #12 -ALMA PLAZA AND SOUTH CENTRAL ALMA FRONTAGE.
Mr. Schreiber: Alma Plaza is designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the
Comprehensive Plan. There was some discussion in the CPAC process as to
what would happen if this area were redeveloped, a mixed use, etc. It is
.07/!2/95
not a very large site to begin with. Staff’s conclusion is that Alma
Plaza should stay Neighborhood Commercial. Therefore we are not
recommending any change for it nor for the rest of the areas. There is a
little bit of other Neighborhood Commercial lands, also some
Multiple-Family Residential. We see no need for change in this area.
~b.Birman Ojakian: If it remains as Neighborhood Commercial, and for some
reason, Lucky decided to expand their store at their site, could they go
ahead and do that?
M~... ~.phr~iber: ~Alma Plaza is a Planned Community zone, so there would
need to be the zone change process, but the Neighborhood Commercial land
use designation would allow continuation and modification of that type of
food store use.
Ms. LYtle: The size limitation on grocery stores is a limitation that is
only in the permitted use category. You can go beyond it with a
conditional use permit, so even with a CN designation, you have the
ability to expand a neighborhood grocery store.
MOTION: Fommissioner Carrasco: I move the staff recommendation.for Alma
Plaza with no changes.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman 10jakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? We have a motion and second to approve the staff recommendations
for Change Area #12,which is to have no land use designation change. All
those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0.
CHANGE AREA #13 - VACANT PAGE MILL/EL CAMINO REAL SITE AND ADJACENT EL
CAMINO REAL FRONTAGE.
Br..., Schre...ibe.r: The vacant site at Page MillRoad, which is about six
acres, is designated Multiple-Family Residential in the Land Use Plan
Map. Staff has concluded that this is a site that would be quite
appropriate for a commercial hotel. This recommendation is not a new
one. It has found its way into various recommendations on policies and
programs. The concern, of course, is thatin the longer-term, Rickey’s
may not remain as a commercial hotel for the indefinite future. This is a
site that we feel could support that type of use. It would be an
appropriate location. So we have recommended changing the land use
designation on the vacant area from Multiple-Family Residential to
Commercial Hotel.
Commercial Hotel is a new land use category that we are recommending. The
value of Commercial Hotel versus a broader commercial designation, Service
Commercial or Regional Community Commercial, for example, is found in the
lower traffic generation qualities of a hotel, as well as the public
benefit to the city of a hotel use. So we do not take lightly the change
of any land out of Multipl~-Family Residential, but we feel that in this
case, there are some tradeoffs regarding a commercial hotel that would
make that acceptable for the city. We have also concluded that th~s site,
as a Multiple-Family Residential site, has some major obstacles t0~that
type of development. That would be both the traffic and noise from the
roadways on both sides, as well as the underlying toxic condition which
07/12/95
-33-
will make extensive underground parking quite difficult to do. This site
is right on the edge of the center of the Superfund site. As such, it has
some rather significant concentrations of underground toxics which will be
there for quite a few years before that can all be cleaned up. So for all
of those reasons, we have recommended Commercial Hotel.
The remainder of the frontage along El Cam/no is designated as Service
Commercial at this time, and we do not recommend any changes to that. It
is only for the vacant site on the corner.
Chairman..........Ojakian: How did CPAC designate this particular area?
Ms. Eakins: It was identified as a potential hotel site.
Commissioner Carrasco: But I think there was considerable disagreement on
CPAC. It was not a simple decision. There was a minority opinion on this
one. Also, I believe that the planning commission, during its last review
of land use issues, recommended to the council that they not add this as a
hotel site.
Chairman..........Ojakian: I am not certain about that.
Bs. Lytle: I will look it up.
MOTION: Fommissioner Schink: I move that we hold this item over for a
public hearing.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
Chairman Ojakian: We have a motion and second to hold over Change Area
#13 for a future public hearing on it.
.CQmmissioner.. Schink: This issue has obviously been discussed quite a bit
in public through theCPAC process, but I don’t think the real question
has been formalized and put on the table as a strong possibility that it
is going to be included. So this is a good time to get it out, run it up
the flag pole, and see what people have to say.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would support Jon’s comments, also. It would be
very useful to discuss this publicly to a greater extent than we have.
Commissioner. Beecham: On the one hand, I agree with that, but on the
other hand, I believe this has been addressed much more atthe city
council level than here at the planning commission level. They have
expressly talked about h~ving a major hotel site there, and have talked
with staff on how to proceed. So for me, it has been given enough public
addressing on this issue. So I do not feel the need for us, at this
point, to request public noticing on this item.
Commissioner Cassel: When we were brainstorming some time ago, the idea
came up for this site to be open space. We all laughed, but we have been
talking about taking out some open space toward the downtown area. I hate
to lose a housing site, as you know, but I do not see this as a
particularly good housing site. The ingress and egress problems would be
considerable at this site. It is supposed to be a nice entryway to the
Stanford Research Park. They want it to be a pleasant entryway, and it
07/12/95
-34-
could be done with open space and park space, exchanging some other spaces
that we wanted to be more densely developed. So I think that idea should
be out on the table. Thatcorner could use some very low intensity uses
to help with transportation problems. It is a major thoroughfare, and we
do not want to add more people at any intense levels stopping and
starting. Some open space and a ball park in there might help.
Commissioner Carrasco: I feel the same as Phyllis does. I will vote for
the motion, because I feel it needs additional study.
Chairman Oj.akian: Do we have an answer to that question as to how the
commission voted on this item?
Ms. Lyt]e: Under the Business and Economics Section, you changed the word
"facilitate" this site as a hotel to "evaluate," but you did keep the
policy in as an A, so it was recommended. We do not have the decision in
the Community Design Section, but I could look it up. I assume you were
consistent in your actions.
Chairman Ojakian: I support the comments of Commissioner Schink in making
the motion and will vote for the motion.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? The motion dealing with Change Area #13, made by Commissioner
Schink and seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, is to.notice this particular
area for a future planning commission public hearing. All those in favor,
say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-I with Commissioner
Beecham being the sole dissenting vote.
CHANGE AREA #14 -SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL, CHARLESTON TO SOUTH CITY.LIMITS.
Mr. Schreiber: There are two sites in this area that have been
identified, from staff’s standpoint, as land use plan changes we would
like to see pursued. One is a site that is already in process, the Palo
Alto Hyatt site, the former Cabafia Hyatt site. We are in the early stages
of preparing an environmental impact report on a proposed residential
reuse of that 10-acre site. The reuse has Single-Family Residential to
the rear and Multiple-Family Residential on the front. The staff
recommendation for that site is that if it is not redesignated prior to
preparation of the draft plan, that the draft plan would change the site
from Service Commercial to a combination of Single-Family Residential and
Multiple-Family Residential.
The second is the Rickey’s Hyatt site. Rickey’s Hyatt is the large
Service Commercial zone parcel on the overhead screen. It is CS(H).
There has certainly been some discussion in the community about the
longevity of Rickey’s as a hotel use on that site. The sense is-that that
use is not likely to be a long-term.use. Given the traffic considerations
at that location, given the traffic considerations along Charleston and
Arastradero and the residential portions of those areas, given the
closeness to Single-Family Residential on Wilkie Way, we ha~e come up with
a staff recommendation that contains several features for this property.
One is along Wilkie Way at the back, the recommendation would be to
designate a strip of land for Single-Family Residential consistent with
the way the city,at the strong urging of the neighborhood association,
07/12/95
°35-
treated the adjacent Elks’ Club site in the Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study of 1989, where there was a 100-foot depth of
Single-Family Residential to the rear of that site.
The second is that on the corner of Charleston and El Camino, that the
city designate a Commercial Hotel site for either the corner or for
somewhere on that site. Our sense is that a residential suites type of
commercial hotel would both fit with redevelopment of that site and should
be strongly encouraged by the city, both in terms of the need for hotel
rooms, the impact of the loss of Rickey’s, if it closes, which we
certainly do not want to encourage, but it is reality to assume that. The
loss of that as a set of facilities in the city, and also, the transient
occupancy tax. If it could be replaced, in part, by a residential suites
hotel, that would, in some sense, offset the loss of the existing hotel
rooms.
The remainder of the site would be designated for Multiple-Family
Residential or Village Residential, so the bulk of the 15-acre site would
be in Multiple-Family Residential or Village Residential, with Village
Residential being a high-density, single-family/low-density
multiple-family type use, with 15, 16 units per acre, and 17 or 18 as a
maximum, small lots, single-family, perhaps some duplexes, lower-density
townhouse uses. That combination of single-family at the back with
predominantly Village Residential Multiple-Family with the Commercial
Hotel would be the staff recommendation.
Chairman Ojakian: Does anyone want to make a~motion? Let us take these
two topics separately. The first one deals with the Palo Alto Hyatt site.
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: Since we have had substantial public
discussion on this earlier when the project came before us, I am satisfied
to let this go forward to the draft plan and not have any further public
comment at this point, and I so move.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
MOTION PAS~..ES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? We have a motion to accept the staff recommendation on Change
Area #14 dealing with the Palo Alto Hyatt site, made by Commissioner
Beecham and seconded by Commissioner Schink. All those in favor, say
Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0.
The second item we have deals with Rickey’s Hyatt site regarding potential
single-family development on part of the site and Commercial Hotel on
another part of the site. Are there any questions on this?
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I suggest that we notice this, since there
has not been extensive public discussion on this particular
recommendation. I therefore move that we notice it, along with the other
projects we have talked about.
SECOND: By Commissioner Carrasco.
MOTION PASS..ES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? We havea motion on the second item under Change Area #14 dealing
with the Rickey’s Hyatt site to notice it for a future public meeting.
All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0.
Commissioner Carrasco: Nancy, I have eyeballed that big row of trees that
you have suggested we zone R-I. It seems to me that that row of trees is
somewhere between 20 and 30 feet back from the front property line. If
you suggest a 100-foot-deep R-I zone with a 20-foot setback, it means that
all of those trees get wiped out. I would suggest that for the public
hearing, that you measure where those trees are, and make it 100+ feet.
One hundred fifty feet seems more reasonable, with perhaps a 30- or
40-foot front yard setback so we can save those trees.
M~.- Lytle: So that they would essentially be street trees.
Commissioner Schink: That is precisely the issue I wanted to speak to,
also. Tony, I think you have perhaps taken it a step further thanwe may
need to go. I think that because the landscaping has been so successful
there, this may be a situation where it just does not warrant putting
single-family on Wilkie Way. We could just keep the higher density there,
and assume that the landscaping is going todo the job..
Mr. Schreiber: I would hope that that would be the case. In the Citywide
Study of 1988-B99, when we wrestled with the Elks’ Club site, and the Elks
Club site was changed to Multiple-Family Residential, staff made a
recommendation that it be Multiple-Family Residential with an L-strip,
that is, that the zoning be a landscape restriction on the back. The
immediate neighbors objected vehemently to that, and insisted (and the
city agreed) that the land be designated as Single-Family Residential,
rather than a L-strip to preserve the landscaping. It was one of the more
perplexing times that I have had, sitting in this chamber, trying to
wrestle with it, trying to explain that issue and watching the reactions
to that.
~qmmi...ssioner Carrasco: Then Single-Family and the landscaping would be
the best of both worlds, perhaps.
Commissioner Schink: The landscaping behind the Elks Club is not quite as
strong as it is here.
Mr. Sch~eib.er: Not quite, but it is very substantial there. It is very
thick.
Commi..ssi...one~ Schink: It sounds like we might be in for an interesting
party. It should be held.
Chairman Ojakian: I guess we will hear what people said in 1989, if they
are going to say it again in 1995. Times have changed a bit, and maybe
opinions have changed, and maybe the players have changed. I agree with
the motion. It is worth having the meeting again.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Ojakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? The motion in front of us, dealing with Change Area #14, made by
Commissioner Schmidt and seconded by Commissioner Carrasco, is to look at
the Rickey’s Hyatt site area, and publicly notice that area for a future
planning commission meeting. All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed?
That passes on a vote of 6-0.
07/12/95
-37-
Chairman Ojakian: That takes us through the 14 designated areas. The
only remaining things to cover are four other sites on Pages 4 and 5 of
the staff report that are possible areas for discussion and not part of
change areas. Also, commissioners may have additional areas they wish to
bring up for discussion tonight.
Commissi...oner Cassel: If we are going to be noticing things, on the basis
that people have not had a chance to discuss them, these should be added
to the list. These are all areas that no one has talked about, such as
1795 to 1885 El Camino Real, the mental health building to
multiple-family, which sounds neat to me. There is La Cumbre to
multiple-family and/or commercial hotel. And also San Antonio Road. What
is the difference between a commercial hotel and any other hotel?
~r. S.chreiber: By commercial hotel, we mean a new land use designation
that would be Commercial Hotel. It would be a very precise land use
designation.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I would like to include the four sites as
being noticed for public discussion.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
~OTION PASSES: Chairman Qjakian: Is there any further discussion on this
motion? The motion by Commissioner Cassel, seconded by Commissioner
Schmidt, is to take the four areas on Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report,
and notice them for public hearing. All those in favor, say Aye? All
opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-0.
Is there any other change area that anyone wants to bring up? (There were
none). I believe what we stated earlier for this stage is that the
remaining policy questions will be continued to our next meeting on
Wednesday, July 26th.
~s. Lytle: That is correct, and we recommend that we put the site and
design item first so that the people who are there for that item can have
that handled, with this as the second item, even though it is unfinished
business, if that is acceptable.
Commissioner Schmidt: We mentioned earlier that we had a long list of
housing sites. I am not sure where we ended up with those, but was it
that the housing sites that we just mentioned as ones that we.want to be
noticed, were those distilled from that long list, saying that some of
those that were on thelist were~many, many years out because of multiple
reasons, so the ones that are suggested here are the ones most likely to
have potential in the new Comprehensive Plan, therefore, unless we bring
up those other housing sites, we would not be adding anything else. Is
that correct?
