HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 392-06TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
OCTOBER 16, 2006 CMR: 392:06
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
DELETING CHAPTERS 18.41 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL),
18.44 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMBINING DISTRICT), 18.45
(SERVICE COMMERCIAL), AND 18.49 (DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL)
OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADDING PORTIONS
OF A NEW CHAPTER 18.16 (NEIGHBORHOOD, SERVICE, AND
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) AND A NEW CHAPTER 18.18
(DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL) PROVIDING FOR ALLOWABLE USES
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL, SERVICE COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL COMBINING,AND DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL
ZONES, INCLUDING MIXED USE CRITERIA; AND AMENDING
SECTIONS 18.94.070 AND 16.20.120 TO DELETE AMORTIZATION
REQUIREMENTS AND TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE FOR 3200
PARK BOULEVARD/340 PORTAGE AVENUE (FRY’S ELECTRONICS).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City
Council adopt the attached ordinance to approve specific sections of the new Chapter 18.16 and
the entirety of new Chapter 18.18 in the Zoning Ordinance for the Neighborhood Commercial,
Service Commercial, Community Commercial Combining District, and Downtown Commercial
zones, encompassing revisions to the current commercial zoning districts (Chapters 18.41, 18.44,
18.451 and 18.49) (Attachment A), particularly relative to limiting residential use in those
districts, providing increased potential for hotels, specifying more realistic and flexible mixed
use criteria, and requiring a conditional use permit for late night (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) uses adjacent
to residential areas. Staff and the P&TC also recommend modifications to Section 16.20.120 to
allow additional off-site signage for large retail uses without frontage on an arterial roadway,
specifically affecting 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue (Fry’s Electronics).
Additional Staff Recommendation
Staff further recommends that the Council increase the allowed signage provisions of Section
16.20.120 to allow a maximum size sign of 65 square feet (the P&TC recommended 50 square
feet) and that the Council enact revisions to Section 18.94.070 to eliminate the July 16, 2019
CMR: 392:06 Page 1 of 9
amortization date for Fry’s Electronics (the P&TC recommended retaining the amortization
date), pursuant to the language recommended in the section regarding Fry’s.
Note: Revisions to the Community Commercial district are presented in an accompanying City
Manager’s Report (CMR 391:06) and ordinance, which are provided separate due to that zone
district’s location partially on Stanford Lands.
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive Plan
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy L-9 directs that the City:
"’Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning
process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. ’"
Program L-10 implements the policy by directing that the City:
"Create and apply the following four new Mixed Use zoning standards: A "Live!Work"
designation that permits individuals to live on the same site where they work by allowing
housing and other uses such as office, retail, and light industrial to co-exist in the same
building space," and "’Retail/Office," "Residential/Retail, "and "Residential/Office"
designations that permit a mix of uses on the same site or nearby sites.
Develop. design standards for all mixed use designations providing for buildings with one to
three stories, rear parking or underground parking, street-facing windows and entries, and
zero setback along the street, except that front gardens may be provided for groundJloor
residential uses. ""
The Comprehensive Plan also includes several policies to address transitions in scale and density
and intensity between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of
different densities. Program L-5 specifically directs the City to:
"Establish new perforlnance and architectural standards that minimize negative impacts
where land use transitions occur. "’
Mixed use development is encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan to provide opportunities to
sustain and support residential and commercial uses and to reduce trips by locating residential,
employment, and retail services in close proximity to each other. The revisions to the
commercial zoning districts are intended to implement these policies.
Limitations on Conversion of Commercial Uses to Residential Uses
On August 7, 2006, the City Council considered options for restricting the conversion of
commercial uses and!or commercially-zoned properties to residential use. The intent of this
discussion was to identify ways to preserve commercial (particularly retail) uses, as well as to
limit the impacts of further housing development. The Council directed that staff should include
in the Zoning Ordinance Update provisions to limit residential use in commercial zones to
"mixed use" only. Council also expressed a desire to adopt these changes in advance of
CMR: 392:06 Page 2 of 9
November 7, 2006, when Proposition 90 will be considered by California voters (Proposition 90
could have implications for a city’s ability to restrict uses or densities through rezoning).
