HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-08 City Council (18)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Summary Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: April 8, 1996 CMR:212:96
SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Update -- Incorporation of Citywide Land
Use and Transportation Study
REQUEST
This staff report discusses actions taken at the March 12, 1996 Policy and Services
Committee meeting, including the Committee request that staff suggest modifications to the
Committee’s recommendations. The Committee reviewed alternative ways of incorporating
the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study into the forthcoming Draft
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff’s recommendation is in the attached March 12, 1996 staff report. If the Council wishes
to approve the Policy and Services Committee’s recommendation, the following goal, policy
and program are recommended for inclusion in the Draft Comprehensive Plan:
Goal:Assure a balance between supporting businesses, maintaining residential
character, and preserving the environment.
Policy:Maintain the limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new development for the
nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council can
make modifications to specific property regulations that permit modest
additional growth. The additional growth can either count toward the
3,257,900 square-foot maximum or toward a higher number if the City
Council amends the Comprehensive Plan.
Program:Establish a system to monitor the rate of new development, and if the rate
of growth reaches the point where the Citywide maximum might be
CMR:212:96 Page 1 of 20
reached, the City shall re-evaluate development policies and regulations.
(The point at which policies and regulations shall be re-evaluated will be
determined during review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and its
Environmental Impact Report).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Policy and Services Committee’s recommendation is to incorporate the Citywide Study
development maximum into the Draft Comprehensive Plan, with recognition of the potential
for modest additional growth to the limits. The policy implications of the recommendation
vary by the specificity of the implementation approach. If the overall development
maximum identified in the Citywide Study is broken down and applied to each of the nine
Citywide Study planning areas, there could be substantial impacts on the ability of the City
to approve new development in various areas without further Comprehensive Plan
amendments. If the Citywide Study development maximum is treated as staff understands
the intent of the Policy and Services Committee, the limit will be a more general gauge for
tracking City development activity. This approach has fewer potential policy problems, in
part because the likelihood of the City approving this level of development in the next fifteen
to twenty years is regarded by staff as very unlikely. However, a concern of staff is that the
Citywide Study was never structured to be a development cap, and after-the-fact conversion
of the Citywide Study into a development cap will probably have unintended consequences
that will emerge during implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The attached March 12, 1996 staff report, "Comprehensive Plan Update -- Incorporation of
Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study" (CMR: 175:96) was reviewed by the Policy
and Services Committee on March 12, 1996. The staff report reviews the objectives and
results of the 1989 Citywide Study.
The March 12 Committee meeting included considerable discussion of traffic data and
issues. A companion April 8, 1996 staff report "Comprehensive Plan Update -- Traffic
Related Reference Information" (CMR:218:96) discusses in more detail traffic-related issues
and questions raised at the Committee meeting.
The Policy and Services Committee recommended the following Draft Comprehensive Plan
goal, two policies and program, with the understanding that staff would address a number of
wording and implementation issues:
Goal:Assure a balance between supporting businesses, maintaining residential
character, and preserving the environment.
CMR:212:96 Page 2 of 20
Policy:Maintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation
Study, with the understanding that modifications to the limits that permit
modest additional growth may be made as the result of future (area
studies).
Policy:Maintain an overall Citywide limit of 3,257,900 square feet.
Program:Develop a development monitoring and early warning system such that if
the rate of growth is high enough to overtake the limits, the City would re-
evaluate development policies.
Within the context of the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to formalize the
overall Citywide Study development maximum in the Comprehensive Plan, staffunderstands
that the Committee’s intent is to allow some "modest additional growth" above the Citywide
number. Staff concludes that two approaches should be combined. First, property-specific
changes to the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning should be able to
proceed through the traditional City processes and not have new process requirements..
Second, the Council should have the opportunity to amend, if desired, the Citywide
maximum for larger, site-specific projects and planning studies.
There are a variety of technical issues that are important if the development maximums
identified in the Citywide Study are to become part of the Comprehensive Plan and future
development is to be monitored and credited toward the maximum. The attached in-depth
staff report reviews a variety of these issues and concludes that the following guidelines
should be used in identifying development that counts toward the Citywide limit:
Development approvals be counted from September 1, 1989 forward.
Development approvals to be counted for the areas within the City Study as identified
on the attached eight maps plus the CD-zoned areas in the Downtown.
°350,000 square feet of the development limit be allocated to the Downtown CD-zoned
area.
The floor area of the former Maximart site not be deducted from the 3,257,900 square
foot total.
This approach can be argued to have some inequities (e.g., replacement of the Palo Alto
Hyatt and/or the Medical Foundation with housing will not create a square footage credit
against the Citywide number; the potential for the recent 30,000-square-foot Children’s
Health Council addition was not identified in the Citywide Study but will still count toward
CMR:212:96 Page 3 of 20
the maximum square footage; the former Maximart site could be counted toward the
maximum). However, by relying on the maps from the Citywide Study, a clear geographical
base will be established which will make furore tracking of development approvals easier for
the public and the City. Data on non-residential development since the Citywide Study is
identified on pages 13 through 16 of the attached March 12 staffreport. Based on that data,
approximately 554,000 square feet of development approved between September 1989 and
September 1995 would count against the 3,257,900 square feet of Citywide Study
development potential. (The 554,000 number includes Downtown development since the
1986 adoption of the Downtown Study.)
The Policy and Services Committee recommendation includes a program to have annual
monitoring of development activity and an automatic restudy trigger based on the Downtown
regulations. Staff noted at the Committee meeting that the details of the monitoring and
restudy requirements should be developed as part of the preparation and public review of the
Draft Plan and Draft EIR.
FISCAL IMPACT
To the extent that the alternative of translating the Citywide Study into specific area
development caps could restrict future efforts to revitalize some areas, the issues raised in
this staff report could have fiscal impacts. The issue of Fiscal Impact will be addressed when
the Draft Comprehensive Plan is prepared.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Draft Comprehensive Plan will be the subject of an Environmental Impact Report. The
issues before the City Council involve identification of policies and programs for inclusion
into the Draft Plan. As such, no environmental review or findings are necessary at this time.
STEPS FOLLOWING...APPROVAL
The City Council’s recommendations will become part of the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
The Draft Plan is tentatively scheduled for publication and distribution by September 1996.
Extensive public review will follow release of the Draft Plan, including public hearings by
the Planning Commission and City Council.
PREPARED BY: Kenneth R. Schreiber
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CMR:212:96 Page 4 of 20
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
City
CMR:212:96 Page 5 of 20
CMR:212:96 Page 6 of 20
C ty
City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Update -- Incorporation of Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study
REQUEST
This staff report discusses actions taken at the March 12, 1996 Policy and Services
Committee meeting, including the Committee request that staff suggest modifications to the
Committee’s recommendations. The Committee reviewed alternative ways of incorporating
the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study into the forthcoming Draft
Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff’s recommendation is in the attached March 12, 1996 staff report. If the Council wishes
to approve the Policy and Services recommendation, the following goal, policy and program
are recommended for inclusion in the Draft Comprehensive Plan :
Goal:Assure a balance between supporting businesses, maintaining residential
character, and preserving the environment.
Policy:Maintain the limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new development for the
nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council can
make modifications to specific property regulations that permit modest
additional growth. The additional growth can either count toward the
3,257,900 square-foot maximum or toward a higher number if the City
Council amends the Comprehensive Plan.
Program:Establish a system to monitor the rate of new development, and if the rate
of growth reaches the point where the Citywide maximum might be
reached, the City shall re-evaluate development policies and regulations.
(The point at which policies and regulations shall be re-evaluated will be
determined during review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and its
Environmental Impact Report).
BACKGROUND
The attached March 12, 1996 staff report, "Comprehensive Plan Update -- Incorporation of
Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study" (CMR: 175:96) was reviewed by the Policy
CMR:212:96 Page 7 of 20
and Services Committee on March 12, 1996. The staff report reviews the objectives and
results of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. Non-residential
development since 1987 is identified by the nine planning areas incorporated into the
Citywide Study. Major conclusions identified in the staff report include:
The Draft Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs, to a very considerable
degree, are consistent with the objectives and general results of the Citywide Study.
Within the nine planning areas evaluated in the Citywide Study, there are numerous
potential variations between the Study and the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
For two of the nine planning areas, City development approvals since adoption of the
Citywide Study in August 1989 have exceeded the future development identified in
the Citywide Study.