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, it is. Staff went through those lists numerous
times, and we.came up with our recommendations. If there i~anything else
you wish to add, they certainly could be, but we have tried to work over
those lists pretty carefully.
Commissioner Schmidt: If anyone wanted to go through that list between
now and next week and suggest something, they could do so? (Yes)
07/12/95
Chairman Ojakian: That concludes these items.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
(Discussion followed about a representative to the city council discussion
on the Community Design Section on Saturday, July 15. Commissioner
Carrasco was elected.)
AGENDA ITEM 2 Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.
(No action)
AGENDA ITEM 3 Reports on Council Actions.
(No action)
ADJOURNMENT: The planning commission meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
07/12/95
-39-
Wednesday, September 13, 1995
Regular Meeting
PLANNING COMMISSIO N
MINUTES
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE O~N GONVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
EXCERPT MINUTES
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
I. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 26, 1995.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COMPREHENSIVE LAND LAND USE CHANGES
(VARIOUS LOCATIONS):
Introductory Comments and Commission Questions
Public Hearing
Area 4 -- 491-493 Charleston Road and
4201-4227 El Camino Real
Area I -- Vacant Land at Southeast Corner of
Intersection of El Camino Real and
Quarry Road
Area 7 -- 3901-3981 El Camino Real
2
3-8
8-21
22-30
30-37
37
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS
3.PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM: List of potential or current
work assignments primarily for staff in the Advanced Planning
Section to be undertaken in 1995-96.
4.ANNUAL RETREAT
5.PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES FOR NEXT TWO YEARS
37
43
43
J. Sl ocum
09/13/95
The planning commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday,
September 13, 1995 at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Vice Chairman
Carrasco presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present-
Absent:
Commissioners Carrasco, Cassel, Eakins, Schink and Schmidt ¯
Commissioners Beecham and Ojakian
Staff Present:Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official
Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney
James Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community
Environment
COMMUNICATIONS
Vice ’rman Carrasco: The first item on our agenda is Oral
Communl ~1ons, when any member of the. public may speak to any item that
is not e Agenda. At this time, I would like to give members of the
public an o rtunity to add other areas to be considered. I will allow
one minute ~scribe why the planning commission might want to consider
adding other
Michael Couch~ 560 =ord Avenue, Palo Alto: I am not asking to be
agendized tonight,se you have a very full agenda. Staff was nice
enough to include a that I had written previously. Briefly, we had
a downzoning that occt My father was "asleep at the switch" when it
occurred. We are just tr to be proactive about our nonconforming
use. We have an office which does have a professional office use
on it at 560 Oxford Avenue.~at sense, we are conforming, but at some
future time, we would like to con having a higher density than two
units. That is all I want to say.night, you have much too full an
agenda to bring this up, but at some :ure time, I would like to revisit
it.
Raymond Handley~........2500 El Camino Real Palo ~o: I am one of the owners
of Dinah’s Garden Hotel. We are requesting the staff give
consideration to including us in the new zoni signation for commercial
hotels. This would affect the properties at 4261 ~369 and 4271 El Camino
Real, as well as 4331 Dinah’s Court. Thank you ver ~uch.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Seeing no other speakers, we
item.
go to the next
AGENDA ITEM I Approval of Minutes of July 26th Planning Commi "on
meeting.
Commissioner Schink: I will abstain as I was not present at that
Commissioner Schmidt: I do not believe we have enough commissioners
present to approve the minutes. Only two of us can approve them.
ing.
09/13/95
-2-
~We can continue this item over to the next meeting.
MOTION: Comm-’i’S’~4~er Cassel: I move to continue this item to the next
meeting.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
MOTION PASSES: Vi~asco." All t~or, say Aye? All
opposed? "T’-~-~t p~sses on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioner~amand
Ojakian absent. . ........
AGENDA ITEM 2 DISCUSSION OFPOSS!BLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP
CHANGES (VARIOUS LOCATIONS)
Vice Chairman Carrasco:This hearing actually involves eight different
areas, as listed in the agenda. I will ask Ken Schreiber to give us a
brief overview of these areas for the commission tonight.
Mr. Schreiber: First, regarding the two requests submitted during Oral
Communications, the request from Mr. Handley was accompanied by a memo
from.him that is at your places. If the commission agrees, what staff
will do is to schedule Mr. Handley’s and Mr. Couch’s requests for a
followup public hearing on October 11.
Regarding the agenda item tonight, I would like to give a little
background and a short commentary on the areas. As far as background, I
feel it is important to clarify where we are in terms of the Comprehensive
Plan update process. About ayear ago, the planning commission considered
and made recommendations on a series of recommended goals, policies and
programs for the new Comprehensive Plan. The recommendations came out of"
the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). The city council
started taking, up those recommendations last November, and they still have
more to go. It has been a very thick pack of material for them to go
through, and they have been going through it very carefully, so that
process is continuing on.
The point of the process where we are currently is for the council to
identify what should go into a draft plan which would then be the subject
of environmental review, and later be the subject of extensive public
hearings and public reviews. We are not amending the Comprehensive Plan
tonight. We are a long way away from amending the Comprehensive Plan.
This is one part of the process for trying to determine what a new plan
would look like and what it would contain. The commission started
reviewing land use map issues after they completed the Goals, Policies and
Programs. You started late last year, and concluded that you wished to do
some field work, some site investigations, and you held a number of
workshops, study sessions, and field trips. In June, you took up the
overall staff report dealing with potential land use changes. Those
potential land use changes came from a wide variety of sources. Some came
out of CPAC, some were identified by staff, some were submitted by the
public, plus a variety of other sources. There was a rather long list of
potential land use map changes.
The commission made some recommendations in July and August which will be
09/13/95
-3-
taken up by the council after they have finished the material already in
front of them. There were eight additional items on which you wanted to
have a public hearing to receive further input from the public before
making any recommendations. So this is a more site-specific public
hearing than the first round, which was a public hearing on the staff
report which contained a very long list of items. There are eight items
scheduled for the commission tonight. In the correspondence in front of
you, there are requests for continuation on two of the items. One is Area
#6, 231 Grant Avenue. That request is from the mental health agency that
occupies that site. They would like to have more time to respond to the
request. The other request is from the owner of 560 San Antonio Road. He
talked to me this week; he was not able to be in attendance tonight. I
said I would emphasize his request at the meeting, which isalso for
continuation and a chance to come back and talk to the commission about
that, hopefully next month.
There are a total of eight items. Area #I is vacant land of approximately
5.5 acres along Quarry Road between El Camino and Hoover Pavilion. This
site first came to staff’s attention as part of Stanford University’s Sand
Hill corridor outreach efforts that Were undertaken in the spring of
1994. The site was subsequently designated by Stanford in its own
internal land use process as an appropriate site for housing. Staff
concurs with that, and staff would recommend, in this case, that the land
be considered further for a Multiple-Family Residential housing
designation. The Multiple-Family designation can come in one of two
ways. A straight, Multiple-Family designation would imply annexation to
the city with availability of the housing for the general market. We also
had a Major Institution/University Land/Campus Multiple-Family land use
designation. That is essentially a Multiple-Family designation for
unincorporated Stanford lands, lands that are proposed or currently being
used for campus-related housing. As the commission and public are quite
aware, Stanford provides an extensive amount of on-site housing, not only
for students but for faculty and staff, as well. Some of that is
multiple-family in nature, and that would be another option for this site.
If it were developed as Campus Multiple-Family housing, there would need
to be a use permit under county zoning. Theland would have to go through
a discretionary process. If it were multiple-family land anticipated to
be developed in the city, it would have to go through an annexation
process, and then reviewed as any other development project in the city
would in terms of design and other appropriate reviews.
Area #2 is the Spangler School Site on Middlefield Road at Charleston
Road. We have two county sites on the list. In neither case are we privy
to inside information nor are we trying to encourage the county to sell or
trying to discourage the services that now go on at the school site. In
this case, however, we have had any number of inquiries over the last
couple of years from the county and others regarding the potential
development of this site. There have been casual comments and
discussions, and staff felt it was worth putting this site into the
process. The commission felt it was worthwhile to hold a hearing on this
site. Our recommendation for this site is e÷ther a Village Residential
category or Multiple-Family Residential. Village Residential is a new
category that the commission-approved, with the name to be changed and the
new name not yet decided. Essentially, it is a low-density, multiple-
family or a higher density single-family type of housing area with smaller
09/13/95
-4-
lots. In either case, something in the range of 15 to 20 units per acre
was the type of thinking that has gone on with staff regarding this site.
Area #3 is the vacant land at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill
Road. It is currently designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
Multiple-Family Residential. That designation was made in the early
1980s. Staff has concluded that for this site, it is most appropriate for
a hotel use. We have reiterated that recommendation often in this
process. We have reached that conclusion both because of its proximity to
the Stanford Research Park and El Camino Real, and also some environmental
factors. When we designated this for housing in the early 1980s,
underground toxics were not of any concern. This is now known to have a
significant amount of underground toxic material flowing underneath the
site. It is adjacent to a federal superfund toxic cleanup site. We think
that over the course of these last 14 years, we have learned a lot. This
site, for both environmental reasons and for economic reasons, is best
suited for a commercial hotel. Certainly, part of that thinking, but by
no means all, relates to the value of hotel facilities in Palo Alto to
both the business community and the general public, as well as to the City
of Palo Alto as a revenue source. That has been one factor that has been
present in terms of the recommended use for a hotel.
Area #4 is approximately a 15-acre area at the corner of Charleston Road
and El Camino Real. It is essentially Rickey’s Hyatt site, except for the
hair salon on a small parcel on Charleston Road. This site has been
brought forward by staff, because we have received repeated inquiries from
the development community, along with rumors and speculation that Rickey’s
is not likely to be in operation for at least the next 15 years of this
Comprehensive Plan, and probably not in operation for a significant part
of that period. We have no formal information from the Hyatt Corporation
regarding the closing of Rickey’s, but we felt that with all of the
discussions that have taken place, the Comprehensive Plan process is an
appropriate place to set out a land use policy. An alternative, of
course, is to let things stay as they are, and then if Rickey’s does close
and a development proposal comes in, we would react to that. But if there
were a strong desire on thepart of the city to set out future policy,
this would be an opportunity to do it. We are in no way trying to
discourage the continuation of the hotel use, but we have had such
repeated indications from numerous sources that the private development
community does not anticipate this site being in a hotel use for an
extended period of time.
The staff recommendation before you is slightly different from the
recommendation that was in the June staff report. You will note on the
screen that in regard to the Elks Club property, the back area is
designated as Single-Family Residential. That designation was applied in
the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study when the Elks Club
site was designated as Multiple-Family Residential, and the back went to
Single-Family. That designation was instituted in strong response to very
vehement neighborhood feelings about wanting Single-Family on Wilkie Way.
The initial ~taff recommendation was to continue that pattern along Wilkie
Way to the corner of Charleston Road. Staff’s revised recommendation is
to have all of the back area be designated either Village Residential or
Multiple-Family Residential, with the policy that the area along Wilkie
Way, currently zoned L (Landscape Combining zone) and along Charleston, be
09/13/95
-5-
retained. You have some substantial trees in that area. To designate
that for single-family development with driveways out to Wilkie Way, I
cannot imagine how that could be developed without cutting down many of
the trees in the area. From our standpoint, the maintenance of the trees
and the L overlay, which does not allow any type of paving, driveways,
etc., without a use permit, provides much better protection to the
adjacent neighborhood than opening that area up for a series of
single-family lots. That is why our initial recommendation was consistent
with 1989, but in going out there and looking at all of the trees, we
decided to revise the recommendation. Our recommendation for the entire
site is that we should retain a hotel designation on the three to five
acres of the corner area at El Camino and Charleston. The staff.report
identifies a number of reasons for that. So our recommendation is to
establish a commercial hotel designation at the corner, and designate the
rest of it either Multiple-Family Residential or Village Residential,
again with a policy to have the Landscape Combining District designation
applied to Wilkie Way and the bulk of the Charleston frontage, thereby
protecting those substantial trees.
Area #5, 1795-1885 El Camino Real,.is an area along El Camino Real close
to Park Boulevard, one property down from the former Grecian Health Spa,
now the Duncan Insurance Building at the corner of El Camino and Park
.Boulevard. Going south from there, there is a vacant site, then a Foster
Freeze, with several more vacant sites. Because three of the four
properties are vacant and because there is Multiple-Family Residential at
the rear of part of that area, and El Camino is less intense than in the
commercial areas, we felt that this area was suitable for multiple-family
development and was, in fact, not likely to be considered a prime retail
area, even. with the current commercial zoning. So again, we recommend
Multiple-Family Residential here.
Area #6 is 231 Grant Avenue, an area requested for a continuance. It is a
Santa Clara County facility in the California Avenue business area. The
building has been occupied by a number of mental health facilities. With
the ongoing cutback of county services, those services have decreased and
have become more tenuous. In no way do we want to discourage those
facilities, in fact, we have fought in the past to try and maintain them,
but in the longer term, this struck us as a very viable multiple-family
site. It would certainly be appropriate, in the Comprehensive Plan
process, to consider that further. If the county is going to dispose of
that site, we would set some land use policy in place ahead of time,
rather than reacting after something came to us.