The Council has also directed staff to review and discuss zoning and development criteria related
to Fry’s Electronics to retain the business at its present site or elsewhere in Palo Alto, and to
rezone three residentially-zoned sites (Palo Alto Bowl, Mayflower Motel, and Summerwinds
Nursery) to commercial zoning to protect retail uses on those sites. These rezonings are in
process and will be considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission in November.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review (P&TC)
On August 30 and September 13, 2006, the P&TC conducted study sessions to discuss
commercial zoning and mixed use criteria. On September 27 and October 4, 2006, the P&TC
reviewed the draft ordinance amendments and recommended (6-0) that the amendments be
adopted. The September 27, 2006 P&TC staff report and attachments are included as Attachment
C (there was no additional report for the October 4 meeting) and the Commission’s minutes of
the September 27 and October 4 meetings are included as Attachment D.
The P&TC modified staff’s proposed ordinance to: 1) clarify that transition requirements
(height, daylight plane, setbacks) should apply when abutting or within 50 feet of a residential
district other than an RM-40 or residential PC zone; 2) limit increased FAR (from 0.9 to 1.0
FAR) for mixed use in the CN zone on E1 Camino Real such that the additional 0.1 FAR must be
for retail use only; 3) delete allowances for rooftop gardens to count as part of required open
space; 4) delete the staff proposal to eliminate the 2019 amortization date for Fry’s; and 5)
reduce the allowable size for off-site signage for Fry’s from a maximum of 65 square feet to a
maximum of 50 square feet. The P&TC indicated that deleting the amortization date was
premature in light of upcoming efforts to analyze potential rezoning and noted that the
amortization would then also apply to a future, less desirable business ifFry’s relocated.
The P&TC also had extensive discussion about: 1) the minimum retail FAR that should be
required for a mixed use project; and 2) whether to delete the current code provisions allowing
up to 5,000 square feet of ground floor office space in the CS zone on E1 Camino Real. The
P&TC unanimously concurred that the minimum 0.15 FAR (0.25 in the CC(2) zone in the
parldng assessment district) was a reasonable level of retail to require for mixed use
development, and that to require more could be detrimental to revitalizing some properties. The
P&TC voted separately (4-2) to retain the CS zone ground floor office provisions. The dissenting
Commissioners preferred to either limit the size of the office use (e.g., 2,500 square feet) or to
restrict such use to medical offices only.
Community Outreach
In August, staff presented the proposed code changes to Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN)
representatives and to local architects (summaries of the comments were attached to the P&TC
staff report and are on the Commercial/Mixed Use website). Most substantive concerns from
residents related to the proposed performance criteria, which have been deferred for further
input. Concerns from the architects were addressed prior to the ordinance proceeding to the
P&TC. Staff subsequently reviewed the changes with the Ventura Neighborhood Association
(including the revisions affecting Fry’s Electronics) and with the Chamber of Commerce
Government Affairs Committee. The Ventura Association was for the most part in support of the
CMR: 392:06 Page 3 of 9
signage, but was split on the amortization issue. The Chamber was in support of the
amendments, though no official position was taken at that time. Community input was also part
of the Commission’s study sessions and public hearings. Substantial background information and
the proposed revisions regarding the commercial districts and mixed use criteria have been added
to the City’s Zoning Ordinance Update website for public review as well.
DISCUSSION
Staff has prepared two CMR’s and ordinances that will allow the Council to address the
Community Commercial (CC) zone district (which includes the Stanford Shopping Center on
Stanford Lands) separate from the other zoning districts, which are not associated with Stanford
Lands. After adoption, the two ordinances will bemerged to create new Chapters 18.16 and
18.18 in the Zoning Ordinance.
This CMR and ordinance address the Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Service Commercial
(CS), Community Commercial Combining (CC2), and Downtown Commercial (CD) zoning
districts, The ordinance also includes the sign amendment related to Fry’s Electronics. The draft
ordinance (Attachment A) reflects the above changes recommended by the P&TC.