The Citywide Study focused on commercial and industrial zones and did not
incorporate relatively smaller amounts of development activity resulting from
Planning Community zones (e.g., Holiday Inn, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo
Alto Hyatt) and from some governmental activities (e.g., airport, City facilities,
Veterans Administration Hospital).
The Citywide Study did not establish a Citywide development cap (the 3,257,900
square feet of Development Potential identified in the Citywide Study is a reasonable
buildout calculation for the zones evaluated in the Study).
At the March 12 Committee meeting, staff distributed the attached table comparing 1985 and
1995 peak hour and peak three-hour traffic counts at the 11 key intersections identified in the
Citywide Study. Recognizing that traffic counts can vary by up to 10 percent during the
normal course of a week, month or year, only one intersection (Middle fiel!!University) has
had a discernible increase between 1985 and 1995 during the peak hour and three
intersections (Middle fiel!!University, Middle field/San Antonio, and Foothill/Page Mill) have
a discernible increase between 1985 and 1995 during the peak three hours. Traffic counts
and related information is discussed in more detail in a companion April 8 staff report
(CMR:218:96, "Comprehensive Plan Update -- Traffic Related Reference Information).
Included in that staff report is information on questions raised during public testimony,
including accident rate data, average speed data, the spreading of the commute period beyond
the traditional one hour, and daily traffic volumes.
The Policy and Services Committee recommended a Draft Comprehensive Plan goal, two
policies and a program, with the understanding that staff would address a number of wording
and implementation issues.
CMR:212:96 Page 8 of 20
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Policy and Services Committee’s recommendation is to incorporate the Citywide Study
development maximum into the Draft Comprehensive Plan, with recognition of the potential
for modest additional growth to the limits. The policy implications of the recommendation
vary by the specificity of the implementation approach. If the overall development
maximum identified in the Citywide Study is broken down and applied to each of the nine
Citywide Study planning areas, there could be substantial impacts on the ability of the City
.to approve new development in various areas without further Comprehensive Plan
amendments. If the Citywide Study development maximum is treated as staff understands
the intent of the Policy and Services Committee, the limit will be a more general gauge for
tracking City development activity. This approach has fewer potential policy problems, in
part because the likelihood of the City approving this level of development in the next fifteen
to twenty years is regarded by staff as very unlikely. However, a concern of staff is that the
Citywide Study was never structured to be a development cap, and after-the-fact conversion
of the Citywide Study into a development cap will probably have unintended consequences
that will emerge during implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
The March 12 Policy and Services Committee recommendations included:
Goal:
Policy:
Assure a balance between supporting businesses, maintaining residential
character, and preserving the environment.
Maintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation
Study with the understanding that modifications to the limits that permit
modest additional growth may be made as the result of future (area
studies).
Policy:Maintain an overall Citywide limit of 3,257,900 square feet.
Program:Establish a system to monitor the rate of new development, and if the rate
of growth reaches the point where the Citywide limit might be reached, the
City shall re-evaluate development policies and regulations.
The Committee-identified problem with the first policy is the use of "area studies," which
carries with it the implication of a specific planning process (i.e., coordinated area plans).
The Committee asked staffto identify the ways that changes to specific regulations could be
initiated and provide policy wording, that would allow the Council flexibility to approve
square footage above that contained in the specific regulations approved with the Citywide
Study. Staff understands that the Committee was receptive to acknowledging the ability of
a City Council to amend the 3,257,900 square-foot limit to "permit modest additional
CMR:212:96 Page 9 of 20
growth." Examples of increased floor area cited at the meeting included the possible need
for additional development potential in the Midtown area and the recently-approved Palo
Alto Medical Foundation project.
Ways in which the Council could be presented with changes to site-specific development
regulations include:
Property owner-initiated zone changes:
Change to a zoning classification with a higher floor area ratio (e.g., the recent
Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Campus rezoning from Service
Commercial to Public Facilities);
Change to a Planned Community zone;
Property owner-initiated studies and development proposals for a variety of parcels
(e.g., the pending Sand Hill Corridor package of development proposals);
-City-initiated land use studies (which may or may not be coordinated area plans); and
-City-initiated rezonings of a particular parcel.
Proposals that change (and increase) the amount of floor area on non-residential sites can
range from the very small to the very large and complicated. Large changes will tend to
require an environmental impact report that addresses not only project-specific but
cumulative development impacts. City procedures require that environmental impact reports
be reviewed and, if acceptable, certified by the City Council.
Within the context of the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to formalize the
overall Citywide Study development maximum in the Comprehensive Plan, staff understands
that the Committee’s intent is to allow some "modest additional growth" above the Citywide
limits. Staff concludes that two approaches should be combined. First, property-specific
changes to the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning should be able to
proceed through the traditional City processes and not have new process requirements.
Second, the Council should have the opportunity to amend, if desired, the Citywide
maximum floor area for larger, site-specific project and planning studies.
Staff concludes that requiring smaller projects, usually involving no significant
environmental impacts, to conduct broader, "area study" type analysis disproportionate to
the size of the project will be regarded as unwarranted and unfair. For example, the 1995
approval of the expansion of the Children’s Health Council (CHC) involved 30,000 square
CMR:212:96 Page 10 of 20
feet of new development that, while consistent with the zoning, was beyond the Citywide
limits for both the parcel and the particular Citywide Study planning area. To require the
CHC to undertake a substantially broader Sand Hill Road analysis would have been regarded
as an excessive City requirement. Other examples include minor amendments of Planned
Community zones that fall within the scope of the Citywide Study. On the other hand, larger
land use change issues, whether site specific (e.g., the vacant site at Page Mill Road and E1
Camino Real) or a group of parcels (e.g., Midtown, other area studies) could be perceived
as going beyond the Citywide Study and, under the new Comprehensive Plan, warranting
exception from the Citywide Study’s development maximum. A recognition of the ability
of the Council to approve land use changes and expand the Citywide Study’s development
maximum should be incorporated into the new Comprehensive Plan. However, the Council
should also have the ability to approve larger developments and have the new floor area
count toward the Citywide Study maximum floor area number.
Technical Issues
The Committee’s discussion did not include the process/technical questions identified on
pages 19 and 20 of the attached staff report. These questions include:
|
What is the start date for counting development toward a cap?
What development counts toward the cap?
The Citywide Study began in 1985, uses a 1987 existing development base and calculates
future development potential based on zoning amendments adopted in August of 1989.
Traditionally, the impact of land use studies and the potential for development under new
regulations that are associated with the study is calculated from the adoption of the study.
In this case, development that would count toward the Citywide maximum would be
approvals from September 1, 1989.
The issue of what development counts toward the Citywide maximum can be addressed in
several ways. First, eight of the nine Citywide Study planning areas have detailed maps,
which are attached. Area 1, the Downtown, did not have a map because the Citywide Study
incorporated the 1986 Downtown Study and did not address Downtown issues in any
substantive manner (including the existing Palo Alto Medical Foundation site, which was
outside of the Downtown Study and also excluded from the Citywide Study). The
preciseness of the maps (including the attached Downtown Study map included in the Zoning
Ordinance) means that non-residential development within the nine planning areas can be
tracked. It also means that development outside of the Planning areas was not counted
toward the future development potential calculated in the Citywide Study. Examples of sites
outside the Planning areas included:
CMR:212:96 Page 11 of 20
Area 1 -Palo Alto Medical Foundation (expansion approved in 1990)
Area 2 -Holiday Inn (expansion approved in October 1989)
Downtown transit station area
Area 4 -
Area 5 -
The Airport and the Water Quality Control Plant (Victor Aviation
proposed expansion is a forthcoming application)
The three Planned Community-zoned sites at Middlefield Road and San
Antonio Road (one of which recently received approval for a small
expansion)
Area 6 -Palo Alto Hyatt
The former Rudolfo’s restaurant
Area 8 -
Area 9 -
Veterans Administration Hospital (which is undergoing an expansion
that, because of the federal government status, was not subject to City
approval)
Stanford Barn
Another way of viewing the Citywide Study maximum floor area is to identify the zoning
districts that formed the basis for calculating the 3,257,900 square feet of development
potential cited as remaining as a result of the Study. Inclusion of all commercial (CD, CS,
CN, CC), office (OR) and industrial (GM, LM) zones is easily determined by reviewing the
Citywide Study, and these zones are the basis for the 3,257,900 square-foot calculation.