Area #7, 3901-3981 El Camino Real, is another area where the staff
recommendation has changed from what you saw in June. Of all the areas,
this. is the one that probably deserves the title "oddball." To give you a
briefbit of history on it, if you go back 25 years, we had multiple-
family zoning in Palo Alto that allowed a variety of commercial uses, such
as professional offices and motels. What you have here are sites such as
the El Rancho Motel at 3901 El Camino, plus three other motels, all of.
which have the preponderance of their land designated Multiple-Family. So
the Multiple-Family and Commercial zoning splits the parcels. Staff would
really like to see the motels retained. We also have three parcels in
here that are 100 percent commercial. The former La Cumbre property which
is now vacant, plus a pool supply and the German Auto business are the
other two parcels. Staff started out suggesting that these go to
Multiple-Family Residential. We debated it in staff discussions, and as
you can tell from the staff report, it is one of those situations where
you can argue any side of the issue that you want to in terms of going to
Multiple-Family Residential, or keeping it the way it is. We do not
suggest going to an expanded commercial designation for these sites. If
one of the four motel sites were to redevelop, we certainly want to retain
the Multiple-Family Residential lands now available. We did have a
proposal on the Mayflower some years ago which was never implemented
except that the zoning was changed for a part of it to RM-40. That is why
you have that little block of RM-40 there. That was for a specific
development proposal with some commercial on the front and residential at
the back. This is one of those strange, historic situations that came out
of previous zoning ordinances.
Area #8, 450-560 San Antonio Road, is the last area for consideration
tonight. Again, going back 20 years, where the Rosewalk is now located,
it was zoned Limited Manufacturing. Where the San Antonio Village site
now is, the zoning was also Limited Manufacturing. You have the Toyota
site on the corner. Going back even further, I have a hunch that even
that was LM before my days with the department. So there was
nonresidential all along San Antonio. You now have substantial
residential in these locations (indicating on screen). There are four
parcels in this area that are remnants of the earlier zoning. While we
again would not try to institute any kind of amortization on this, it
strikes us that in the grand scheme of things, given the residential
zoning on four sides and the age of the buildings and the sense that over
the course of time, one or more of these may well redevelop, setting in
place a Multiple-Family Residential land use desi.gnation would be amore
favorable land use policy than continuing the Limited Manufacturing,
allowing redevelopment under that type of zoning designation. This also
is the area where the property owner at 560 San Antonio Road, the smallest
of the sites, has requested to be continued as he cannot be present
tonight. You have received letter from him and from some of his tenants,
as well.
That completes the eight areas. We will be glad to respond to any
questions.
Commissioner Schink: Ken, can you explain to us what will happen to these
properties if the rezoning occurs?
Mr. $chreiber: Let me go back to where we are in the process. What is in
front of the commission tonight is a land use recommendation as part of
Phase 2 of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Your recommendations
will go to the council for consideration, hopefully before the end of the
year. The council actions regarding Goals, Policies and Programs, as well
as the land use map, will be compiled by staff into a draft Comprehensive
Plan, on which a draft environmental impact report will be prepared. That
will be subject to extensive review in the second half of 1996,
hopefully. If the land use map is changed at the end of that process, one
year plus from now, then a followup item would be to change the zoning
designation. So the zoning flows out of the land use-category. The
zoning is not likely to be changed until sometime early in 1997. Staff
says these things with some caution, as this process has continued~to~ake
longer than we had anticipated or hoped. But it will certainly be at
least 1997before we consider any changes to the zoning. That would only
09113/95
-7-
be after adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would like to take that a little further. If the
zoning is changed on my piece of property, how does that affect my use if
I have a commercial property there? If I have a different use and it
ultimately changes to residential, can I continue my use?
Mr. Schreiber: The city. has historically used an amortization process
where we have given nonconforming uses a certain time limit, generally a
minimum of 15 years, to cease operations and have the use of the site
conform to the zoning. The commission discussed the amortization issue at
your last meeting, and recommended that we keep that tool in the toolbox
but not rely on it as extensively as the city has done in the past. So at
this point in time, I would say that the tendency would probably be to not
use amortization but instead, put zoning in place and hopefully, the
market, over the course of time, would result in the change of use without
any type of city forcing of the action. Becoming a nonconforming use
under the zoning ordinance means that the ability to expand that use is
severely limited. Expansion would have to be in conformance with the
zoning generally. Normal regular maintenance of a property can continue
on. There is no limitation on that. The major limitation is on.expansion
of the structure, and that is not generally allowed. Also, the general
rule is that if you demolish the building, you cannot rebuild it. That is
not always the rule. There are a few exceptions to that, but essentially,
if the building is demolished or removed, for whatever reason, any new
construction would need to be in conformance with the zoning regulations.
Commissioner Cassel: If we continue those two items, Areas 6 and 8,
people could still speak to them tonight, could they not, since it has
been noticed? We would not take action on them tonight, but hold a public
hearing at the October 11 meeting.
V~ce.....Chairman Carrasco: Does .the commission feel we can continue Area #6
(Grant Avenue) and Area #8 (San Antonio) to October 11?
Mr. Schreiber: What I believe I heard from Commissioner Cassel is that
members of the public could speak tonight, which we would encourage them
to do, since they may not be able to come back another night, and that you
would keep the public hearing on those items open until October 11 to
allow people to speak to those items at that time if they do not speak
tonight. I certainly think that would be an appropriate action, given the
request that you have received. It is clear that (I) You are keeping the
public hearing open tonight; (2) People can speak tonight; and (3) If they
speak tonight, they would not be able to speak again. They do not get a
chance to "double dip" in terms of the public process.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: We will now hear from members of the public. ~The
first speaker wishes to address Items A, B, D, E, F and H.
Sally Probst~ 735 Coastland Avenue~ Palo Altn: Good evening. The League
of Women Voters of Palo Alto is gratified that CPAC, with the assistance
of the City of Palo Alto planning staff, has identified a number of land
parcel~ in Palo Alto which they recommend be rezoned for residential use.
The League continues to believe that availability of diverse housing
Opportunities is essential for a healthy community. The current Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the CHAS/Consolidated Plans for
09/13/95
-8-
several years have documented our shortage of affordable housing, and
cited the lack of sufficient residential building sites as a major barrier
to providing the needed housing in the city. Therefore, we urge you, the
planning commission, to view positively all the proposed changes of land
use designation to residential zoning and to recommend their further
consideration.
Some of the recommended parcels are not, as we all know, currently
vacant. Nevertheless, rezoning at this time will make clear the city’s
intent for their future, thus helping to ensure their eventual conversion
to housing. The League commends CPAC’s efforts to plan for additional
housing in the new Comprehensive Plan. Now we urge the planning
commission to follow through by constructively evaluating the land use
designation/zoning change proposals which are before you tonight. Thank
you.
William Peterson, 228 Fulton Street~ Palo Alto: I want to speak about
Areas I, 3 and 5. Area #I (intersection of El Camino and Quarry Road)
came up as part of the Dream Team and part of the Stanford study for
residential use. I strongly support the conversion of this to residential
use. I heard rumors that Stanford is having second thoughts. I hope it
is not true. I also support Area #5 - 1795 El Camino. I think that is a
wise use and a wise change. I want to spend most of my time talking about
Area #3, the hotel site at El Camino and Page Mill Road. Today, there are
about 345,000 cars a day that go through El Camino, and about 35,000 that
go through on Page Mill Road. At rush hour, it is not uncommon for
somebody to have to sit through two or three light cycles to get through
there. A hotel will generate between 2,000 and 3,000 trips per day,
mostly at peak time when they have a conference there. There is no way
you can add this amount of traffic to this intersection without spending
about $15 million to build a big urban interchange there. The money for
that will not come from the extra money from the hotel.
The original reason that came up for this was for conference space. If
the city wants to subsidize conference space, perhaps the best way to do
that would be to use your fancy computer system, set up a worldwide web
site, and donate some of your staff time and the planning commission to
coordinate the selling of church rental space for business conferences.
Everybody could win. Churches could make some money, and maybe you could
even rent out this conference room in the middle of the day, and the city
could make a little bit of money out of that. We don’t need an edifice
complex, a big edifice subsidized by a lot of cars to provide more meeting
space. We just need coordination.
My final poin~ is that the staff recommendation.about underground toxics
limiting underground parking is specious. If the high-density housing
were to be limited by the unavailability of underground parking because of
the toxics, if that is true for residential housing, it is also true for
hotel housing. So let me say that the traffic is bad in Palo Alto. This
site will make things worse. Putting a hotel on it will make it a whole
lot worse. I think you are best off leaving it residential.
Curtis Feeny~ 2770 Sand Hill Road~ Menlo Park: I am with the Stanford
Management Company, and I am here tonight to speak to Area #3, the Page
Mill/El Camino hotel site. I would briefly like to summarize the Stanford
Management Company position on this site. Stanford definitely supports
09/13/95
-9-
the city staff recommendation for this site being a hotel use. We support
the city’s efforts that have been ongoing towards a hotel massing study
and assessment of this site for a hotel use. Our reasons are primarily
because of the Stanford Research Park. With a large base of employees,
many of whom live in the Palo Alto area, and 150 companies actively
engaged in business in Palo Alto, supporting the city in many ways in
addition to the tax base, we need to address the weaknesses of the park
and build on its strengths. The glaring weakness of Stanford Research
Park which it has had for some time is a lack of services. There is not a
better use, in terms, of bringing services to the park, than a hotel, and
there is not a better location than this site.
A hotel would answer the services question in a number of ways.-First of
all, the rooms for company employees and residents of the area would be
very close to where they live and where they work. The meeting rooms
would be servicing both the companies in the park, as well as the
community at large. Interms of meeting rooms, if Rickey’s Hyatt were to
close, the only hotel meeting room in town that can handle over 300 people
in a meeting would be gone. This is a site that could conceivably take
the place of that. So we consistently have feedback from virtually all of
the tenants in the research park and most of the individuals I have talked
to in the research park, requesting more services for the park. This, of
course, is the front door to the park.
I would like to talk a little about whether a hotel can be justified if,
in fact, Rickey’s Hyatt is going to close. The city and Stanford both
know, from the lease with the Holiday Inn, that the hotel market is as
strong as it has ever been. Rickey’s closing is something that is not
reflective of this market. There are at least eight to ten hotel
companies that have contacted Stanford specifically interested in this
S~-ft-~--because of the strength and demand for this product in this market.
So it i~clear to us even more so, with the Caba~a having closed, that a
hotel is needed. This location, again, with its proximity to a base of
employment and residences, is as good a location as Stanford has on its
properties.
The issue of traffic is, of course, one of the most important ones, and it
will come up throughout the discussions on this site. A hotel, contrary
to some people’s intuitive belief, has not the most significant traffic
impact in terms of use on this site. The hotel would have almost a
contracyclical peak hour demand. There would be times, perhaps, during
some conferences when it might have a peak hour load, but in general, over
the normal day, the peak hour use for a hotel has one of the least traffic
impacts for commercial uses. Many traffic planners would tell you that
even a medium density residential use would have a higher impact. Our
position is that the EIR study and traffic assessment on the site will
have to address all of this and be mitigated. We support that approach.
Quite simply, Stanford cannot and will not develop residential on this
site, for the many reasons that staff has pointed out. We would be more
than happy to work with putting more residential at the Stanford West
site, although we will listen very closely to the residents and the city
on that site to make it work. As in all things, there is a balance
required. If we must have more residential, this is not the site where
Stanford can provide it, but we might have someplace else where we can
work with you.
09/13/95
-I0-
Lastly, of course, there is the transient occupancy tax for the city’s tax
base. For the future of tax revenue and other sources of revenue for the
city, a hotel is an ongoing, predictably good stream of income with
question marks on the future for retail, in some instances, and
utilities. This is not something that the city council should overlook.
Thank you for your time.
Susan Frank~ 325 Forest Avenue~ Palo Alto: I am a resident of Palo Alto,
speaking as Director of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. ~ The Chamber
has been a long-time supporter of rezoning this land to a commercial hotel
use. We have a subcommittee of our Economic Vitality Task Force that has
been working for the last couple of years on this issue. So I am here to
certainly support the rezoning.
You have heard the various arguments in favor of rezoning the land on the
corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real for a commercial hotel. It
would provide much needed hotel and meeting space in close proximity to
the research park. It would provide conference and event space for the
hundreds of community organizations that house major events each year. It
would provide tax revenue to the city.
Mr. Peterson mentioned the traffic issue. That certainly is a concern, as
Mr. Feeny also said. Currently visitors to the research park are staying
in hotels north and south of the research park, most likely along El
Camino Real and downtown. The traffic generated from their coming and
going to the research park certainly must be greater than the traffic
generated from people staying close in, possibly taking a shuttle from a
hotel located in proximity to the research park, ~ather than having to get
into their cars and drive several miles to go to the park.
You have also heard arguments as to why housing is not appropriate or
desirable for this location. From noise and fumes and traffic not being
suitable to a residential use, the toxics problem, and of course, the loss
of Hyatt Palo Alto in terms of hotel rooms and meeting space has been
significant. You have also heard from Stanford that a hotel is not the
highest and best use for this location, but it is what they wish to build
on this site in order to provide services for the research park tenants.
I want to focus very briefly on what I consider to be the greatest
concern, and it continues to grow in my mind, as we at the Chamber are
certainly a frequent user of Rickey’s Hyatt. We have four or five major
functions in their ballroom every year, as do many other community
groups. I guarantee that the community will hear from the many
non-profits that host the recognition dinners and community fundraisers at
Rickey’s Hyatt, should a closure occur there. That is the prediction that
many have heard..We do not know when that will occur, but that is
something that I contemplate every day. We represent over 100 non-profits
in our community, and while the loss of revenue to the city from the Hyatt
certainly would be significant, I think what is even more significant is
the loss of the ballroom space. So rezoning this land seems to make good
common sense. I don’t think the community can afford to wait. Thank you.