Summary of Proposed Revisions to Commercial Districts
The commercial districts are organized into two chapters: Chapter 18.16 for the CN, CC, CC(2),
and CS districts, and Chapter 18.18 for the CD district and subdistricts (Attachment A). The
attached draft ordinance does not address the CC zone portion of Chapter 18.16 due to Stanford
conflicts. Each chapter contains tables of allowable uses and development standards, similar to
the format for residential and research/manufacturing zones adopted previously. The basic
allowable uses and intensities (density and FAR) of uses, as well as parking requirements, for
development in the commercial districts are not proposed for revision.
There are, however, several substantive modifications to the commercial zoning districts that
respond to the Council’s desire to protect commercial (particularly retail) uses in these zones, to
encourage hotel uses in commercial districts, to respond to design needs consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan guidance as reflected in the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines, orto better
address transition impacts near low-density residential uses. Redlined versions of the two
chapters were provided in Attachments F and G of the P&TC September 27, 2006 staff report.
The key revisions proposed in the CN, CS, CC(2), and CD commercial districts include:
Limiting residential uses to "mixed use" only, pursuant to the mixed use criteria outlined in
the following section, ~ for properties designated as Housing Oppol~unity Sites in the
City’s Housing Element.
Increasing the floor area ratio (FAR) for hotels, generally to 2.0:1 (except in the CN zone,
where hotels are not a permitted use). This provision also allows for up to 25% of the FAR
and/or rooms to be used for residential condominium purposes, as further incentive for hotel
use generating transient occupancy taxes for the City.
Requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) for commercial retail (including restaurants) and
service uses operating between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in the CN and CS districts, when
adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
CMR: 392:06 Page 4 of 9
Reducing the front setback along E1 Camino Real to allow buildings up to the property line,
so long as they provide for adequate sidewalk width (generally 8-12 feet) and appropriate
pedestrian streetscape design.
Other minor cleanup changes are also proposed: 1) deleting the maps from the Downtown
Commercial (CD) Chapter, as they are now better shown on the City’s zoning map, and 2)
clarifications in the historic rehabilitation bonus and TDR provisions of the CD-C zone,
including the definition of "historic rehabilitation." Relevant overlay and combining districts
(such as Ground Floor, Retail, or Pedestrian combining districts) will still be applicable. Ground
floor requirements and other limitations in the Midtown and Charleston Center areas (including
prohibition of all residential development) are also retained in the updated CN district.
Proposed Mixed Use Development Standards
Mixed residential/non-residential development is currently allowed in all of the City’s
commercial zoning districts. The requirements for mixed use generally apply multiple-family
zoning standards (RM-40 in CD-C, RM-15 in CN, and RM-30 in other districts) to the
commercial site and specify the maximum site floor-to-area ratio (FAR), including the mix of
residential and non-residential FAR. This creates constraints on mixed use development where
residential setbacks, daylight planes and height restrictions result in poor design and preclude
achieving allowable development levels, even when there are no abutting residential uses. The
ZOU urban design consultants evaluated these constraints and developed prototypes for revised
standards.
The proposed mixed use development standards are intended to replace the multi-family overlay
with specific development criteria. Table 4 in each Chapter (Attachment A) outline these
criteria, including allowable densities, FAR, heigtits, setbacks and daylight planes, and open
space. For the most part, the requirements mimic the multi-family requirements, particularly
relative to density, height, and FAR. The key differences include:
Setbacks and daylight planes would apply only when abutting or within 50 feet of residential
zones, and would, in those cases, match the setbacks and daylight planes for the residential
zone,
Front setbacks would be determined by the ARB, but would generally be set at 5-10 feet,
accommodating a sidewalk width of 8-12 feet (12 feet along E1 Camino Real). At least 50%
of the building frontage would need to be "built to" this setback.
Coverage/open space/landscape percentages would be retained similar to multifamily
standards, but adding requirements for "usable" open space per unit (200 square feet per unit
for 5 or fewer units, 150 square feet per unit for more than 5 units), a qualitative description
of "usable open space," and flexibility to divide open space between common and private
open space and to locate usable open space above the ground level (e.g., balconies or above
parking podiums).