More confusing is the Citywide Study treatment of Planned Community and Public Facility
zones. Some PC zones are included in the existing development square footage (e.g., Page
Mill Square, four PC zones on Embarcadero east of Bayshore) and others are excluded (e.g.,
Stanford Barn, existing Palo Alto Medical Foundation, three zones at Middlefield and San
Antonio, Holiday Inn). Most PF-zoned parcels are excluded from the Study (e.g., City
facilities east of Bayshore, Veterans Administration Hospital) but some are included (e.g.,.
Cubberley, Stanford Medical Center including the Hoover Pavilion, and the former
Children’s Hospital site).
Regarding City boundaries, the Citywide Study did not address land outside of the City
except the land use designation of Stanford-owned sites on Quarry Road on either side of
Arboretum Road.
A final problem is how nonconforming uses whose amortization (i.e., use termination) date
has been extended are handled. The extended term for the Linus Pauling Institute is not a
CMR:212:96 Page 12 of 20
problem, because the non-residential use is planned to cease well within the time frame of
the new Plan. However, the former Maximart site’s extended termination date from 1999 to
2019 means that the commercial uses are likely to remain during the life of the new
Comprehensive Plan. The 255,000 square feet contained on the former Maximart site were
deducted in calculating the 3,257,900 square feet of future development potential.
The calculation of development approvals that count toward the Citywide development limits
should be kept as clear and easy to track as possible. Further, as noted in the March 12 staff
report, staff does not expect the 3,257,900 square foot amount cited in the Citywide Study
to be exceeded in the life of the next Comprehensive Plan and probably for years beyond
that.
Staff concludes that the following guidelines should be used in identifying approved
development that counts toward the Citywide maximum:
¯Development approvals be counted from September 1, 1989 forward.
°Development approvals to be counted for the areas within the City limits as identified
on the attached eight maps plus the CD-zoned areas in the Downtown.
°350,000 square feet of the development limit be allocated to the Downtown CD-zoned
area.
°The floor area of the former Maximart site not be deducted from the 3,257,900 square
foot total.
This approach can be argued to have some inequities (e.g., replacement of the Palo Alto
Hyatt and/or the Medical Foundation with housing will not create a square footage credit
against the Citywide limit; the potential for the recent 30,000 square-foot Children’s Health
Council addition was not identified in the Citywide Study but will still count toward the
limit; the former Maximart site could be counted toward the limit). However, by relying on
the maps from the Citywide Study, a clear geographical base will be established, which will
make future tracking of development approvals easier for the public and the City. Data on
non-residential development since the Citywide Study is identified on pages 13 through 16
of the attached March 12 staff report. Based on that data, approximately 554,000 square feet
of development approved between September 1989 and September 1995 would count against
the 3,257,900 square feet of Citywide Study development potential.
CMR:212:96 Page 13 of 20
Annual Monitoring ,,,and an Early Warning ,,,,System
The Policy and Services Committee recommendation includes a program to have annual
monitoring of development activity and an automatic restudy trigger based on the Downtown
regulations. Staff noted at the Committee meeting that the details of the monitoring and
restudy requirements should be developed as part of the preparation and public review of the
Draft Plan and Draft EIR.
As noted in the March 12 staff report, staff annually updates a simple spreadsheet of
development approvals. The effort is not cross-checked against building permits and thus
is reasonably, but not precisely, accurate. This effort would need to be modified based on
inclusion of the Citywide Study floor area maximum in the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
More precise data collection work should be connected into a computerized permit tracking
system that staff is working on.
Recommended Ways ofAddressing.~he Ci ..tywide Study Development Square Footage Limit
Important decisions include:
¯Should the Citywide Study development potential apply to the nine study areas
reviewed in the Citywide Study or to all non-residential land development in the City?
As noted previously, staffwould recommend that the Citywide Study development potential
be focused on the areas studied in the Citywide Study. The alternative is to include all
commercial, industrial and public facilities designated land.
Is the 3,257,900 square feet of future development potential cited in the Citywide
Study to be a limit that can be modified only through a future "Citywide Study," or
can the number be modified through Comprehensive Plan amendments resulting from
area studies (which may or may not be coordinated area plans) and individual
development proposals?
Staff believes that the Policy and Services Committee intends that the Draft Comprehensive
Plan incorporate the 3,257,900 number, and changes to specific property (e.g., PAMF) or
area (e.g., Midtown) regulations could be made by the Council, with the understanding that
additional development approvals could include amendment of the Citywide Study square
footage number. In the long term, restrictions on amending the Citywide square footage
number means that the Stanford Research Park and the San Antonio/East and West Bayshore
area become the "holding basins" from which increased development potential is subtracted,
given that these two areas contain about 75 percent of the future development potential cited
in the Citywide Study. However, as noted before, staff concludes that the total square
footage cited in the Citywide Study is unlikely to be developed during the next 15 to 20
years.
CMR:212:96 Page 14 of 20
¯The third major issue is the process through which development regulations for
specific properties and areas are considered for change.
The March 12 staff report noted that two of the nine Citywide Study areas have received
approval of more development than recognized by the Citywide Study. With the January
1996 approval of the PAMF Urban Lane project, three of the areas are in this situation.
1. Urban Lane -New floor area exceeds the Citywide Study number
before the PAMF approval if the Holiday Inn
expansion is counted and with PAMF if Holiday Inn
is not counted (because Holiday Inn is outside of the
Urban Lane area mapped in the Citywide Study).
2. Central Palo Alto -The Citywide Study identified a net loss of 6,200
square feet because of the closure of the former
Maximart site by 2000 and the area has had 4,865
new square feet added.
3. Sand Hill Road
Corridor -
The Citywide Study included the Children’s Health
Council (CHC) and Ronald McDonald House as part
of Children’s Hospital, when in fact they are
separate entities. The recent approval of a 30,000-
square-foot addition to CHC pushed approved
development beyond the 121,800 square feet of new
floor area identified in the Citywide Study.
As noted earlier in this staff report, staff concludes that consideration of changes to specific
property regulations should proceed through the traditional City processes and not have new
process requirements. Smaller projects should not bear the burden of new analysis
requirements. Larger projects will usually have a Comprehensive Plan change and often an
environmental impact report and thus require evaluation of broader cumulative growth issues
and Council review and action.
Modifications to Policy and Services Committee Recommendations
Committee-recommended Goal." Assure a balance between supporting
maintaining residential character, and preserving the environment.
businesses,
Staff sees no need to modify the recommended goal.
CMR:212:96 Page 15 of 20
Committee-recommended Policy: Maintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study with the understanding that modifications to the limits that permit
modest additional growth may be made as the result of future (area studies).
Committee-recommended Policy: Maintain an overall Citywide limit of 3,257,000 square
feet.
The unresolved problem with the above wording is identification of what would be the basis
(e.g., area studies, City-initiated studies, private development applications) for modifying the
Citywide limits. Given the range of actions that can trigger modification of specific property
regulations (e.g., from the Midtown Study to the PAMF application), staff concludes that it
would be inappropriate to try to identify in the policy the range of possible future actions.
As noted earlier, staff recommends that the following guidelines be used in totaling approved
development:
o Development approvals be counted from September 1, 1989 forward.
Development approvals to be counted for the areas within the City Study as identified
on the attached eight maps plus the CD-zoned areas in the Downtown.
350,000 square feet of the development limit be allocated to the Downtown CD-zoned
area.
¯The floor area of the former Maximart site not be deducted from the 3,257,900 square
foot total.
Further, staff concludes that the best approach to incorporation of the Citywide Study
development potential into the Draft Comprehensive Plan is to establish a Citywide
commercial, industrial and public facility development maximum of 3,257,900 square feet,
as of September 1989, for the nine areas identified in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study, with the Council to determine what specific property regulations can
be modified and whether additional growth allowed by new regulations counts toward the
current maximum or warrants amendment of the maximum.
With this approach, the policy could be reworded to:
Revised Policy: Maintain the limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new development for
the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation
Study, with the understanding that the City Council can make modifications to
specific property regulations that permit modest additional growth. The additional
CMR:212:96 Page 16 of 20
growth can either count toward the 3,257,900 square-foot maximum or toward a
higher number, if the City Council amends the Comprehensive Plan.
This revised policy merges the Committee’s two policy recommendations.
Committee-recommended Program: Establish a system to monitor the rate of new
development, and if the rate of growth reaches the point where the Citywide
maximum might be reached, the City shall re-evaluate development policies and
regulations.
As discussed at the Committee meeting, staff would recommend that the specific trigger
point for re-evaluating development policies and regulations should be determined during
review of the Draft Plan, and especially the Draft EIR.