Clement Chen ~ 625 El Camino Real~ Palo Alto: I am here on behalf of the
Holiday Inn in Palo Alto. I would like to speak to Item #3, the Page
Mill/El Camino site. I would like to say, as a hotel operator, that I
also support the proposed change of the site to a hotel use. I think the
09/13/95
-11-
site is appropriate for a hotel with respect to size, configuration,
location and access. Anybody coming to Palo Alto and looking for a good
hotel site would immediately see this as the best site in town. As was
previously mentioned, a hotel use would be compatible and synergistic with
the nearby uses, with the heavy commercial focus on California Avenue
right near by, and would be good for the park. The park would be good for
the hotel, and the proximity of the research park-is what really makes it
attractive for a hotel developer because he knows there is a strong base
of business there, which right now is being accommodated elsewhere, as
Susan pointed out. A lot of it is being accommodated at the Holiday Inn,
and I will say that if I thought the market could not support another
hotel, I would be up here opposing the change. But the fact is that the
market here in Palo alto is very strong. We have a good local economy.
The loss of 200 rooms at the Palo Alto Hyatt has lifted everybody’s
occupancy to at least the 80 percent level. I do not know details of
others, but I believe that all of the well run properties are running at
least 80 to 85 percent occupancy as fairly typical.
Susan Frank also spoke to the community benefits, on which I would agree.
At the Holiday Inn we have some meeting space, but the fact is that the
largest group we can handle is 300. If we were to lose the facility at
Rickey’s, we would not have that 1,000operson ballroom facility anywhere
in town. Finally, I would also concur that hotels are not typically heavy
peak hour trip generators. As I previously mentioned, much of the
supposed traffic impacts already exist. They are coming from Mountain
View, from Menlo Park, from the Holiday Inn. So I support the change.
Franklin Rice~ 925 Paqe Mill Road~ Palo Alto: I am Director of Operations
for Genencor International. As I assume the commission is already aware,
Genencor is in the process of building a major new technology center at
the site of the former Kodalux facility on Page Mill Road adjacent to the
hotel site. We hope to ultimately employ 400 research scientists on that
site, people who, today, live in the peninsula area and who, today, work
in the South San Francisco area at our current facilities. The new
facility will be approximately 130,000 square feet in size, and will
represent a long-term investment of approximately $75 million, as our
confirmation of the research park as the place to be for high technology
development and commercial success, moving into our next 5, 10, 15 years
worth of commercial operations.
The type of facility that we are building on Page Mill Road, a research
-and development facility, generates very large amounts of foodand
beverage service demands, of retail service demands, and in particular,
hotel service demands. As a world technology headquarters, we will bring
in many customers, many employees, many visitors from around the world to
visit the 925 Page Mill Road technology headquarters, and not for just one
nightlat a time, but for many nights.
Genencor wholeheartedly supports the staff recommendation to proceed with
a hotel use for that site, given that the demands of our future employees
are already well known and well understood. We will be consuming these
services. The only question is, where do we consume these services? With
the previously expressed concerns about traffic and traffic mitigation, we
certainly would see the intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real
as being a perfect spot for us to house our future visitors, thus
eliminating a lot of crosstown traffic, whether it is peak hour or
non-peak hour. In summary, Genencor International, which is relocating to
the research park in July of 1996, wholeheartedly supports the conversion
of that site to a hotel use, and further supports the staff recommendation
to proceed with that~type of development. Thank you.
Commissioner Eakins: Could you give me those numbers again? 400
employees?
Mr. Rice: We have an approved site plan that entails ~he construction of
two buildings over approximately five years duration. Upon completion of
development at the site, we will have employed there approximately 425
people. That is per the master site plan as approved and permitted by the
ARB. In the short term, meaning the summer of 1996, there will only be
the first of the two buildings there comprising about 130,000 square feet
and approximately 200 employees.
Commissioner Eakins: What will be the square footage for 425 employees?
Mr. Rice: That will be 174,000 square feet exactly, which equates to the
zoning allowed of 0.4 FAR.
Commissioner Eakins: And I get to ask about the money again. What did
you say it was going to cost?
Mr. Rice: The investment there is $75 million.
Commissioner Eakins: Thank you.
Bud Mission~ 3401Hillview Avenue~ Palo Alto: I am Director of Facilities
Planning for Roche Bioscience, formerly Syntex. I would like to speak in
support of the staff recommendations. Roche/Syntex has long been a tenant
in the park. We currently employ in excess of 2,000 employees with
1.4 million square feet on 105 acres. We have a strong vested interest in
seeing that there are sound planning policies established for the park and
perimeter. We have long been in need of hotel accommodations. We feel
that, given the possibilities of the Rickey’s Hyatt situation, it is
extremely important~that we move forward with another potential location
for a hotel site. I have long lobbied with Stanford personally to factor
this into their overall master plan, and I speak in strong support for the
staff recommendation. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Let me state that if you are going to speak about
several areas, we do not have the ability to get back to you, so you need
to cover all of your comments in five minutes.
Denny Petrosian~ 443 Ventura Avenue: Palo Alto: I have some general
comments, because some of your decisions are going to be made not just on
the merits of a particular site but on this site in relation to other
sites in other zones, especially with the new zones. I want tosay that I
will associate myself with Mr. Peterson’s comments on the speciousness of
the toxics issue as indicating no housing. I think housing is a perfectly
fine permitted use at El Camino and Page Mill Road. ~
I think you are looking at a lot of sticky wickets tonight. I hope you
will look at them very carefully. The live/work zone, which is supposed
to be a new residential zone, I think is inherently discriminatory, and I
09/13/95
want you to think about this, because now, affordable housing is possible
in any zone, but would be precluded in zoning of this kind, which is
designated mainly for young professionals. You would have to balance it
by designating other areas for lower income residential. Why do I say
this? Because live/work automatically excludes police people, fire
people, teachers, waitresses, paramedics, nurses, those who do not live
near their work. This residential land would be locked up for some other
group. So I feel that is important to think about.
A specific hotel land use I think is bad planning. You are doing this for
one specific business. Then the grocery store people should come to you
and say, what about a zone for us? Another reason why I say this is
because of necessity. The impact of setting aside a certain amount of
commercial land for a hotel impacts the land value of all other commercial
properties. It creates a scarcity of locations for other types of
businesses, and it is the state meddling in free enterprise. Theland
value of our properties is going to go up automatically with this taken
away, and it is going to be harder for independent business to locate. If
a hotel cannot locate on its own strength in the free market in the
commercial areas that are open to a large variety of uses, if it is
artificially subsidized in some way by the support of the city, I think we
have a chance that it, like some other projects -- in San Jose, the
Redevelopment Agency could go bust, and then you would have a big hotel
development that was empty, and there we would be. So I think that this
implies the state affecting the direct competition of big business, the
hotel business specifically, with independent small business.
The hotel site, in particular, for Page Mill and El Camino is a disaster.
We all know that. We see the traffic at that intersection. I cannot
believe you would rezone this property tonight without a transportation
analysis. I cannot believe this would pass a transportation analysis, let
alone the destabilizing of California Avenue, because it is an
entertainment complex. It is a retail complex with restaurants, in
addition to a hotel. So I urge you to at least postpone this. If the
research park is suffering for lack of services, Stanford has a huge
research park with a lot of vacant land. They can put a hotel on a parcel
.that is in an area not so heavily, impacted by traffic and does not take
away a very needed housing site for Palo Alto.
It is very different setting aside a land use for a hotel and encouraging
the hotel to locate. A hotel could be encouraged if they are ready to
come in. Why aren’t they putting in an application to redevelop at
Rickey’s? Why isn’t this happening now if they are ready? They could be
encouraged to go to Rickey’s or to some other parcel in the research
park. That is very different from setting aside land use.
Also, it is important to rezone land to housing in addition to the
Maximart site, not instead of. It is not clear what is going to happen
there. An area plan could be another Comprehensive Plan in miniature and
be very messy. So I hope you don’t think of these new areas as being
instead of Maximart without that having been decided. Thank you.
Lane Liroff, 4221Wilkie Way: Palo Alto: If you will refer to the handout
that you have provided us, you will find my residence smack dab square in
the center, looking at the Hyatt. So I feel particularly affected by this
proposal for Area #4. If you did drive by this area, you would note that
09/13/95
-14-
the character of Wilkie Way is particularly attractive by the presence of
trees on both sides of the street. We are fortunate to have one of those
in our front yard, and across the street from us, obscuring ~the Hyatt
property, are numerous trees which I believe are Dutch elms. They are
very attractive, and I appreciate staff’s comments that they are trying to
maintain the character of those trees. I will admit some ignorance in
this area, but it seems to me that if you maintain the L overlay
character, and also Mr. Schreiber mentioned in his presentation that it
was necessary, as he did not see how you could have any driveways through
there, that if you establish some type of residential project, I don’t
know where those residences will exit unless they are exiting through the
hotel property. I imagine that could present some type of problem. I
have a concern~ though, because we know that the L status means that
driveways cannot be placed there unless there is a use permit. That
means, to residents, that there is a possibility that that could happen.
That is a very strong concern.
Also, we wonder about any project that could require the residents to vent
through the parking lot of a hotel. I don’t know how that would take
place, so I wonder about that. That is my first concern -- the trees.
For you, as planning commissioners, that should be your most important
concern as well. If you are going to vote and decide on this, you should
at least look at these trees.
The next thing is about the possibility of changing the zoning while you
have an ongoing enterprise that everyone, tonight, has indicated that they
value. I have not yet heard a speaker before you who has said, by the
way, the first thing we should do is to close down Rickey’s. Everyone
sees Rickey’s as a valuable asset to the community, taxwise, in terms of
meeting space, and in terms of hotel space. So that is a genuine concern
that we have. Unless there is some insider information that has not yet
been disclosed, no one, in fact, knows what will happen. Everyone is
trying to foresee, but you do not really know. It would seem to me that
if you wanted to indicate that Rickey’s is on its way out in this
community, the first thing you would do is to do precisely this, because I
think this sends a message to the company itself and to developers that
this is an area that can be developed. It suggests, perhaps, that you are
not standing behind Rickey’s in some fashion. Since we do not know that
Rickey’s will close, I do not know the necessity right now of sending a
message to everyone else that we suspect they are going to close. That,
at least, sends a lack of confidence, and I don’t think that is
necessarily appropriate.
The last thing I want to address, as a resident of this area, is that you
should know that every morning when I leave my house, I have to go to
Charleston, and Charleston is the way to Highway 101. Most people are
usually going to Highway 101. That, at 8 o’clock in the morning, backs up
all the way to Wilkie Way. It takes about ten minutes to cross. The type
of use you are proposing (and i don’t know what the density is, because I
do not understand those terms, but I assume it is at least 10 additional
cars, and I suspect it is more than that) means that those people will
probably be turning that way, and you are now going to be causing
Charleston to be blockaded all the way up to El Camino. There is a
problem there, and the problem is the commute usage. When I come home, I
have the same thing. I am blocked up on Alma Street on the opposite side.
09/13/95
-15-
One last thing. This is~an area where you will recall that school
children do cross here. What you are doing is to be adding increased
congestion to the area. You will recall that a blockover, a couple of
years ago, a girl was killed there at that train crossing. There is a
school nearby there, and there is a constant flow of children walking to
that school. Those are my concerns. Thank you. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak.
Deborah Jul 371Whitclem Drive~ Palo Al~.o: I live where Whitclem
intersects with Wilkie Way by Rickey’s. Along with many of my neighbors,
I have been here previously before the planning commission and the city
council regarding proposals to rezone both Rickey’s and the Elks Club to
high-density residential uses. Interestingly, neither of these properties
has been offered for sale, yet the planning staff clearly has them
earmarked for such development. In fact, it would seem that by putting
the cart before the horse, there may be an attempt to encourage Rickey’s
to sell by rezoning the property to entice a developer to offer a price
which Rickey’s cannot afford to refuse. Rickey’s was a good neighbor to
the residents of our area. Its traffic, noise, and aesthetic impact on
our neighborhood is generally benign. The alternatives proposed by the
planning staff are all frightening and discouraging to the residents of
our neighborhood. If Rickey’s finds that it must close, so be it.
Alternative uses can then be considered. Given the planning staff’s
statements that such a closure would adversely impact the city’s hotel
room supply and the hotel tax, it seems folly to increase this likelihood
by rezoning the property in advance to make it enticing to developers.
Mr. Schreiber’s remarks tonight indicate that the proposed rezoning might
make Rickey’s current use nonconforming. Therefore, if they wanted to
make substantial improvements to their property to make their viability
stronger, they-might be precluded from doing so. It seems that this is
inconsistent with the city’s recognized best interests in this matter.
The proposed rezoning would prevent Rickey’s from providing for its
continued vitality, thereby forcing it out.
Traffic conditions at El Camino and Charleston and at Alma and Charleston
are among the worst in the city. Drivers get so impatient during commute
hours that they frequently run the red lights there, creating a danger to
others. Any increase in traffic could create gridlock and an unacceptable
hazard for our neighborhood children travelling these corridors by bicycle
or on foot to Gunn, JLS, Juana Briones and Fairmeadow Schools. This is
not a site that can absorb a traffic impact any greater than already
exists. The proposed rezoning would allow a high, multi-family
development and/or mixed commercial-residential development, either of
which would have much greater traffic impacts than Rickey’s has.
With regard to the proposed multiple-family housing, I ask you~ where do
you propose that these additional children will go to school? The schools
in our neighborhood are already overcrowded. ~lasses of 28 and higher are
not unusual. Some of the children in our neighborhood have already been
overflowed to Nixon and other schools from Juana Briones. The old Ohlone
site will not be available as a neighborhood site for many, many years.
It is an interim use while other school sites are being improved, but it
is not going to be available. Additionally,~the planning commission has
previously argued that an increased housing supply would decrease the
traffic impact in Palo Alto. This is specious. Rather, it seems clear
that increased housing would lead to substantially increased traffic.