CN mixed use requirements on E1 Camino Real would be revised to allow a height of 40 feet
(rather than 35 feet) and an FAR of 1.0 (rather than 0.9), to better reflect the relationship of
height to the width of the arterial. The additional 0.1 FAR must, however, be used for added
retail, not residential or office, use.
The maximum FAR for a mixed use development in the CC(2) zone is reduced from 3.0 to
2.0, as it is not feasible to exceed 2.0 given other development standards.
CMR: 392:06 Page 5 of 9
Site and Design review for mixed use projects in the CN, CS, and CC districts would not be
required where 4 or fewer residential units are proposed.
A minimum commercial FAR is required for mixed use in each zone to assure that there is a
substantial commercial component for such projects. The percentage ranges from 0.15:1
FAR in the CN and CS zones to 0.25 FAR in the CC(2) zone.
Uses involving the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials in excess of exempt
amounts would not be permitted in a mixed use project.
Mixed use development would not be permitted on a site designated with the Automobile
Dealership (AD) overlay.
Context-Based Design Criteria
A context-based design criteria section is included for each chapter, but is also presented
separately in Attacbanent B for easier viewing. This section has been folded into the text of each
chapter, as was the case for the PTOD ordinance. The criteria include text and diagrams
illustrating preferred transitions to residential areas, streetscape design, massing and articulation
approaches, and sustainability. Many of the context-based criteria are the same or similar to
those reviewed for the PTOD ordinance. Staff believes that the criteria provide appropriate
guidance for all of the commercial districts and apply to entirely nonresidential projects as well
as to mixed use development.
Fr¥’s Electronics Site
The City Council has directed staff to determine and recommend revisions to regulations that
might facilitate the retention of Fry’s at its site in Palo Alto. Staff will be discussing zoning
options with the business representatives for consideration at a future date. In the interim, staff
identified two code changes that would provide enhanced signage for Fry’s and eliminate the
amortization date by which Fry’s would need to vacate the site. The two potential amendments
include:
Amendment to the sign regulations (Chapter 16.20 of the Municipal Code) to allow for
off-site signage for sites in excess of 10 acres with a minimum of 50,000 square feet of
retail use and without frontage on an arterial roadway. The effect of this change appears
to apply only to the Fry’s site and would allow its current off-site sign to increase from
(approximately) 24-30 square feet to about 65 square feet and to a maximum height of 25
feet. The P&TC, however, limited the maximum size sign to 50 square feet, and
Attachment A was revised to reflect that change.
Amendment to Chapter 18.94 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) to
delete the July 16, 2019 amortization date for the Fry’s site. All of the other restrictions
of the nonconforming use would remain (limits on square footage and truck deliveries)
unless and until the site is rezoned. The P&TC, however, deleted this modification so that
it is not included in Attachment A. If the Council desires to include the amortization
language, Section 18.94.070(b)(2)(E) would be amended to read as follows:
"The nonconforming use(s) of the property at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage
Avenue/Olive Avenue for commercial, warehouse, and storage uses may continue after
July 16, 1999, subject to the following limitations: (1) retail uses shall not exceed 60,000
square feet, and (2) truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities shall be limited to
the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m to 9:00 p.m. weekends.
CMR: 392:06 Page 6 of 9
Nothing inthe ordinance codified in this section shall be construed to create a vesting
right for the nonconforming uses to remain after July 16, 1999. Without limitation with
respect to any other authority, the architectural review board shall be permitted to review,
modify, and approve the treatment of the landscaping parking layout for the Park
Boulevard entrance with regard to truck access issues."
Staff believes that the proposed revisions are minimal in scope but would provide a positive and
welcoming message to Fry’s from the City. A representative of Fry’s spoke in favor of both
amendments at the P&TC hearing.