Treatment of the Citvwide Study Development Maximum in the Draft Plan’s Environmental
Impact Report
The Draft Comprehensive Plan’s EIR will have a project and three alternatives, including No
Project and lower development and higher development alternatives. The project includes
the goals, policies and programs identified by the Council; the existing Land Use Plan Map,
except for changes identified by the Council; and growth assumptions based on projections
developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), as modified by the Santa
Clara County Center for Urban Analysis as part of their work for County transportation
planning and policy changes identified in the Draft Plan.
Staff has reviewed all segments of the City and identified estimates of additional non-
residential and residential development for the Draft EIR’s project and three alternatives.
The High Development alternative will include non-residential growth compatible with the
overall Citywide Study development maximum.
Staff discussions of the Plan’s Draft EIR have identified a significant issue related to the
Citywide Study and the recent Policy and Services Committee discussion. The Citywide
Study identified traffic impacts and related transportation mitigations. The new
Comprehensive Plan and its EIR will establish a new basis of projected impacts and desired
mitigations. Since adoption of the Citywide Study in 1989, the rate of new development,
especially in the Stanford Research Park (because of the 1990-1994 recession and underlying
labor supply constraints, among other factors), has not been great enough to yield a flow of
mitigation funds necessary to make substantial headway toward implementing the list of
major intersection mitigations adopted with the Citywide Study. Thus, the flip side of not
having traffic increase substantially at nearly all of the 11 key Citywide Study intersections
is that the City is not making great progress toward solving current and anticipated
intersection problems.
CMR:212:96 Page 17 of 20
Consideration of the new Comprehensive Plan will require the City to reassess intersection
and other transportation mitigations, including the likelihood of funding improvements
identified in the Plan’s Draft EIR. This raises the possibility and perhaps the desirability of
finding alternative funding sources (e.g., assessment districts) to continued primary reliance
on new development impact fees. Staff will continue to explore this issue during preparation
and subsequent public review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and its Draft EIR.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the Committee recommendation as elaborated on in this staff report include:
Incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan the general objectives of the Citywide Land
Use and Transportation Study, but do not include specific square footage numbers.
This is the recommendation of the attached March 12, 1996 staff report. Staff
continues to have concerns that the 1989 Citywide Study was never intended to be a
development cap, and there will be unintended consequences of establishing a
development maximums that will become evident in future years and in the context
of specific development applications.
Treat the Comprehensive Plan as a new starting point for City policies and do not
incorporate the 1989 Citywide Study, except through policies developed in the new
Plan.
As staff has previously noted, the goals, policies and programs of the Draft Plan are
consistent with the Citywide Study. However, there are numerous differences among
the details. Treating the Comprehensive Plan as a new basis for City land use policy
would avoid the possible problems of treating the Citywide Study as extraordinarily
important.
Allocate in the Comprehensive Plan the Citywide Study floor area to the nine
planning areas.
3A.Future changes to the limits would require Council approval
3B.Future changes to the limits would be accomplished through a private
sector transfer of development rights mechanism.
As noted earlier in this report, City actions since September 1989 have resulted in
actual development exceeding the Citywide area specific development figures for
three of the Citywide Study’s nine planning areas (Urban Lane, Central Palo Alto and
Sand Hill Road Corridor). Allocation of the remaining floor area under a 3,257,900
CMR:212:96 Page 18 of 20
maximum would need to involve additional analysis of development potential. The
transfer of development rights alternative would make the initial allocation process
more difficult. In either alternative 3 option, additional staff work would be necessary
and some delay in publishing a Draft Plan would be experienced. Staff does not
believe that alternative 3 fits the intent of the Policy and Services Committee.
o
Establish in the Comprehensive Plan an identified amount of additional floor area
(e.g., 15 percent) that the Council could allocate, based on area studies or other
proposals approved by the Council.
The problem with this alternative is establishing the amount of additional floor area.
An arbitrary percentage has little, if any, basis in reality. Using the Comprehensive
Plan Advisory Committee workshop results for Midtown, South E1 Camino Real and
Cal-Ventura would place too much reliance on a one-day process, attempt to prejudge
a furore citizen process and likely establish the sense of a new cap within which future
land use studies would function. Finally, as noted in the March 12 staff report, staff
concludes that exceeding the 3,257,900 square foot level during the next 15 years is
quite unlikely.
Either apply the Citywide Study maximum to all commercial, industrial and public
facility development as of September 1, 1989 or establish a new development
maximum incorporating, the areas and zones not covered in the Citywide Study.
Either of the alternative 5 options has the simplicity of incorporating all new
development rather than development in the nine Citywide Study planning areas.
Without adjusting the Citywide limit, this alternative would expand the floor area
number to areas not covered in the Study and effectively dilute the Citywide Study
results. If the Citywide Study limit is to be increased in recognition of new areas, the
problem is identifying the appropriate levels of development for the areas and the
increase to the development maximum.
FISCAL IMPACT
To the extent that the alternative of translating the Citywide Study into specific area
development caps could restrict future efforts to revitalize some areas, the issues raised in
this staff report could have fiscal impacts. The issue of Fiscal Impact will be addressed when
the Draft Comprehensive Plan is prepared.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Draft Comprehensive Plan will be the subject of an Environmental Impact Report. The
issues before the City Council involve identification of policies and programs for inclusion
into the Draft Plan. As such, no environmental review or findings are necessary at this time.
CMR:212:96 Page 19 of 20
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The City Council’s recommendations will become part of the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
The Draft Plan is tentatively scheduled for publication and distribution by September 1996.
Extensive public review will follow release of the Draft Plan, including public hearings by
the Planning Commission and City Council.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment 1. CMR:175:96
Attachment 2. Table of Traffic Volumes at Eleven Key Intersections
Attachment 3. Citywide Area Maps (8)
Attachment 4. Downtown Study Map
CC:Planning Commission
CPAC
Speakers at February 7, 1996 City Council Meeting
Robin Bayer
Herb Borock
Lynn Chiapella
Pria Graves
Yoriko Kishimoto
Bill Peterson
Ed Power
Emily Renzel
Susie Richardson
Joseph Violette
Stanford University
Stanford Management Company
Chamber of Commerce
Denny Petrosian
CMR:212:96 Page 20 of 20
TO:
Attention:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Attachment 1
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Policy and Services Committee
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
March 12, 1996 CMR: 175:96
Comprehensive Plan Update -- Incorporation of Citywide Land
Use and Transportation Study
REQUEST
The issue addressed in this staff report is how to treat the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study in the forthcoming Draft Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recognize in the Draft Comprehensive Plan the policy intent and value of the Citywide
Study. The Citywide Study, as a policy document, fits very well within the Draft
Comprehensive Plan. The four objectives of the Citywide Study are consistent with the Draft
Plan.
Reduce future commercial and industrial development potential to minimize
deteriorating traffic conditions;
2.Preserve existing businesses;
o Encourage desirable uses such as housing by identifying commercial and industrial
sites or areas suitable for mixed-use or housing projects; and
o Identify appropriate traffic mitigations in major employment areas and necessary
physical traffic improvements.
CMR:175:96 Page 1 of 21
The Draft Plan should recognize the importance of the Citywide Study by acknowledging
the Study’s objectives and the importance of the zoning and other actions taken in 1989. The
Draft Plan should include the following policy with supporting Plan text that indicates that
consideration of changes to the specific features of the Citywide Study needs to include
evaluation of the benefits to be gained from the change.
Policy: In evaluating potential increases in non-residential growth limits, consider the
objectives of the 1989 Cit?.axide Land Use and Transportation Study.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Draft Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs, to a very considerable degree,
are consistent with the objectives and general results of the Citywide Study. Both documents
seek to limit non-residential development and control the growth in traffic. Both documents
encourage development of more housing, including use of non-residential land for residential
use. Both documents recognize the need for limited intersection improvements and agree
that the City cannot build itself out of existing and future congestion.
The Cit3~wide Study was not developed or implemented as a development cap. The Study
addressed most, but not all, non-residential development. The Study excluded most, but not
all, governmental facilities (e.g., airport, Water Quality Plant, Veteran’s Administration
Hospital) and non-residential Planned Community zones such as the Holiday Inn, Palo Alto
Medical Foundation and the Palo Alto Hyatt Hotel. Thus the development potential cited in
the Study relates to the build out under the City’s commercial and industrial zones, which is
close to, but not the same as, the build out of areas designated for commercial, industrial or
public sector employment activities in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Citywide Study was an important summation of the numerous planning studies that were
undertaken by the City in the 1980s. As such, the Study serves as an important set of
modifications to the current Comprehensive Plan and a key element in setting the stage for
the current Comprehensive Plan effort. The objectives and broad results of the Study should
not be lost. However, staff concludes that the next Comprehensive Plan would not well serve
the community if the details of the Study were continued in the new Plan as a narrow limit
on future flexibility.