09/13/95
-16-
First, there is no reason to believe that the new residents would work in
Palo Alto, rather than in San Francisco, San Jose, or any other location.
Very few of the people that I know in Palo Alto actually work in Palo
Alto. Even those who do still get in their cars to drive to work, school,
the grocery store, the library, etc.
The proposed rezoning leaves much unsaid. I am quite disturbed to hear
for the first time tonight that the staff has deleted the R-I portion
along Wilkie Way from its recommendation, because that feature is critical
to maintaining the single-family residential character of our
neighborhood. While the protection of the trees and landscaping along
Wilkie Way provides an important buffer, it does not go far enough.
Additionally, with regard to access on Wilkie Way, it is essential that
the no-access zone not be rendered meaningless by the allowance of use
permits. This provision is critical to the safety of our children, who
must already watch for speeding cars down our streets. Due to the size of
the parcel involved, 15 acres, the proposed rezoning could conceivably
lead to the construction of a huge amount of multiple-family housing units
all in one spot. Incredibly, for example, an RM-30 zoning could lead to
450 units in one parcel. Such overwhelming density and crowding would
negatively alter the entire character of our single-family home
neighborhood. Quality of life is important to those of us who have chosen
to live in Palo Alto. This includes the residents of South Palo Alto, as
well as North Palo Alto. We already have several large, multiple-family
housing projects in our area, such as Jacobs Court and Camino Place. A
large development is additionally planned for the Cabafia site. More of
such development would substantially change the demographics of our
neighborhood and greatly exacerbate the feeling of two distinct and
disparate Palo Altos.
Bob Gillespie, 384 Whitclem Drive, Palo Alto: I have lived for over 30
years at this address. Rickey’s hotel is a half block away, and I am very
concerned about the possible rezoning of the property. In 1993, the plan
was then to rezone Rickey’s, the Elks Lodge and Dinah’s Hotel. Rickey’s
and Dinah’s were to have their floor area ratio increased by a large
amount. Our neighborhood was alarmed, to say the least. We fought the
good fight, and the floor area ratio was defeated, so we thought. Now, a
short two years from that decision, we are once again beingthreatened
with a new zoning change. The key word is "threatened." We have a
wonderful residential neighborhood of people who have chosen to live in
Palo Alto. In most cases, this represents somewhat of a sacrifice because
of the premium prices one has to pay for a Palo Alto address. We bought
into a residential area, and we want to keep it residential and special.
Rickey’s is a good neighbor, low key and attractive. My neighbors and I
do not want to change the status quo. Growth, while inevitable, does not
have to destroy existing neighborhoods. I could cite many reasons for
low, slow growth, and I did two years ago when the floor area ratio loomed
its ugly head. Let’s please be reasonable on growth and protect the
ambience of a wonderful neighborhood. Thank you.
William Spanqler~ 4.71 Carolina Lane~ Palo Alto: My address abuts Camino
Place~the former Traynor property, and I am within about 200 feet of
Rickey’s, which is across Charleston. I have a view of their tower. I
would like to talk about Rickey’s, especially the portion along Wilkie
Way. I believe that it is unsuitable to have RM or Village Residential
along Wilkie Way. I believe that the L overlay is not enough protection
from those zones. I do agree with the staff’s statement in Attachment C,
the sentence, "Density should be on the lower end of the multiple-family
scale next to single-family residential areas." The lower end is 10 units
per acre. I doubt that if it were zoned RM that it would, in fact, end up
being zonedRM-1, more likely RM-3 or RM-5. The Village Residential
density would be two to four times the actual density of the R-I that is
in place across the street, and I doubt that many, if any, of those have
the capability to add a cottage.
In the strip along Wilkie, some ways that it could be addressed would be
to have an R-I zone with deeper lots, maybe 120 feet, so you could leave a
landscaped area and allow a monster house without requiring the trees to
be cut down to permit it, or perhaps have a couple of small cul-de-sacs
like those off and Wilkie and off of Whitclem, or maybe apply a modified
R-I using one of the zones with a larger than 6,000-square-foot minimum
lot size. It seems like you could have perhaps a slightly.less strenuous
overlay zone than the L, something that might allow one-lane driveways,
but which would have a strenuous process to permit removal of trees or to
discourage it, in general. I think you could get some driveways into the
R-I area without doing that much damage to the general feel of the
foliage. Or maybe you could even take 10 feet out of the L zone every 60
or 80 feet to allow a driveway and maintain the majority of it that way.
I am concerned that you should also do something about the zoning that is
proposed along the Charleston frontage, and not just push all of the
traffic onto Charleston. I do not believe it can handle it. The bulk of
the site should be serviced from the El Camino frontage. Also, in
fairness to the neighbors across Charleston, the zone along Charleston
should try to minimize the bulk and minimize the driveways in that area.
In general, this Village Residential sounds to me like a terrible idea.
Is the purpose just to allow individual ownership of 2,000 to
3,000-square-foot lots instead of the multiple-family or condominium type
of ownership? If that is what it is for, I thought there has been an
ongoing push to eliminate exactly that sort of lot in College Terrace. I
do not understand the flip f!op here. Staff was talking about having a
contest for names. I would suggest "Substandard Residential."
Vice Chairman Carrasco: We are now taking up Area #5, 1795-1885 El Camino
Real.
Juan Carlos Soto: 409 Leland Avenue~ palo Altn: Thank you for this
opportunity to speak tonight on Area #5. In summary, I am opposed to Area
#5. I live about three lots away from the areas in question. This is a
really wonderful neighborhood today, andif I had to pick one thing wrong
with this area, it would be that there are already a few mul.tiple-family
units which tend to increase our traffic, tend to increase our noise, tend
to increase the lack of community that we are all trying .to make happen.
I encourage each of you to drive by our street, particularly Leland
Avenue, Stanford Avenue and the next one over. You will find a really
neat transformation taking place. You will find that we all take a lot of
pride in our homes. You will see new lawns being put in. You will see
very tasteful additions being made to the homes, and those are with the
intent of people wanting to stay there, wanting to raise their families
there, wanting to keep a really nice community as a nice community.
I support some of the earlier comments tonight about having a diverse
09/13/95
community and making housing affordable. In reality, this neighborhood is
not inexpensive, however it is filled by a rich diversity of people. I
myself am classified as a minority, as are some of my neighbors. I really
do want to encourage the planning commission to come by and have a look at
us trying to do that. We believe that having a Multiple-Family
Residential zoning for some of those lots is going to increase transient
behavior, i.e., people who tend to rent, not buy condominiums and plan to
stay there. These are the kinds of folks who tend not.to take as much
pride in the neighborhood, and tend to have much more traffic at all hours
of the day, who tend to create parking problems in our area. These are
things that, again, we really want to avoid.
What I would like to recommend as an alternative is that perhaps we make
those lots more attractive to some of these commercial businesses. I
think the Duncan Insurance Building is an excellent example of how you can
blend a business into a neighborhood that looks very nice, yet does not
increase the traffic and a lot of the other negative aspects I alluded to
earlier. So, in closing, I believe we have a lot of positive momentum
taking place in that neighborhood, and I would rally hate for the planning
commission recommendations to take that away from us, and take what is a
nice, residential, family-oriented neighborhood and turn it into more of a
transient neighborhood.
Kenneth K.~on: 419 Leland Avenue~ Palo Alto:l am one of Juan Soto’s
neighbors, and I fully support Juan’s position on the Area #5 rezoning. I
do not want to see a high-density residential structure being built there,
for a few reasons in addition to those that Juan has stated. If you are
familiar with the area, many of the streets are blocked off, and traffic
flows through a very fixed pattern, for anyone trying to access that
area. One of the major thoroughfares is Park Avenue across from which is
a very nice park, which many of the families in our area enjoy. I am
concerned that a high-density residential structure there would greatly
increase the traffic on Park Avenue, thereby endangering the young
children and the people who walk and bicycle in the area and use the park
extensively.
One of Juan’s comments that I would like to reiterate is that both of us
are recent purchasers in the area, and I am pretty sure that the
high-density residential directly across the street from my house would
adversely affect my property values, which would basically mean I own
nothing. I own very little as it is now, and the bank owns most of my
property. If the property were to go down, I believe I would have a
negative equity position. Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Next is Area #6, 231 Grant Avenue.
Tom Ta.ylor~ 123 Sherman Avenue~ Palo Alto: I live quite close to Area
#6. I just wanted to say that I think housing in that area is great. As
a resident in that area, I am really pleased to see more residential
coming in. The density does seem quite high to me, as does the current
development which is going in there just adjacent to it. I am also a
little bit concerned about some of the designs that are going into that
area. They all seem very inward facing, very unfriendly. I think that
that whole area is feeling very locked up. As we look at new developments
in that area, if more of them were-outward facing, as they are down .near
University Avenue, creating much more of a neighborhood feeling, I feel
09/13/95
-19-
that could make a dramatic change in that area. Thanks.
Dave.Wet..zel~ 3981 El .Camino Real~ Palo A!to: I am here representing
Charles Chen, my father-in-law. Our family business, the Mayflower Motel,
is at that location. Our site is currently zoned with a Service
Commercial zone in the front and a Multiple-Family Residential. zone in the
back. We feel that this is a very good use for that land, .giving a buffer
to the residential part in the back from the noise and traffic at the
front. I am here tonight to support the staff recommendation of no
changes for that parcel. Thank you.
Robert Gard..~ner~ St. Claire.Drive~ Palo Alto: I have lived on this
street, off and on, for 30 years, and I am quite familiar with the
different areas of Palo Alto. I have a general overall concern with
growth in Palo Alto, shared not only by myself but by many of my
neighbors. Many of these neighbors have lived on the street for close to
40 years. Right now, I am raising two kids in Palo Alto, and I find that
the traffic is getting worse. It is getting more difficult to raise
families in Palo Alto. I am very concerned about that. Again, for my own
kids’ sake, I see it every morning when I commute to work outside of Palo
Alto. I see kids going down Middlefield Road, Charleston Road, East
Meadow, and I see cars going by at 45 and 50 miles an hour. I don’t think
any of the recommendations that are being put forth by staff really
reflect the interests of the people of Palo Alto in general and the
residents of Palo Alto. So I have a basic philosophical concern and
discrepancy between the staff recommendations and, in particular, I think
they are more self-serving of the business needs of the Stanford
Industrial Park versus the residents. I do not believe we need to do any
more subsidization of Stanford Industrial Park in terms of a hotel. A
hotel may work at that site, but I do not think we need to do it on behalf
of the Stanford Management Company, specifically to increase the value of
their land. What it is going to do is to create more traffic, thereby
reduce the value of our land, reduce the value of our standard living, and
that is not in our best interests.
With respect to the Stanford lands, it blows me away, in this day and age,
when people are looking for more recreational areas, more open space where
a recommendation is to develop open space. It is a very beautiful spot on
El Camino Real - the Stanford lands and I cannot imagine putting
multiple-family housing and the traffic that would result from it. It
blows me away that it is even being recommended. Regarding the Spangler
School, again, putting in multiple-family housing on what is already a
very congested neighborhood seems to lack all common sense. I just cannot
see where you are coming from. A hotel on El Camino is, again, more in
the interests of the Stanford Business Park versus the citizens of Palo
Alto. I want you to seriously consider whether that is in the long-term
best interests and standard of living of the residents of Palo Alto.
Regarding housing in general, yes, Palo Alto is very expensive. It is
common sense that as we put in more business, we have Stanford University
and there is nothing we can do about that. Palo Alto is always going to
~ave high property values. To try and artificially reduce those and draw
property values down by putting in high-density housing is not the right
answer. If you took it from a regional perspective, which I keep hearing
people talking about, you have cheap housing in East Palo Alto which
should be looked at for development. You have cheap housing right across
09/13/95
the border, in Mountain View, which, according to recent articles in the
San Jose Mercury, said that it is the cheapest housing in the Santa Clara
Valley. So for Palo Alto to feel a need to put in subsidized housing or
lower income housing, I think, one, it is missing the point of the overall
regional perspective that we should have, and two, it is not looking out
for the best interests of the citizens of Palo Alto. Thank you for your
time.
Forres-t Carroll~ 4239 Ruthelma Avenue~ Palo Alto: I do not know who is
pushing such things as having the planning commission pass and attempt to
rezone areas here so far in advance that neither you, nor anyone else, can
determine the eventual use of these. As some of~the speakers mentioned
here tonight, you are simply forcing owners to perhaps sell their property
at a lower price than they could get for it if it were rezoned. I believe
it is the duty of the planning commission and the city staff to determine,
when someone asks for arezoning permit, to study the thing and get the
input and then decide whether this is the right thing to do or not, but
not to go ahead and try to plan in advance where you may do more harm than
good.
I attended a lot of planning commission meetings here a few years ago, and
at that time, we used the term "high-density housing." I note that term
has disappeared from our vocabulary, and we use multiple-family
residential. If the people in the audience and the people who have
already left, which is about 90 percent, wily look at the information we
have here, every last one of these, all eight of them, could end up
Multiple-Family Residential. That is high-density housing. We don’t need
that, and I know it was nice to hear the business side and the Chamber of
Commerce, etc., first, but the residents here are the people who should
have the greatest amount of input and have the most effect on the planning
commission.
A few things that were not mentioned about the Rickey’s site. Right now,
when Rickey’s has a large crowd, they use one side of Wilkie Way for
parking. As far as I know, none of the neighbors have ever complained.
If housing goes in there, there won’t be any one side on which to park,
and Rickey’s will have to come up with somewhere between 20 and 50 parking
spaces to accommodate the crowds that they have now.