The only development cap identified in the draft goals, policies and programs reviewed by
the Council is the downtown development cap resulting from the 1986 Downtown Study and
incorporated into the zoning ordinance. Staff does not recommend creation of more
development caps. As described in the staff report, the pace at which new additional floor
area (i.e., floor area beyond replacement of demolished floor area) is being created has been
CMR: 175:96 Page 2 of 21
relatively slow since completion of the Citywide Study in 1989. The goals, policies and
programs identified for the Draft Plan incorporate in many ways and places the philosophy
of the Citywide Study. New development caps would lead to furore zoning complexity and,
if drawn too tightly, could conflict with efforts to revitalize areas such as Midtown and South
El Camino Real.
If the City Council is interested in pursuing development caps, the alternatives are a citywide
development limit or area-specific limits. A citywide limit, given the size and configuration
of Palo Alto, would not be a particularly meaningful number. Area-specific limits would
need to go beyond the Citywide Study for several reasons. First, as noted above, the
Citywide Study did not include all non-residential land uses. Second, for the area bounded
by University Avenue, E1 Camino Real, Embarcadero Road and the railroad tracks,
development approvals have exceeded the square footage numbers in the Citywide Study.
Third, the draft goals, policies and programs that the Council has directed be incorporated
into the Draft Plan encourage area studies (Midtown, Cal-Ventura, South E1 Camino Real,
PAMF/SOFA and the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit area) that could result in
modification of regulations to permit some additional development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study resulted in a substantial reduction
in development potential by reducing the floor area ratios (FAR) of four nonresidential zones
(Service Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Office Research and General
Manufacturing) and reducing the amount of additional floor area that could be constructed
at the Stanford Shopping Center and Town and Country Village. A variety of other changes
were made to the zoning regulations, and the land use designation was changed at ten sites.
The Citywide Study did not establish a development cap and did not evaluate all non-
residential development. Between adoption of the Citywide Study in August 1989 and
September, 1995, the City approved about 451,000 square feet of additional floor area in the
areas and zones evaluated in the Citywide Study. Three developments outside the scope of
the Study (Holiday Inn Expansion, 1050 Arastradero and the Veterans Administration
Hospital) have added about another 289,000 square feet of floor area.
The Citywide Study’s objectives are, to a very considerable degree, consistent with the goals,
policies and programs identified by the City Council for inclusion in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan. Both documents seek to limit non-residential development and control
the growth in traffic. Both documents encourage development of more housing, including
use of non-residential land for residential use. Both documents recognize the need for
limited intersection improvements and agree that the City cannot build itself out of existing
and future congestion.
CMR: 175:96 Page 3 of 21
There are, however, subtle but important differences between the 1989 Citywide Study and
1996 planning policies. In 1996, there is greater understanding that Palo Alto exists in a very
competitive commercial and industrial environment. Just because land is located in Palo
Alto does not ensure economic success. There is also a notable difference between the
expected handling of follow-up studies in 1996 versus 1989. The coordinated area planning
concept envisions greater public participation, much more emphasis on economics and
receptivity to regulations that include three-dimensional representations of desired new
development rather than reliance on traditional zoning tools. Follow-up studies are to be
conducted with greater receptivity to the need for, value of, and economic requirements of
physical change. The hope is that by combining extensive and intensive public participation,
economic and planning expertise and more visually understandable regulations, ways can be
found to rejuvenate and redevelop areas that are experiencing significant economic and
physical problems. Thus, there is more receptivity to potential physical change in 1996 than
1989 and a recognition that upgrading parts of the community may need to involve changing
City land use regulations, including the possibility of, in selective locations, some increases
in development intensity. Finally, there is greater awareness in 1996 than 1989 of the value
to the City (and School District) revenue base of certain types of economic activities.
Within the nine areas evaluated in the Citywide Study, there are potential variations between
the Study results and the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Many of these differences reflect the
identification of five areas for future area studies (University Avenue Multimodel Train
Station Area, Midtown, Cal-Ventura, PAMF/SOFA, and South E1 Camino Real). Other
differences include the 1989 Holiday Inn expansion and the recent PAMF Urban Lane
Campus approvals in the Urban Lane area, the extension of the nonconforming use of the
former Maximart site, and some of the Land Use Plan Map changes considered by the
Council on February 29.
Staff concludes that the Citywide Study was an important summation of the numerous
planning studies that were undertaken by the City in the 1980s. As such, the Study serves
as an important set of modifications to the current Comprehensive Plan and a key element
in setting the stage for the current Comprehensive Plan effort. The objectives and broad
results of the Study should not be lost. However, the next Comprehensive Plan would not
well serve the community if the details of the Study were continued in the new Plan as a
narrow limit on future flexibility. Therefore, staff recommends recognition in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan of the policy intent and value of the Citywide Study without
incorporation of the Study’s detailed zoning limits and restrictions.
FISCAL IMPACT
To the extent that the alternative of translating the Citywide Study into specific area
development caps could restrict future efforts to revitalize some areas, the issues raised in
CMR:175:96 Page 4 of 21
this staff report could have fiscal impacts. The issue of fiscal impact will be addressed when
the Draft Comprehensive Plan is prepared.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Draft Comprehensive Plan will be the subject of an Environmental Impact Report. The
issues before the Policy and Services Committee involve identification of policies and
programs for inclusion in the Draft Plan. As such, no environmental review or findings are
necessary at this time.
PREPARED BY: Ken Schreiber
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:175:96 Page 5 of 21
SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Update -- Incorporation of Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study
REQUEST
The issue addressed in this staff report is how to treat the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study in the forthcoming Draft Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recognize in the Draft Comprehensive Plan the policy intent and value of the Citywide
Study. The Citywide Study, as a policy document, fits very well within the Draft
Comprehensive Plan. The four objectives of the Citywide Study are consistent with the Draft
Plan.
Reduce future commercial and industrial development potential to minimize
deteriorating traffic conditions;
2.Preserve existing businesses;
Encourage desirable uses such as housing by identifying commercial and
industrial sites or areas suitable for mixed-use or housing projects; and
Identify appropriate traffic mitigations in major employment areas and
necessary physical traffic improvements.
The Draft Plan should recognize the importance of the Citywide Study by acknowledging
the Study’s objectives and the importance of the zoning and other actions taken in 1989. The
Draft Plan should include the following Policy with supporting Plan text that indicates that
consideration of changes to the specific features of the Citywide Study needs to include
evaluation of the benefits to be gained from the change.
Policy: In evaluating potential increases in nonresidential growth limits, consider the
objectives of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study.
BACKGROUND
On February 7, 1996, the City Council reviewed a staff report (CMR: 129:96) that identified
inconsistencies, conflicts and gaps in the Council’s review of draft goals, policies and
progams for the Comprehensive Plan. The Council referred to the Policy and Services
Committee further consideration of the issue of how to treat in the new Plan the 1989
City,vide Land Use and Transportation Study.
CMR:175:96 Page 6 of 21
The February 7, 1996 staff report addressed the issue of the Cityvcide Study in the following
way:
"Page 10, BE-9: Goal BE-9 is Maintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land
Use and Transportation Study with a notation that "Staff is to bring back
modifications to the Study necessary to have a consistent Comprehensive
Plan. "
"DISCUSSION: For most nonresidential areas, the proposed Draft
Plan’s goals, policies and programs are consistent with the 1989
Citywide Study’s nonresidential floor area limits. Modifications to the
Citywide Study could occur with area and large site plans (e.g., Cal-
Ventura, Midtown, Stanford Medical Center) and a few other site
and/or use specific changes (e.g., conference hotel at Page Mill Road
and El Camino Real, Stanford Shopping Center). Staff would not
expect the overall Citywide limits contained in the Citywide Study to
be exceeded in the life of the next Comprehensive Plan and probably
for years beyond that.
"RECOMMENDATION: Goal BE-9 should be modified to reflect that
the 1989 Citywide Study floor area ratios are not considered to be site
specific limits. The Economic Balance vision statement on page 10
could become a goal with a related policy addressing the 1989 Study.
"GOAL: Assure a balance between supporting businesses, maintaining
residential character and preserving the environment.
"POLICY: In evaluating potential increases in nonresidential growth
limits, consider the objectives of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study."
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Draft Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs, to a very considerable degree,
are consistent with the objectives and general results of the Citywide Study. Both documents
seek to limit non-residential development and control the growth in traffic. Both documents
encourage development of more housing, including use of non-residential land for residential
use. Both documents recognize the need for limited intersection improvements and agree
that the City cannot build itself out of existing and future congestion.
The Citywide Study was not developed or implemented as a development cap. The Study
addressed most, but not all, non-residential development. The Study excluded most, but not
CMR: 175:96 Page 7 of 21
all, governmental facilities (e.g., airport, Water Quality Plant, Veteran’s Administration
Hospital) and non-residential Planned Community zones such as the Holiday Inn, Palo Alto
Medical Foundation and the Palo Alto Hyatt Hotel. Thus the development potential cited in
the Study relates to the build out under the City’s commercial and industrial zones, which is
close to, but not the same as, the build out of areas designated for commercial, industrial or
public sector employment activities in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Citywide Study was an important summation of the numerous planning studies that were
undertaken by the City in the 1980s. As such, the Study serves as an important set of
modifications to the current Comprehensive Plan and a key element in setting the stage for
the current Comprehensive Plan effort. The objectives and broad results of the Study should
not be lost. However, staff concludes that the next Comprehensive Plan would not well serve
the community if the details of the Study were continued in the new Plan as a narrow limit
on future flexibility.
The only development cap identified in the draft goals, policies and programs reviewed by
the Council is the downtown development cap resulting from the 1986 Downtown Study and
incorporated into the zoning ordinance. Staff does not recommend creation of more
development caps. As described in the staff report, the pace at which new additional floor
area (i.e., floor area beyond replacement of demolished floor area) is being created has been
relatively slow since completion of the Citywide Study in 1989. The goals, policies and
programs identified for the Draft Plan incorporate in many ways and places the philosophy
of the Citywide Study. New development caps would lead to future zoning complexity and,
if drawn too tightly, could conflict with efforts to revitalize areas such as Midtown and South
El Camino Real.
If the City Council is interested in pursuing development caps, the alternatives are a citywide
development limit or area-specific limits. A citywide limit, given the size and configuration
of Palo Alto, would not be a particularly meaningful number. Area-specific limits would
need to go beyond the Citywide Study for several reasons. First, as noted above, the
Citywide Study did not include all non-residential land uses. Second, for the area bounded
by University Avenue, E1 Camino Real, Embarcadero Road and the railroad tracks,
development approvals have exceeded the square footage numbers in the Citywide Study.
Third, the draft goals, policies and programs that the Council has directed be incorporated
into the Draft Plan encourage area studies (Midtown, Cal-Ventura, South E1 Camino Real,
PAMF/SOFA and the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit area) that could result in
modification of regulations to permit some additional development.
CMR: 175:96 Page 8 of 21
DISCUSSION
Purposes and Outcomes of the Ci ~tywide Land Use and Transportation Study
The Citywide Study, which began in 1986 and concluded in August 1989, was initiated to
address community wide concerns about increasing traffic congestion. It is important to
remember that the early 1980s witnessed a major growth in commercial and industrial
development. The City’s initial planning responses focused on area-specific studies (i.e.,
East Bayshore Study - 1984, Park Boulevard GM Area Study - 1985, California Avenue
Study - 1985, San Antonio/West Bayshore Study - 1986, and Downtown Study - 1986). The
Citywide Study followed these area studies and had four main objectives:
Reduce future commercial and industrial development potential to minimize
deteriorating traffic conditions;
2.Preserve existing businesses;
Encourage desirable uses, such as housing, by identifying commercial and
industrial sites or areas suitable for mixed-use or housing projects; and
Identify appropriate traffic mitigations in major employment areas and
necessary physical traffic improvements.
Several conclusions from the Study process are important to emphasize:
Under previous zoning regulations, the City had the potential to roughly double the
existing approximately 25,000,000 square feet of commercial and industrial
development;
The Study focused on commercial and industrial zoning and did not incorporate
relatively smaller amounts of employrnent-generating activity resulting from Planned
Community zones (e.g., Holiday Inn, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto Hyatt)
and from some governmental activities (e.g., airport, City facilities, Veteran’s
Administration Hospital);
While 25,000,000 additional square feet of development could not have been
physically accommodated, future growth levels were assumed to be high, especially
based on the development activity of the early 1980s;
CMR:175:96 Page 9 of 21
Three reduced-development scenarios were evaluated in the Citywide Study, ranging
from an additional 2,030,000 square feet of development to 4,937,000 square feet of
development;
Relatively little difference was found among the traffic impacts of the reduced-
development scenarios;
Peak hour traffic conditions were found to be poor on major routes, getting worse, and
would continue to deteriorate, even with no new development; and
The set of adopted regulation and land use changes would result in a maximum
additional development of about 3,258,000 square feet for the zoning districts
included in the Study.
The major results of the Citywide Study included:
Zoning Regulation changes -
Four zones had their floor area ratios reduced (Service Commercial from 2:1
to 0.4:1, Neighborhood Commercial from 1:1 to 0.4:1, Office Research from
0.75:1 to 0.5:1, and General Manufacturing from 1:1 to 0.5:1);
Special provisions were added to further reduce FARs at specific sites (a
0.35:1 FAR at the Town & Country Shopping Center, a maximum addition of
65,000 square feet to the Stanford Shopping Center, and a 0.25:1 FAR for
Hoover Pavilion);
Office size limits were added to the Service Commercial and Neighborhood
Commercial zones and to Town & Country Village Shopping Center;
A Hotel (H) Combining zone was created with an FAR of 0.6:1 and applied
to the Rickey’s Hyatt and Dinah’s Motor Lodge sites;
The housing provisions in the non-residential zones were modified; and
A variety of other changes were made, including the creation of a
Neighborhood Business Service use, modifications to the noncomplying
facility provisions and elimination of three combining zones.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and related zoning changes -
CMR:175:96 Page 10 of 21
Five sites were redesignated from commercial to housing (Elks Club, Fiesta
Lanes, a portion of the Traynor/Hill property at El Camino Real and
Charleston, a property on Maybell behind 4170 E1 Camino Real and the
Mayfield School/service station/restaurant site at Page Mill Road and E1
Camino Real);
Service Commercial property on the west side of E1 Camino Real between
California Avenue and Stanford Avenues was changed to Neighborhood
Commercial;
The service station site at Arboretum and Quarry Roads was changed from
Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial;
The unincorporated site on Quarry Road south of Arboretum Road was
changed from Major Institution/University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open
Space to Major Institution/University Lands/Campus;
The unincorporated site on Quarry Road north of Arboretum Road was
changed from Major Institution!University Lands/Academic Reserve and Open
Space to Major Institution!University Lands/Campus Multiple Family
Residential; and
The portion of the Hewlett-Packard training center at 100 Mayfield Road that
is located in Palo Alto was changed from Regional Community Commercial
to Research Office Park.
Traffic Mitigations
Intersection capacity improvements were approved for future implementation
at 27 intersections;
A Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance was adopted for future development
in the Stanford Research Park; and
A policy to develop Transportation Demand Management programs was
approved (implementation was subsequently shifted to the County Congestion
Management Agency, then to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
and then eliminated by State law).
Five areas of future study were identified
CMR:175:96 Page 11 of 21
Urban Lane CS parcels;
East Meadow Circle LM area;
Commercial/Industrial/Transport area;
-395 Page Mill Road site; and
-1050 Arastradero Road site.
What is important to highlight is that the Citywide Study was not, in either the study or
implementation phases, regarded as an effort to establish a growth cap. While development
potential was evaluated for nine study areas, Planned Community zones and most
governmental facilities were excluded from the analysis. For example, the Holiday Inn site
was included on some Citywide Study maps of the Urban Lane area and excluded on other
maps. The following Table 1 was incorporated into the Citywide Study Summary Report
and identified a development potential of 34,400 square feet for the Urban Lane area. Yet,
in October 1989, the City Council approved an expansion of the Holiday Inn to add 50,270
square feet of floor area.