One last word about Area #I, the intersection of El Camino and Quarry
Road. If there is so much need for a commercial hotel at that location,
what happened to the Cabafia and what is this rumor about Rickey’s
closing? I think Rickey’s has about 90 percent occupancy, and I have not
heard anything. Whoever started the rumor was undoubtedly one of the
better finance developers in Palo Alto. So in closing, I would like to
ask the planning commission to turn down every last one of these
requests. There is no need for this type of bulldozing things right up to
the minute. I don’t care what the staff recommends. The residents of
this community are recommending no on every last one of these.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: We have heard a request for Areas 6 and 8 to be
continued, and we have our October 11 meeting available for those, as well
as the two additional areas that were presented to us earlier. Is it the
wish of the commission to continue to October 11 Areas 6 and 8?
Commissioner Schmidt: Do we need to make a motion to do that?
09/13/95
Ms. Cauble: Yes, you should make a motion. You had discussed earlier
whether you wanted to close the public hearing on the other items and
discuss them tonight, or whether you wish to discuss them the next time.
So you may want to consider all of those procedural matters at this
time.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I move that we close the public hearing on
the areas, except for the two that need to be continued. Anyone who spoke
this evening would not be speaking at the next opportunity. We will
discuss tonight the remaining six areas, and continue the discussion of
Areas 6 and 8 which are to be continued for the public hearing.
SECOND: By Commissioner Eakins.
MOTION PASSES: Vice Chairman Carrasco: All those in favor, say Aye? All
opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Beecham and
Ojakian absent.
Let us now discuss Areas I, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. Since the majority of the
public is here for Area #4, we will take that up first. Are there any
questions of staff?
Commissioner Cassel: I want to ask Mr. Schreiber about what can be built
now on this site without anyone coming before the planning commission or
the city council, if that site should sell?
Mr. Schreiber: The land is designated Service Commercial, and it is zoned
in the same terminology - Service Commercial. The Service Commercial
zoning allows things such as animal care, business and trade schools,
convalescent facilities, day care centers, eating and drinking services,
except for drive-ins and takeouts, financial services such as banks,
general business, services, hotels, lodging, medical, professional and
general business offices with square footage limitations, and skipping on
down the list, private clubs, private educational facilities, and the one
that I will come back to is retail services, It also allows single-family
and multiple-family uses. Those are the permitted uses. Conditional uses
include larger size administrative offices, automotive services,
commercial recreation, drive-in hotels, and again, medical and
professional offices above certain sizes. In other words, the land use
category in the zoning permitted avery wide variety of land uses.
The maximum floor area ratio is 0.4, which is 40 percent of the site. The
site is about 650,000 square feet of land, so you could theoretically get
something in the range of 240,000 to 250,000 square feet of new floor
area, if the site were redeveloped. That would involve some type of
structured parking. Morelikely, development consistent with the zoning
ordinance would be retail development, which is more likely to be
something in the range of 150,000 square feet of retail use. That could
translate into a super grocery store of 50,000 square feet, a 25,000 or
30,O00-square-foot drug s~ore of the Payless or Long’s type, and probably
one more large retail establishment or elect~:onics like the Good Guys, and
beyond that, other retail uses -- restaurants, small retail, etc. In
other words, a collection of retail uses that would be generating a very
significant amount of traffic, and it would be a very different situation
than you have there today.
09/13/95
-22-
Let me also clarify two things. As I have indicated in the staff report,
nobody on the staff is trying to send any type of a message to Rickey’s to
close up and leave town. At the same time, the inquiries that we get
.regarding that site have continued. In the City of Palo Alto, we have had
over many, many years now a general policy that if you are coming in with
a development that is consistent with the zoning, consistent with the
general plan, there is somewhat of a presumption of validity to that
development proposal. I have found myself in the uncomfortable position
of telling someone in one rather intense discussion that I did not think a
development proposal of the type I described, 150,000 square feet of
retail, was likely to be approved, even though it was consistent with the
general plan and consistent with the zoning. That is one of the reasons
why staff has brought this item forward. There certainly is a strong
amount of interest in trying to find a site in Palo Alto for a large food
store, drug store, etc., type operation, and it would certainly fit on
this site, but the traffic impacts would be absolutely staggering, not
only at the intersection but on Charleston and Arastradero, spreading back
into the residential areas. We are finding ourselves in the position of
advising people that something consistent with the zoning is not likely to
be approved through the environmental impact process, which creates
somewhat of an anomaly in terms of the way that Palo Alto has conducted
land use planning policies and regulations over the last fifteen years.
Commissioner Cassel: So you are saying that if we zone this to
multiple-family, we are actually downzoning it from where it is now to
something that will be less intensive in use.
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, it would be a substantial downzoning from what it is
now. It is not zoned Rickey’s. It is zoned Service Commercial.
Commissioner Schink: It is zoned Service Commercial with a hotel
overlay. Can that be considered restrictive in saying that it has to
remain a hotel?
Mr. Schreiber: No, you are correct that it is Service Commercial ~ith the
hotel overlay, which allows up to a 0.6 floor area ratio for hotels, but
that is just a permitted use. As with any other permitted use, there is
no limitation on hotels as a single use, and there is no restriction on
maintaining the existing use or anything similar to it.
Commissioner Schink: Could we have that district, which is Service
Commercial with hotel, and thenrequire it to remain a hotel?
Ms. Cauble: Not without zoning. If it has the underlying zone of Service
Commercial, then all of the uses that Ken listed (and he did not list them
all) are permitted uses in the zone.
Commissioner Schink: Essentially, what I was saying is, we would create a
new zone which would be Service Commercial Hotel.
Mr. Schre~ber: The option you are beginning to pursue goes back to the
land use designation we have talked about creating in the past called
Commercial Hotel. If you had a very specific land use designationcalled
Commercial Hotel, my assumption is that between the land use designation
and any zoning consistent with that, you would limit uses, certainly any
09/13/95
-23-
permitted uses, to a variety of hotel uses, such as a hotel, motel,
residential suites, etc. But we do not have a mechanism like that now.
We do not have the land use category; we do not have the zoning district.
Commissioner Schmidt: I wanted to confirm, from what was said earlier,
that if the zoning were changed to either of the recommended zones for the
Rickey’s site, and Rickey’s wanted to remodel, expand, including the
tearing down of some of the low-rise buildings and make some higher rise
buildings, really upgrade the hotel, it would be fairly difficult for them
to do so. Is that correct?
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, and maybe no. Under the existing city nonconforming
regulations, certainly buildings can be maintained and they can be
renovated and repaired. That rule can become more liberal and flexible if
the city wishes to make it more flexible. In the downtown area, for
example, we allow buildings to be demolished and rebuilt even if they
exceed the current zoning where you have a one-to-one floor area ratio.
The commission recently reviewed 483 University Avenue, a Planned
Community zone, and that site is above the one-to-one floor area ratio.
One of the options for the property owner was to demolish the existing
structures, rather than pursuing a Planned Community zone, and rebuild to
the same square footage, not.even in the same configuration but in a new
configuration. That is a significantly more flexible treatment of
nonconformimg uses than the city has traditionally given, but there is
nothing to preclude that type of thing.
Commissioner Schmidt: If the property were to change owners, what would
then apply?
Mr. Schreiber: A change of ownership has no impact on the zoning.
Commissioner Schmidt: So a new owner could potentially do the same thing,
i.e., do some tear down and put in something new and better, and still
maintain the entire site as a hotel under the new zoning, working with the
city?
Mr. Schreiber: Yes, because zoning and ownership are separate. The
zoning goes with the land, and the ownership can change without affecting
the zoning.
Commissioner Schmidt: Also, we have talked a lot about hotels tonight,
and we have talked about a couple of specific sites. I would like to ask
if there are other potential sites in the city that have been considered
in the planning department that are likely or .interesting places for a
hotel?
Mr. Schreiber: I have periodically raised Town and Country Village, but
every time I do, I get my hands slapped and ears boxed. So that is one
that staff is probably not going to raise again tonight. Beyond that,
there are existing hotel sites. You had the request from Mr. Handley
earlier this evening that he would like a Commercial Hotel designation at
the Dinah’s site. That may be appropriate at some point in time for the
Holiday Inn site. In terms of other vacant or available larger parcels,
there are not very many of them. Even a-hotel at Page Mill and El Camino
would be a very tight fit. It is not a particularly large parcel. As
some commissioners are probably aware, as it is not by any means.
confidential, Mr. ClementChen had an option on the Rudolfo site on El
Camino Real, which is zoned multiple-family, and he had an option to put
in residential suites. That is about a 1-1/2-acre site and he needed to
get in 66 units. He eventually dropped the option after getting feedback
from the Barron Park.Association and the adjacent condominium
association. So a 1-1/2-acre site is just not large enough to really be
effectively used for any type of hotel or residential suites in today’s
market, it appears. Sites larger than that are quite rare. You could
create a site through parcel assembly, but that is avery difficult thing
to do in commercial areas.
Commissioner Schmidt: What about something like the Garden Court Hotel,
which seems to be on a fairly small site, about 1-I/2 acres.
Mr. Schreiber: Very briefly, the Garden Court was built in the early
1980s. It is about 70 rooms on a relatively small site. It is a very
dense development. Ithas been absolutely no secret that that property
had tremendous financial difficulties for years and years, and may still
have them. It was a question of who was going to suffer the most -- the
financial institutions, the owners, others. We never got involved in
that, but it was openly discussed, and the financial difficulties were due
to the cost of the hotel being at a level where the room rates simply
could not afford the debt burden. The cost of that hotel almost 15 years
was in the range of $250,000 per room. People in the business say that
that translates into a $250 to $300 per night room rate to service that
debt. That just does not work.
I might add that since the mid to late 1980s, for at least the last seven
or eight years, the hotel financing market, in general, has been almost
nonexistent in this country, not just in the~bay area. That, in part, has
been driven by the great over-building of hotels in the early and
mid-1980s, many of which went bankrupt, and many of which ended up under
the control of the Resolution Trust Corporation. The Resolution Trust
Corporation was selling hotels for essentially 50¢ on-the dollar. So you
could have a complex that cost $100 million to build, and you could
purchase it for $50 million. If you could do that., it made no sense to
build a new complex at $100 million. So that absolutely destroyed the
hotel financing market for a long, long time. There are little
indications in financial publications and in conversations that staff has
that in selected locations, with .the Right mix of uses, demand, etc., the
hotel financing picture may be starting to come back, but only starting to
do so.
Commissioner Eakins: In the staff discussion about treating different
parts of the property differently, I would like some expansion on that.
What I heard from all of the neighbors who commented was that Rickey’s was
such a good neighbor and how it was all just fine the way it is. They ~
were not reacting to the staff discussion about alternative ways to use
the site, including some hotel use. I now understand that continuing the
current zoning is very risky. We cannot guarantee that Rickey’s will stay
there the way it is. Times change; markets change, and we cannot
guarantee it. In the absence of a guarantee, we must plan,~n spite of
some people saying that planning was not a good idea. I thought that was
what we were here for. This isn’t the reacting commission!
Mr. Schreiber: On the transparency, the site is all under one ownership
09/13/95
-25-
except for a small parcel on Charleston. All of the other gray area, even
though there is a property line cutting through the site from El Camino to
Wilkie Way, is under one ownership. Staff has suggested that the bulk of
the property is appropriate .for multiple-family. We would recommend that
the corner area, and we have said three to five acres, which we have
deliberately kept vague, a little less than a third of the site if you
figure that the site is 15 acres, should be designatedfor Commercial
Hotel. We identified that corner, because of the traffic and other
concerns regarding that corner, as an area appropriate for.Commercial
Hotel. Again, Commercial Hotel generates far less traffic than other
types of retail uses, and part of our thinking there is based on the
corner and that particular location -- the noise, the traffic, etc. Part
of the thinking is based on the fact that retaining hotel facilities in
Palo Alto is a valid planning objective in terms of servicing the
community. The rest of the site we would recommend to be designated for
either a multiple-family designation or a Village Residential zone, which
is small lots, single-family, low density multiple-family. If you had 10
acres, to take the minimum residential area, the staff recommendation
would also be to keep the L-strip areas along Charleston and Wilkie. So
the access for that multiple-family would almost undoubtedly come off El
Camino. There may be some discussion of a driveway on Charleston, but it
would have to be out of the tree area that is zoned with the L.
The problem of removing the L is the problem we will have if the Elks Club
redevelops. The tree area at the rear of the Elks Club is now zoned
single-family, which would allow houses and lots and driveways out to
Wilkie. If it ever redeveloped that way, many of those trees would end up
disappearing. Staff was concerned about that in 1989 when we took up that
issue. We continue to be concerned about a land use treatment that
effectively encourages the loss of the trees along Wilkie, and in this
case, along Charleston. So you keep the trees in green, (on the overhead
projection), you have brown for multiple-family, with most, if not all, of
the access out to El Camino, far enough back from the intersection so that
it can work, and you retain the corner area for a hotel, probably a
residential suites type of facility, not a full fledged, full service type
hotel.
I might add one last comment. There has been a lot of discussion about
hotels in terms of the transient occupancy tax and the value of this tax
for the city. It is a general fund revenue source, but hotels serve a lot
of other functions and have a lot of other value in the community. If the
State of California, in its very finite wisdom, decided later this year to
take control of all transient occupancy tax to help fund the California
General Fund, which would probably be their legal right to do, the land
use recommendation would still stand. It is not a land use recommendation
based on the general fund. It is based on the appropriate land use and
also on the appropriate types of services and other commercial facilities
that a city of this size and complexity should have. If Rickey’s were
lost, some of those hotel rooms hopefully could stay on the site in a
rebuilt residential suites facility.
Commissioner Cas~el: If we zoned part of this for Commercial Hotel, then
we have limited it to one use. Can we zone it Multiple-Family Residential
with a Commercial Hotel overlay as a permitted use, so that you can do
that if the market holds it? If not, could you do the Multiple-Family
Residential, and combine both here?