TABLE 1
Comparison of Commercial and Industrial Development Potentials
Development
Potential/
PreviousExisting Square
Feet/May 1987
3,313,200
578,100
143,600
1,318,800
3,072,300
1,084,900
Study Area Zoning*
1. Downtown 350,000
2. Urban Lane 2,501,600
3. Midtown 253,500
4. East Bayshore 450,900
5. Southeast Palo Alto 1,567,200
6.South E1 Camino 3,356,100
Real
7. Central Palo Alto 1,878,900 2,526,900 (6,200)
CMR:175:96 Page 12 of 21
Development
Potential!New
Zoning*
350,000
34,400
5,200
93,500
665,000
200,100
9.Stanford Research 9,555,700 2,906,800 1,794,100
ParkiECR
10.Sand Hill Road 3,941,300 11,401,600 121,800
Corridor
TOTAL ~4,886,800 25,314,600 3,257,900
* Amount of development which could be added.
In the 1980s, the City did adopt two development caps. The first was for the California
Avenue area and established a ten year cap of 100,000 square feet. The cap was adopted in
t 985 and expired last year. The second development cap is the 350,000-square-foot limit on
new floor area in the downtown. That cap was incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance in
May 1986 and does not have an expiration date.
Non-residential Development Since the Ci .tywide Study
As noted above, the Development Potential/New Zoning identified in Table 1 was based on
realistic buildout of the commercial and industrial zoning classifications that were the focus
of the Citywide Study. City staff has tracked development approvals since 1980, and the
following information is taken from that data base as updated through September 1995.
Occasionally, approved development is not implemented and time does not permit a rigorous
cross-checking of development approvals and building permits. The following information
is based on net floor area and does not include floor area that replaces demolished floor area.
The 1980 data base does not, in some cases, correspond to the nine Citywide Study Areas
and allocations need to be made. Thus the information is quite accurate, but the exact square
footage may be off by a small amount.
The following information is based on the nine Citywide Study areas and information is
divided between two time periods: May 1987 to August 1989 (the date for existing square
footage in Table 1 and the adoption of the Citywide Study) and August 1989 to September
1995.
Area 1 -- Downtown
The Downtown Area mapped in the Citywide Study includes the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation site, which was not covered by the 1986 Downtown Study and is not part
of the area that has the 350,000-square-foot development cap identified as the
remaining development potential in Table 1. The area subject to the development cap
had 26,914 additional square feet of development between May 1987 and August
1989 and 8,723 additional square feet from September 1989 to September 1995.
CMR:!75:96 Page 13 of 21
The 1989 Palo Alto Medical Foundation Specific Plan would have permitted an
additional 45,000 square feet, but that area is excluded from all further analysis
because of the recent PAMF Urban Lane Campus approval.
Area 2 -- Urban Lane
The Urban Lane area had 1,307 additional square feet of floor area between May
1987 and August 1989 and 50,678 square feet between September i989 and
September 1995. Of this amount, 50,270 square feet were approved for the Holiday
Inn Planned Community zone expansion in October 1989.
Area 3 -- Midtown
No additional floor area was approved in Midtown from May 1987 to September
1995.
Area 4 -- East Bayshore
8,500 square feet of floor area was approved between May 1987 and August 1989 and
an additional 294 square feet between September 1989 and September 1995. The
predevelopment review application that the Council reviewed in 1995 for Victor
Aviation, if ultimately approved, would be outside of the zoning classifications
included in the Citywide Study.
Area 5 -- Southeast Palo Alto
112,073 square feet of additional floor area was approved between May 1987 and
August 1989, including 101,257 square feet for the then-Ford Aerospace expansion.
39,287 square feet of additional floor area was approved between September 1989
and September 1995.
Area 6 -- South E1 Camino Real
A net loss of 1,400 square feet of floor area was recorded between May 1987 and
August 1989.12,588 square feet were added between September 1989 and September
1995.
Area 7 -- Central Palo Alto
No floor area was added between May 1987 and August 1989 and 4,805 square feet
of floor area was added between September 1989 and September 1995.
CMR:175:96 Page 14 of 21
Area 8 -- Stanford Research Park and E1 Camino Real
7,614 square feet of additional floor area was approved between May 1987 and
August 1989. Between September 1989 and September 1995, 491,146 square feet of
floor area was approved. Of this area, the 162,540-square-foot addition to the
Veteran’s Administration Hospital and the 75,980-square-foot development of 1050
Arastradero were outside the framework of the Citywide Study. Of the remaining
252,626 square feet, the bulk was in three projects approved between June 1990 and
April 1991 (114,000 square feet at 3400 Hillview, 30,775 square feet at 1681 Page
Mill and 46,000 square feet at 3500 Deer Creek).’
Area 9 -- Sand Hill Road Corridor
10,616 square feet of floor area was approved between May 1987 and August 1989
and 127,898 square feet between September 1989 and September 1995. The 127,898
square feet include 13,391 square feet at the Stanford Shopping Center, a 73,100-
square-foot Stanford Medical Center clinic building approved in 1991, and a 30,000
square foot addition to Children’s Health Council approved in 1995.
The following table summarizes the above information:
TABLE 2
Citvwide Study Area Development. May 1987 to June 1.995.
Development
Potential after
Citywide
Study
350,000
May 1987 to
August 1989
Increases in
Floor Area
Total Net
Increases in
Floor Area,
May 1987 to
September
1995
September
1989 to
September
t995 Increases
in Floor Area
8,723
408
0
294
39,289
Increases in
Floor Area
Outside Scope
of Citywide
Study
0(1)
50,270~2~
o
o
o
Area
1. Downtown 26,914 35,637
2. Urban Lane 34,400 1,307 51,985
3. Midtown 5,200 0 0
4. East Bayshore 93,500 8,500 8,794
5. Southeast Palo 665,000 112,073 151,362
Alto
6. South E1 200,100 (1,400)12,588 0 11,188
Carnino
CMR:175:96 Page 15 of 21
Area
7.Central Palo
Alto
Stanford
Research Park/
ECR
Development
Potential after
Citywide
Study
(6,200)
1,794,100
May 1987 to
August 1989
Increases in
Floor Area
7,614
September
1989 to
September
1995 Increases
in Floor Area
4,865
252,626
Increases in
Floor Area
Outside Scope
of Citywide
Study
238,520(3)
Total Net
Increases in
Floor Area,
May 1987 to
September
1995
4,865
498,760
9.Sand Hill Road 121,800 10,616 127,898 0 138,514
Corridor
TOTAL 3,257,900 165,624 451,112 288,790 905,526
Does not include the 1989/90 PAMF Specific Plan.
Holiday Inn Planned Community Zone.
VA Hospital (162,540) and 1050 Arastradero Road (75,980).
Differences Between the Citywide Study and
Draft Comprehensive Plan Goals. Policies and Programs
Overall Comparison - The Draft Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs, to a very
considerable degree, are consistent with the objectives and general results of the Citywide
Study. Both documents seek to limit non-residential development and control the growth in
traffic. Both documents encourage development of more housing, including use of non-
residential land for residential use. Both documents recognize the need for limited
intersection improvements and agree that the City cannot build itself out of existing and
future congestion.
There are, however, subtle but important differences between the 1989 Citywide Study and
1996 planning policies. In 1996, there is greater understanding that Palo Alto exists in a very
competitive commercial and industrial environment. Just because land is located in Palo
Alto does not ensure economic success. There is also a notable difference between the
expected handling of follow-up studies in 1996 versus 1989. The coordinated area planning
concept envisions greater public participation, with much more emphasis on economics and
receptivity to regulations that include three-dimensional representations of desired new
development, rather than reliance on traditional zoning tools. Follow-up studies are to be
conducted with greater receptivity to the need for, value of, and economic requirements of
physical change. The hope is that by combining extensive and intensive public participation,
economic and planning expertise and more visually understandable regulations, ways can be
CMR:175:96 Page 16 of 21
found to rejuvenate and redevelop areas that are experiencing significant economic and
physical problems. Thus, there is more receptivity to potential physical change in 1996 than
1989 and a recognition that upgrading parts of the community may need to involve changing
City land use regulations, including the possibility of, in selective locations, some increases
in development intensity. Finally, there is greater awareness in 1996 than 1989 of the value
to the City (and School District) revenue base of certain types of economic activities.
Area-Specific Comparison -- The following commentary on the nine Citywide Study areas
highlights the differences between the Citywide Study and the Draft Comprehensive Plan
goals, policies and programs.
Area 1 -- Downtown. Both the Citywide Study and Draft Plan incorporate the 1986
Downtown Study development caps. The Citywide Study did not address the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation, even though preparation of the PAMF Specific Plan overlapped the
main part of the Citywide Study. The Draft Plan (and recently amended PAMF
Development Agreement) calls for a coordinated area plan for the PAMF/SOFA area.