09/~3/95
-26-
Mr. Schreiber: You could create a land use category that was a
Multiple-Family Residential/Commercial Hotel designation, .apply that, and
then develop appropriate zoning to go with that to allow the hotel use to
continue as a permitted use. If it. ever did go out of business, there
would be the alternative Multiple-Family Residential use. That is an
interesting idea. I thank you for it.
Ms. Cauble: If you were to envision that kind of designation, it might
include policies as to the type of hotel that would be appropriate. As
Ken explained before, what he envisioned was a different kind of hotel
that is more like Multiple-Family Residential in its look and activity.
But that could all be dealt with in text in the Comprehensive Plan, if it
were an idea that you eventually pursued.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Intuitively, you seem to think the hotel would be
best located at the corner. Could you discuss a hotel that fronted on El
Camino with the property at the rear becoming residential?
Mr. Schreiber: It may well be a very good option to have more of the El
Camino frontage for a hotel. That is why we said three to five acres, and
have not tried to be very specific. There are all different ways of
trying to do site planning on this type of a site. We would certainly try
to structure an alternative, and Nancy is putting in an alternative on the
screen. You could do something in that mode also. That probably means,
unless you envision shared access, you may be setting the stage for
getting more of the residential traffic out on Charleston. That may or
may not be something you want to do. We would need to do some traffic
analysis to assess that. If we get this into the stage of a draft
Comprehensive Plan, that is the type of thing that would be looked at in a
draft environmental impact report also.
Commissioner Schmidt: I am still a little unclear about your suggested
alternatives. (A) says, "Commercial Hotel for the 3- to 5-acre area at
the corner of El Camino Real and Charleston, and Village Residential or
Multiple-Family Residential for the remainder of the site. Then (B) says,
"Village Residential and Commercial Hotel Mixed Use for the entire
remainder of the site." Do you mean the whole site being some mix, or was
the 3- to 5-acre left off of that alternative? The B alternative is not
quite clear to me.
Br.~.. Schreiber: The B alternative is a less specific area designated for
the hotel. Basically, to identify this as a mixed use site, if it were
redeveloped with, again, the hotel concept being something in the range of
a 100-120 residential suites hotel, from staff’s standpoint, rather than a
large commercial hotel facility with restaurants, meeting rooms, etc., if
you went that route, you would need more of the site. We have played here
in terms of do you put it all on the El Camino frontage, or do you put it
on the corner, or what are the tradeoffs? Staff has not analyzed the
intricacies of site;planning on this site at anywhere near the~level of
detail necessary so that I would not be comfortable with saying, "This
should be your hotel site, and this should be your’multiple-family site."
At this point in the process, realizing we are trying to move toward a
draft plan for further analysis, we are trying to deal with the basic
concept of what should happen here, rather than the particular zoning
lines that would be determined later on.
09/13/95
-27-
Vice Chairman Carrasco: If there are no other questions, we can begin
discussion on this item.
Commissioner Schink: I would prefer a designationhere that maintains the
Commercial Hotel use, and at this point, not suggest that it is going to
be any kind of residential use on the property. In the future, there
could be the understanding that if someone really wants to do that, they
can go ahead and sell the neighborhood on it and get the land use change
accomplished, and that would be the way to go. For now, I would feel more
comfortable telling the community that the direction is to keep this as a
hotel. We are talking about creating a new category in the Comprehensive
Plan which will allow for that, and leave it at that.
Commissioner Schmidt: I feel similar to Jon. I would be happy to see a
hotel stay in that location. It seems like it has been a fairly good
neighbor. I agree withthe sentiments of many that we need community
facilities of the type that are available at Rickey’s o- large meeting
spaces for all kinds of events, non-profits, for-profits, etc. It seem to
me that having a hotel in that location is almost a historic thing in Palo
Alto. I don’t know how long Rickey’s has been there, but it certainly has
been drawing visitors to Stanford, to the community, etc., for a long,
long time. I would certainly like to see some hotel stay there, and I
would be happy to see a good, large hotel and community facility stay
there. I think it would be somewhat discouraging to designate that piece
of property for a residential use, yet it is important.to plan ahead and
not end up with a vacant site there for a long time. So I am in a
quandary as to what is the best means of retaining a good hotel there and
not ending up with something that is deteriorating, not ending up with a
long-term vacant site. Maybe some sort of overlay arrangement, as Phyllis
suggested, is the way to do it.
Commissioner Cassel: Clearly, we cannot tell an owner that he cannot
sell. That is the first stage that we must remember. We cannot tell an
owner that he cannot use his property in the way it is zoned unless we
want to purchase the property. It is a large piece of property, and the
city is not in the business of buying every property in town to maintain
the status quo. That means that we have to do some planning if we want to
anticipate problems that could occur. This site has the potential, as it
is now zoned, to contain large amounts of retail without the neighborhood
having a lot of control over what is going to happen. So I would like to
see this site designated Multiple-Family Residential with some kind of a
hotel overlay. That would allow the hotel to stay, or encourage a
different hotel there, if that works out, but would ensure that this does
not become a large retail area. I would like to see the EIR address that
as an option, and see if there is some way we can do that constructively.
We have also talked in other planning sessions about when we abut a
different zone, to try and make both si.des of the street look similar or
feel similar so that we are not changing a zone in the middle of the
street. In this case, that L zone may help. We need something creative
here so that the height of those buildings comes down, or the intensity of
the buildings on those lots comes down and they blend ink that
residential neighborhood that is there now. Sometimes that may mean that
we do n6t have it actually zoned that way, and the problem is that if we
have zones automatically developed, we do not have as much control as we
do in a PC development where we can say to the developer, we really do not
09/13/95
-28-
want two stories at that level, or three stories at that level. We need
this to step down. I don’t know how you zone it easily so that it steps
down.
What I am concerned about here are the roots of those trees. I drove
through Rickey’s Hyatt, and if you look down the driveway, it is much
below the road on Wilkie Way. So getting a driveway in means going over
and down, which can affect the roots of the trees. Even though you do not
touch the tree trunk, it affects the branches. So we need something
creative there.
Commissioner Eakins: I will reiterate that I feel it is really important
to protect this 15-acre site from the extremes that might happen under the
current zoning. So clearly, we have to do something. After listening to
phyllis, I now know why zoning is such a limitation in planning for how
differing uses get along in our built-out town. If there is any way that
we can add some design guidelines to go along with this, I know we put
general design guidelines in part of the Draft Policies and Programs in
the new Comprehensive Plan, but those guidelines have not yet been totally
blessed. This is still a sort of gray and iffy area. I think Phyllis’
idea is very imaginative, so that there is a fall back position. We would
be saying, "This is Hotel; this is not future potential Retail; if this is
not Hotel, it is Residential, and most likely multiple-family. There
would be guidelines to go along with this. If we really believe in these
transitions and in protecting quality of life, we have to urge that these
guidelines get adopted. So I like the combination of Jon’s and Phyllis’
ideas.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: I also like Phyllis’ idea. I like maintaining
the hotel, too. This idea for a hotel overlay zone over residential might
work. That seems to be the way we are all headed, except that Jon would
.like to retain the hotel just the way it is. So there are four people
recommending the hotel overlay on residential.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I move that we recommend to the city
council that this Area #4 have a land use designation of Multiple-Family
Residential with a Commercial Hotel overlay on the site.
That will mean that the environmental impact report will evaluate those
options at various densities.
Mr. Schreiber: I assume the EIR will also look at alternative land use
configurations to that one.
SECONd: By Commissioner Schmidt. Do we need to mention that the other
designation, Village Residential, is to be looked at by the EIR also?
Ms. Cauble: If the commission wants the council to forward to this review
process-that potential, it would be a good idea for you to say that now.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would then make a friendly amendment to say,
Multiple-Family Residential or a combination of Multiple-Family
Residential and Village Residential.
Commissioner Cassel: I will accept that.
09/13/95
Commissioner Schink: Since it looks like this motion will pass, one of ~
the important points to be looked at in evaluating the site in doing the
environmental impact report is that if this ended up being a divided site
with Hotel or Commercial on one portion and residential on the remainder,
from my perspective, I think almost all hotel developers would want all of
the El Camino frontage. Any residential developer would want to stay away
from the El Camino frontage, at all possible cost, so it should really be
looked at as new residential traffic coming out on Charleston, with the
hotel traffic being on El Camino. That is the most valid way to look at
this.
I will not support the motion. I have nothing against residential, (that
is my business), but I think the neighbors have spoken. They want to
leave it as a hotel, and we have the means of leaving it as a hotel site,
and we might as well do what the neighbors want.
Commissioner Eakins: I will support the motion, because I am concerned
that it could be redeveloped as a different kind of commercial that might
not go down so well. I like having the fall-back position.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: I will support the motion, as well. My reason is
that I feel we get the best of both worlds this wBy. We get residential
on that property, as well as allowing the hotel to stay and modify itself
with the overlay zone. I definitely think that the existing zoning is far
too intense. That existing zoning should be removed and planned for, so I
am supportive of the motion.
MOTION PASSES: Vice Chairman Carrasco: Is there any further discussion
on this motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes
on a vote of 4-i, with Commissioner Schink voting against, and
Commissioners Beecham and Ojakian absent.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: Next is Area #I, vacant land at southeast corner
of El Camino Real and Quarry Road.
Commissioner Schink: You mentioned in your presentation that an
annexation would-have to follow somewhere in the course of the rezoning
process. If we, in this process, designated this for residential, would
that automatically initiate the annexation?
Mr. Schreibe~: No. Let me clarify that. The city has two multiple-
family land use categories. One is Multiple-Family Residential. The
other is called Campus Multiple-Family Residential. It is preceded by
Major Institution/University Lands/Campus Multiple-Family Residential, but
let me ignore the first four words. If the site were designated Campus
Multi.ple-Family Residential, that land use categoryis intended for
Stanford lands that are campus-oriented, campus-serving, and as such would
not be in the City of Palo Alto. They would be apart of unincorporated
Santa Clara County. So if the recommendation here was to go Campus
Multiple-Family Residential, there would probably not be an annexation.
If it went Multiple-Family Residential and the objective was to have the
site developed for housing open to the general population, with Stanford
employees included, then certainly the annexation process would need to
occur. It would be brought into the city and developed under city
regulations. Staff has no strong preferences in terms of whether this be
designated Campus Multiple-Family Residential or Multiple-Family
09/13/95
-3O-
Residential. I would be interested in hearing whether Stanford has any
particular thoughts on that. You may also want Stanford to clarify on the
record what internal actions they took in terms of designating this as a
residential site and what that means in terms of their own planning
policies, since that is a property owner action.
Commissioner Schmidt: It would be good if David Neuman could come forward
and answer the questions that Ken has posed.
David Neuman: Good evening. I am from the Stanford University Planning
Office. I would like to give you some context and background, based on
those points. Two things l.ast year prompted us to go to the Board of
Trustees and ask that we redesignate that area of our Land Use Policy Map
from what was a special reserve~area to be designated as a housing-only
area. The notion followed the discussions that we had had with the
community through the community outreach process in the Spring of 1994
around the Sand Hill Road projects, most notably Stanford West, and this
site was suggested by community members, in part because of the exercise
now known as the Dream Team, in which Stanford participated with community
members, as well as city staff and officials informally with regard to
planning around the transit~station. This site, because of its proximity
to transit, shopping, health care facilities, recreation facilities,
education facilities, etc., is right in the middle of all of that. The
whole notion of a transit-oriented development (TOD), fits that general
site quite well.
So the board acted in June of 1994 to change the designation, but it was
under the assumption that we would be proceeding with that project along
with Stanford West. We decreased the number of apartment units at
Stanford West from what had been proposed early in 1994, 750 down to 630,
which is the current proposal. We were proposing to relocate those 120
units, plus an additional amount, usually discussed as being around 200,
onto this 5.5 acre site. We needed to get the board’s approval for both
campus planning, as well asthe Stanford Management Company, to proceed
further with that investigation. Subsequent to that action by the board,
a number of concerns, as well as the positive side of things, were talked
about once again. One of those things was, what is the Stanford
Arboretum? The Stanford Arboretum is both an historic fact and a
colloquial assumption. The fact is that the arboretum was planted by
Leland Stanford, and that is near the Stanford mausoleum with the remnants
of the cactus garden, etc., as some of you may know. The fact also is
that there is open space that is wooded, with a lot of eucalyptus trees
now being replaced by oak trees. That extends all the way to El Camino.
That also is historic, but not really a part of the arboretum. It is a
land use that was a buffer zone between Palo Alto, probably more Mayfield
at that point in time, and the campus itself. It is not unusual for a
campus to sequester itself from the community, particularly in the 19th
century. So the board and we, in my office, and others, administratively,
including the president and the provost, decided that this was not the
arboretum in the real definition of the arboretum as a historic artifact.
It was a spot, not unlike a lot of others, such as the areawhere the
Stanford Stadium was built, and the area where the ROTC building stood and
later burned down became the Faculty Club,.burned down, and is now
considered by most people who live here to be a part of the arboretum. In
fact, it was a campus land use of about five acres. It is that clearing
opposite the track house that you see when you come to the campus. So
09/13/95
there have been additions and subtractions from what people affectionately
call the arboretum.
The issue that wasraised in the newspaper along the way was not a clarion
call to anyone on the campus who raised the normal sort of comments that
we are hearing tonight about other sites. What we did find was that the
setbacks on that site that would likely be imposed if it were a city
parcel and imposed by. us, even if it were in the county with the county’s
blessing, because of sound from El Camino, separations from other uses in
the area, the normal sort of things from streets, etc., and there are
utilities, the trees that are on that site, some of which are rather
large. We have not done a detailed survey as to what degree of those
might be considered heritage trees, but certainly there are some large
ones there, and of course, access points. That is not a point whereyou
access from El Camino. We have Palo Road, which is basically right in,
right out off of Palm Drive right now, and we would have some access near
the intersection of Quarry, but it is a tough site. So although we have
not changed our mind that based on the surrounding relationships with the
university, with Palo Alto, with university-related activities and Welch
Road, the hospital, and the shopping center that it is a good location, we
have not, as you well know, wanted to proceed with that site~at this point
in time.
When Planning Director Schreiber asked me earlier this year if there were
any sites that might be considered by you all in the future, I brought up
this site, and in fact, put it in writing that we have, indeed, taken the
step of designating it for residential use, although we have no intention
at this point in time to pursue it either as campus housing or as market
rate housing. As Planning Director, I would say that the sentiment would
be to keep it as campus-based housing, as that is less restrictive~ from
our perspective, in terms of how we deal with the site, how wewould put
together a pro forma, because we know our market. We have demonstrated
that by the amount of housing that we have and the fact that it is all
filled.
So until Stanford West is approved and is fully occupied, we would not be
looking to develop any market rate housing beyond that. It is a major
business risk right now that the management company is taking, but this
site could conceivably be thought of for campus-related housing, such as
that related to the medical center. The Hoover Pavilion is.right next
door and has becomean out-patient and community services facility. It no
longer has in-patients. We have a demand for resident and other~medical
student housing. In fact, we are about to build 250 more beds on campus
located fairly near the medical school, and we are going through the final
processing with the county on that. Could we use that in the future?
Yes. Did I suggest that this would be the site beyond Stanford West that
we would see as a potential? Yes. Do I still agree with the notions that
Isupported and that others have supported with the Dream Team and the
notion of transit-based housing? Yes. So those are my answers, long
winded as they might be, to your questions. I hope that gives you
background on all of those issues.
Commissioner Schmidt: Were there other uses consideredfor that site,
other than keeping it as it is?
Mr. Neuman: No. In the past, the hospital has, on occasion, informally
09/13/95
asked about that in relationship to patient care at the Hoover facilities,
but it has always been informally done, and it has always been basically
turned down. We do-have the three-party agreement that Mr. Schreiber
mentioned earlier. Any proposal, no matter how small, for that site
requires that the protocol be brought into full play and that we get a use
permit from the county, not just a building permit. A use permit is much
more involved, bringing the city into it more. That is a signed agreement
that we have and which we would have to follow. We have basically seen
that as a buffer area, and of course, some people think of it as the
arboretum, and some of us do not.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: This site, being close to transit and other
features, given that we have talked about mixed use buildings, would you
consider retail on the ground floor and residential above, and is it also
not good for a hotel site, since it is about the same size as the Page
Mill/El Camino site?
Mr. Neuman: I think the retail issue is a question that Curtis Feeny
could answer better than I, but we did talk about it freely at the Dream
Team discussions. Of course, on the other side ~f Quarry Road where the
shopping center is, we are, in fact, proposing low-scale retail to come
out towards El Camino. So if some of the housing were near Quarry Road,
then sure, that might make sense to have retail. That would be a business
decision we would have to make. From the hotel perspective, there is the
list of concerns that I gave you earlier about the trees that are there
and their size, also utilities. There is a major sanitary sewer line that
runs right through the site, so underground parking would be a difficult
chore, and more expensive than usual. Regarding access, I would think a
hotel would want to access off of El Camino and not have to come in and
make two turns, compared to some of the other places you are talking
about. I am not a hotel developer. I have just given you this list of
items ranging from trees to utilities to sentiment. I don’t think that is
the sort of place we would find too attractive for a hotel. Of course,
the shopping center is next door, but I even think that could cause
conflict in terms of parking and circulation issues, from some of the
experience I have. We talked about it a little bit, particularly after
Dream Team discussions, but we really felt that the housing was the only
use there, and in just the segment shown here, not going any closer to
Palm Drive. That line behind Hoover on the angle which is somewhat
parallel to Palm Drive is the extension of Lomeda Avenue, the old street
that ran beside the quadrangle. It was closed, but it still has traffic
on it in front of the Stanford Museum. We may close that fairly soon, as
well. So that is why that line was drawn. It actually coincides with
some old maps that were found, and spins off in some strange way around
the mausoleum.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: If there are no further questions, we can begin
discussion.
Commissioner Cassel: I would like to see this redesignated for campus
housing. I would like it for housing, because we always seem to makelit
difficult for Stanford to build housing, but they need it, so I would like
to encourage this area for housing for people who are working on site or
at school there to be able to live close to the campus. That encourages
it, and if it is housing they want, they can come back later and make it
multiple-family and approach the city. We would already have a housing
09/13/95
-33-
designation for itL We really need housing sites, and I would like to see
it here close to transit, as well.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think it is reasonable to designate this to
housing. I would lean toward making it the standard Multiple-Family
Residential, notcampus housing. I would not like to prohibit residents
from elsewhere besides Stanford from living at that location, due to all
of the amenities of the site and since it is adjacent to Palo Alto.
Commissioner Schink: I guess I am feeling a little contrary tonight. I
am not all that inclined to designate this for housing right now, because
I am a little uncomfortable~with a housing-only option on this property.
It is a little bit of an island out there that does not make for the best
housing. It would be better served if it were mixed use, or even possibly
a hotel. I think the possible uses for the site could be very involved.
I am afraid that if we just call it housing at this point, if they wanted
to come forward with the type of creativity that this site deserves, in my
mind, they would get fried! So we are better leaving it undesignated, and
let them come forward with something creative in the future.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: We do not have a category called Undesignated.
Commissioner Schink: We do not have to include it. It could be left
alone.
Commissioner Eakins: This applies odd logic to designate it as campus
housing. If it is campus-related housing, then it stays in the county,
and it is not part of our plan. Is that correct?
Mr. Schreiber: Palo Alto’s land use plan includes not onl} land within
the City of Palo Alto, but within what is generally called the planning
area. So it is quite appropriate for us. That is not to say that the
county is compelled to designate it consistent with the Palo Alto plan,
but it certainly would send a message to the county, and if this came
about eventually, we would then work with the county to try and bring
about a county land use map change.
Commissioner Eakins: I would be more comfortable with Jon’s notion of
leaving some flexibility there, recommending housing or mixed use housing,
or do we have a good fuzzy category?
Mr. Schreiber: We do not have an existing mixed use category. The
commission has previously recommended to the council that in the next land
use plan, we create one or more mixed use categories. That has not yet
been created. That would certainly imply annexation to Palo Alto, rather
than leaving it in the county. ! say that because the fundamental
agreement between the city, the county and the university is that
income-generating uses -- offices, retail, etc. -- are to be annexed to
the city. Academic uses, including campus housing, remain in the county.
Commissioner Cassel: I have a problem with mixed use here. It is by
nature of the-fact that there is so much develei~ment across the street at
Stanford Shopping Center that it is mixed use, being so close to what is
already there. The other reason is that I know this seems a little like
an island, but I am seeing something that is not being spoken about now.
Hospitals are changing very dramatically, and their needs are changing
09/13/95
-34-
dramatically. For that facility which is now being used as an out-patient
facility, they are talking about putting up a new out-patient facility
more centered. That leaves Hoover Pavilion with a potential use. I am
not sure what that would be, but that could be another housing site on
down the road. That is thinking longer in advance than just this one, but
originally, when I was thinking housing, I was thinking that site. I was
thinking of that side of the road as blending more towards the Arboretum
as a buffer between the trees and the shopping, rather than an expansion
of the shopping center in that direction. That is why I felt this would
be a good housing site. Which kind of housing site, I am not sure. I
just like people living close to work, and that would be a good way of
encouraging that.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: I feel similar to Jon and Sandy. This site, as
David Neuman described it, is so complex in that it is right at the entry
to Stanford, and the environmental constraints of the trees, plus the
sewer, which I did not know about, and the entire intersection there~ that
I think you needa flexible zone ~that allows some creativity on the part
of Stanford to allow different kinds of uses that we cannot anticipate at
this point. To designate it solely for housing I do not feel would serve
us well. Some kind of a mixed use designation on the site is the way I
would like to go.
Commissioner Schmidt: If the use designation is not changed, and X years
from now, Stanford comes forward with a creative proposal for something
there, what would be the process for trying to do something new and
different and creative there?
Mr. Schreiber: If "creative" involves some portion of a non-residential
use, the process would include amending the Palo Alto plan, amending the
county plan, and annexing it to Palo Alto, and then developing it under
city development regulations. If the creative idea involved campus
multiple-family, it would mean amending the county plan, probably amending
the city plan, too, withdevelopment remaining under county control. In
other words, doing nothing leaves the land designated in the existing land
use designation which is Major Institution/University Lands/Academic
Reserve. That is comparable to an Open Space designation.
Commissioner Schmi.dt: But Stanford, at any time, could come forward and
do something there and go through the appropriate processes to make that
change?
Mr. Schreiber: Correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: I do feel that housing is reasonable there, but it
is also reasonable that something creative could come forward, as Jon
suggested. Sandy and Tony have agreed with that, so I feel it is
reasonable to leave it as it is. We are still in the process of just
putting a potential designation there for an EIR evaluation. We are not
rezoning anything right now or even making a strong recommendation. We
are just saying we want to see some analysis, so it might be appropriate
to do some analy~s of that site for the EIR for housing. It might
provide further analysis and just some background for other things that
might want to happen there.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: What I am hearing is to go in the direction of a
09/13/95
-35-
mixed use designation, except for Kathy, who feels we should leave it
al one.
Commissioner Schink: I, too, feel we should just leave it alone.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: With flexibility on Sandy’s side.
Commissioner Eakins: Then it won’t be covered by the EIR, will it?
Ms. Cauble: If the commission recommends no consideration of change, then
it will not be considered, unless the council, on its own, disagrees with
your recommendation and decides to consider some alternative.
Commissioner Eakins: Considering the trouble that Stanford has gone
through in bringing it forward to this point, and we would be dropping it
off if we do not make some recommendation, other than no change, I think
we ought to recommend something, and see what happens.
~ommissioner Schink: My only reluctance is in leading people to believe
there will be housing here, and then running into the kinds of problems we
did with the Fry’s property, where people really felt we were taking away
a big part of our housing commitment. I don’t think we should do that
here, when I feel that the obvious solution in the long run is going to be
something that is not going to have a big housing component. We should
not mislead people by implying that that is the case. So without a clear
designation, I do not feel we should take any action.
MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: After these discussions, I will move that
we leave the designation as it is now, and not evaluate housing in an EIR.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: We have a motion and seconded to leave the
property as is.
Commissioner Cassel: Obviously, I disagree. I think we should at least
look in the EIR on this. I think we should be looking further ahead than
a few years, and I think we ought to be encouraging some housing here. We
would be losing a good opportunity.
Commissioner Eakins: I agree with Phyllis, but am not as adamant about
housing only on the site. I will not support the motion.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: I, too, will not support the motion. I think
that we need the flexibility, and it should be included in the EIR so that
Stanford is a little more flexible in coming forward with a creative
proposal. It should be designated as a mixed use site.
MOTION FAILS: Vice Chairman Carrasco: Is there any further discussion on
this motion? All those in favor, say aye? All opposed? That fails on a
vote of 2-3, with Commissioners Carrasco, Cassel and Eakins voting no,
Commissioners Schink and Schmidt voting yes, and Commissioners Beecham and
Ojakian absent.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I move that we recommend designating this
site as a mixed land use, including housing.
09/13/95
-36-
SECOND: By Commissioner Eakins.
MOTION PASSES: Vice Chairman Carrasco: Is there any further discussion
on this motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes
on a vote of 3-2, with Commissioners Schink and Schmidt voting against,
and Commissioners Beecham and Ojakian absent.
Vice Chairman Carrasco: We will next take up Area #7, 3901-3981 El Camino
Real, as it can be handled quickly. Are there any staff comments?
Mr. Schreiber: No further comments, except as I noted in my presentation,
this is an area where staff changed its recommendation, but there is not
any firm view within staff as to what is the best or preferred option at
this site. Absent of any good argument for change, we fell back on the
status quo recommendation.
MOTION: Commissioner Eakins: I move the staff recommendation to make no
land use map change for sites located at 3901, 3929, 3939, 3941, 3945 and
3981 El Camino Real.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt.
~ommissioner Schink: I will support the staff recommendation because I
feel it anticipates that we are going to do further study along El
Camino. We could come up with some different designations, so it seems
appropriate to leave it the way it is. We will be looking at it further,
and hopefully, in the not too distant future.
MOTION PASSES: Vice Chairman Carrasco: Is there any further discussion
on this motion? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes
on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Beecham and Ojakian absent.
MOTION: I move that we continue discussion of the rest of the areas in
Agenda Item 2 to the October 11 meeting.
SECOND: By Commissioner Eakins.
MOTION PASSES: Vice Chairman Carrasco: All those in favor, say Aye? All
opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Beecham and
Ojakian absent.
AGENDA~ PLANNING DlVlSlON WORK PROGRAM: List of potential or
~urrent"work assignments primarily for staff in the~anning Section to be undertaken in 1995-96.
Ms. Lytle.. I want to og ba~i~,,~n .... time a little bit to a retreat that we
had wi~iss~on several~l~,~ ago, when it was requested that
there be a little more organized’~ay~~t~ing our priorities annually.
It led somewhat to the inspiration for tr~_~L ~o create a method of
coordi~.. _gnm_ents .that-co~ boards, commissions,the city manager~rly, the city councl~’I~,,i~or the ~enefit of
all the ~lanning org~ions, as well
as the staff~n ~n a~ticip~of how
staff t
of all parties as to what our priorities are. I am hoping~that you we e
09/13/95
-37-