Area 2 -- Urban Lane. The 1989 approval of the Holiday Inn expansion was not part of the
Citywide Study. The recent PAMF Urban Lane Campus approval goes beyond the additional
floor area identified in the Citywide Study. Finally, the Draft Plan includes a future area
study for the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Center (i.e., Dream Team) area.
Area 3 -- Midtown. The Citywide Study envisioned very minimal changes in the amount of
commercial floor area in Midtown. It is still too early to tell to what extent the current
Midtown Study will consider changes to floor area ratios.
Area 4 -- East Bayshore. There are no differences between the Citywide Study and Draft
Comprehensive Plan treatment of the East Bayshore/Embarcadero Road area.
Area 5 -- Southeast Palo Alto. The only possible difference between the Citywide Study and
Draft Comprehensive Plan treatment of this area is the yet to be resolved land use
designation of the Spanger School site..
Area 6 -- South E1 Camino Real. El Camino Real from Charleston Road north to Curtner
Avenue is identified as a future study area in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. The Citywide
Study identified 200,000 more square feet of non-residential floor area for South E1 Camino
Real.
Area 7 -- Central Palo Alto. The Citywide Study assumed the 100,000-square-foot floor area
cap for the California Avenue Area. However, this cap expired in 1995. The Draft Plan calls
for adjusting downward the California Avenue Area zoning, which may result in it being
CMR:175:96 Page 17 of 2I
compatible with the City,vide Study. The Citywide Study assumed the closure of the former
Maximart site by 2000. The Draft Plan calls for an area study of the Cal-Ventura area
bounded by Page Mill Road, E1 Camino Real, the residential area south of Lambert and the
railroad tracks.
Area 8 -- Stanford Research Park and Adjacent E1 Camino Real. The Research Park’s floor
area is the same in the Citywide Study and the Draft Plan. The major potential difference is
the land use designation of the vacant site at Page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real.
Area 9 -- Sand Hill Corridor. The City,vide Study implicitly assumed residential reuse of the
former Children’s Hospital site and did not acknowledge that the Children’s Health Council
(which had a 30,000 square foot expansion approved in 1995) and the Ronald McDonald
House are not part of the former Children’s Hospital site. The current set of Sand Hill
Corridor development applications includes more floor area at the Stanford Shopping Center
than was incorporated into the Citywide Study.
In summary, only one or two of the nine Citywide study areas are not considered for some
type of non-residential land use change, either directly in the Comprehensive Plan or as part
of follow-up studies identified in the Plan. While the overall objectives of the Citywide
Study are incorporated into the Draft Plan, there is the likelihood of notable detailed changes.
Conclusion
The Citywide Study was an important summation of the numerous planning studies that were
undertaken by the City in the 1980s. As such, the Study serves as an important set of
modifications to the current Comprehensive Plan and a key element in setting the stage for
the current Comprehensive Plan effort. The objectives and broad results of the Study should
not be lost. However, the next Comprehensive Plan would not well serve the community if
the details of the Study were continued in the new Plan as a narrow limit on future flexibility.
Therefore, staff recommends recognition in the Draft Comprehensive Plan of the policy
intent and value of the Citywide Study without incorporation of the Study’s detailed zoning
limits and restrictions.
Recommendation
Recognize in the Draft Comprehensive Plan the policy intent and value of the Citywide
Study. The Citywide Study, as a policy document, fits very well within the Draft
Comprehensive Plan. As noted earlier, the four objectives of the Citywide Study are
consistent with the Draft Plan.
CMR:175:96 Page 18 of 21
Reduce future commercial and industrial development potential to minimize
deteriorating traffic conditions;
2.Preserve existing businesses;
o Encourage desirable uses such as housing by identifying commercial and
industrial sites or areas-suitable for mixed-use or housing projects; and
Identify appropriate traffic mitigations in major employment areas and
necessary physical traffic improvements.
The Draft Plan should recognize the importance of the Citywide Study, by acknowledging
the Study’s objectives and importance of the zoning and other actions taken in 1989. The
Draft Plan should include the following Policy and supporting Plan text that indicates that
consideration of changes to the specific features of the Citywide Study needs to include
evaluation of the benefits to be gained from the change.
Policy: In evaluating potential increases in nonresidential growth limits, consider the
objectives of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative ways of addressing the Citywide Study in the Draft Comprehensive Plan include:
I.Establish a citywide non-residential growth cap.
As identified in Table 1, the Citywide Study identified a future development potential
of 3,257,900 square feet of floor area for the zoning districts incorporated into the
Study. As noted before, there are various developments (e.g., City facilities, VA
Hospital, Planned Community zones such as the Holiday Inn) that were not included
in the Citywide Study. If a City growth cap was to be established, immediate
questions include:
What is the start date for counting development toward the cap? Alternatives
include May 1987, as cited in Table 1, and August 1989, when the Study was
adopted.
What development counts toward the cap? Alternatives include all non-
residential development, non-residential development within certain areas
(remembering that the nine study areas are defined differently on different
CMR: 175:96 Page 19 of 21
Citywide Study maps), or non-residential development within the zoning
districts analyzed in the Citywide Study.
2.Establish sub-area growth caps.
The only area in Palo Alto that has a growth cap is the downtown. Based on the
Citywide Study, growth caps could be established for other areas. Numerous
problems would need to be addressed, including Urban Lane, where approved
development exceeds the Citywide Study, and Midtown, where the small amount of
additional growth may be incompatible with efforts to rejuvenate the area. Further,
the growth caps may or may not be compatible with the intent of area studies such as
Cal-Ventura, where the Citywide Study assumed removal of the former Maximart
site’s commercial uses by 2000, or for the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit
Station area, which is outside of a Citywide Study Area. The questions addressed
under Alternative 1 would also have to be answered for this alternative.
Maintain the zoning restrictions incorporated into the Citywide Study.
This alternative would make it more difficult to adjust floor area ratios if deemed
important as part of future area studies. Further, some of the use restrictions (i.e.,
office limits) may prove to be undesirable. This approach would also tend to lock into
place selective elements of particular zone districts (e.g., office and other commercial
size limits. Another question is whether the site-specific zoning changes made in the
Citywide Study would be maintained or open to change.
FISCAL IMPACT
To the extent that the alternative of translating the Citywide Study into specific area
development caps could restrict future efforts to revitalize some areas, the issues raised in
this staff report could have fiscal impacts. The issue of Fiscal Impact will be addressed when
the Draft Comprehensive Plan is prepared.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Draft Comprehensive Plan will be the subject of an Environmental Impact Report. The
issues before the Policy and Services Committee involve identification of policies and
programs for inclusion into the Draft Plan. As such, no environmental review or findings are
necessary at this time.
CMR: 175:96 Page 20 of 21
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The Policy and Services Committee recommendations, after review and action by the City
Council, will become part of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. The Draft Plan is tentatively
scheduled for publication and distribution by September 1996. Extensive public review will
follow release of the Draft Plan, including public hearings by the Planning Commission and
City Council.
CC:Planning Commission
CPAC
Speakers at February 7, 1996 City Council Meeting
Robin Bayer
Herb Borock
Lynn Chiapella
Pria Graves
Yoriko Kishimoto
Bill Peterson
Ed Power
Emily Renzel
Susie Richardson
Joseph Violette
Stanford University
Stanford Management Company
Chamber of Commerce
Denny Petrosian
CMR:175:96 Page 21 of 2!
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
-34-
Z
Z
-35-
W
CITYWlDE STUDY SUMMARY
FIGURE A-4 AREA 5 -SOUTHEAST PALO ALTO
-37-
CITYWiDE STUDY SUMMARY
FIGURE A-5 AREA 6 -SOUTH EL CAMINOREAL
-38-
CS AREAS
OLD
MAYF I E LD
SCHOOL
600
o
CITYWIDE
FIGURE A-7
HA~SEN WY.
EL CAMINO
STANFORD L ~
RESEARCH
PARK
LL EXPRESSWAY
STUDY SUMMARY
AREA 8 -EL CAMINO/
STANFORD RESEARCH PARK
-4.0-
)
;C
STANFORD
SHOPPING
CENTER
\~CC
PAVILION
RM-30(D)
I STANFORD
n M PF(L)
QUARRY-
ARBORETUM
TRAPEZOID
CITYWlDE STUDY SUMMARY
FIGURE A-8 AREA SAND HILL CORRIDOR
-4] -
ZONING
Attachment 4
18.49.130
1895