Performance Criteria
Performance criteria are being prepared by staff to address lighting, noise, access, and other
nuisance issues, when businesses are located adjacent to residential uses, particularly low density
residential uses. These criteria were separated from the ordinance package due to timing
problems, but will be presented to the P&TC at its October 25, 2006 meeting. The performance
standards will then be reviewed by the Council subsequent to the P&TC recommendation.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The recommendations in the proposed zoning revisions for commercial districts will have
positive resource impacts on the City of Palo Alto. While estimated impacts from the
recommendations are not quantifiable, as there are no specific projects at this time, they act to
preserve and enhance existing businesses that generate tax revenues and to potentially promote
new businesses.
The proposed changes encouraging hotel development (increased floor area allowances as well
as including up to 25 percent of square footage as residential condominiums) could result in
significant additional transient occupancy taxes for the City. The_addition of hotel space is a
relatively high value change to City revenues compared to property taxes, for example~
Recommendations preserving existing retail outlets or promoting more flexibility and viability
for mixed use projects also have positive impacts to the extent they encourage businesses
generating sales tax or encouraging use of current businesses. Finally, efforts to maintain and
enhance Frv’s Electronics retail operations are most important since it is one of the City’s top ten
sales tax generators. Better signage to attract customers and termination of Fry’s amortization
date may help to retain Fry’s on the current site. As indicated in the City’s Long Range
Financial Plan, there is an inextricable link between revenues and services, and the loss of a
major revenue source would have an impact on City programs.
At this time, the ZOU recommendations do not result in direct additional costs for the City
because they deal primarily with existing businesses. As new developments are proposed,
resource impacts of the specific project will be analyzed.
CMR: 392:06 Page 7 of 9
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with
the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Commission believe that the proposed
amendments represent a significant step to assuring the preservation of retail uses and to
accommodating effective mixed use development. The zoning amendments will also be
supplemented with performance criteria for commercial and industrial uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance would have, at most, minor incremental
impacts on the amount of development permitted in commercial zones or for mixed use projects.
Most of the draft amendments involve minor revisions and context-based criteria intended to
provide design more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and protections in transitions from
low density residential to higher density and non-residential uses. The amendments are
consistent with the policies and programs outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and with the
Comprehensive Plan EIR. Site specific impacts will be addressed with environmental review of a
proposed application.
PREPARED BY:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Chief Planning and Transportation Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: (~t.~_,~’~£~ ~ ~1-,,,~
~.~DS TEVE EMSLIE .
irector of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance
Attachment B: Context-Based Design Criteria
Attachment C: September 27, 2006 P&TC Staff Report and Attachments
Attachment D: September 27, 2006 and October 4, 2006 P&TC Minutes
Attachment E: Map of Commercial Zone Districts
COURTESY COPIES
Planning and Transportation Commission
Architectural Review Board
Doug Moran, Barton Park Association
Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association
CMR: 392:06 Page 8 of 9
Chamber of Commerce
Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company
Joy Ogawa
Joe Bellomo
Tony Carrasco
Ken Hayes
Jim Baer, Premier Properties
Roxy Rapp
Bob Peterson
CMR: 392:06 Page 9 of 9
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
DELETING CHAPTERS 18.41 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL),
18.44 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMBINING DISTRICT
(CC(2)), 18.45 (SERVICE COMMERCIAL, AND 18.49
(COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN), ADDING PORTIONS OF a NEW
CHAPTER 18.16 (NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMUNITY, AND
SERVICE COMMER(2IAL DISTRICTS), ADDING A NEW
CHAPTER 18.18 (DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT), AND
AMENDING SECTION 18.94.970 (NONCONFORMING USES AND
NONCOMPLYING FAClLITmS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), AND AMENDING SECTION
16.20.120(a) (FREESTANDING SIGNS) OF TITLE 16 (BUILDING
REGULATIONS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(a) That in December 2000, the City Council approved a work plan for the Zoning
Ordinance Update involving the preparation of a new Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC), including the update of existing land use chapters and processes as
well as the preparation of chapters for new and revised land uses;
(b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several programs and
policies related to commercial and mixed use development. The Zoning Ordinance Update was
initiated in part to accomplish these programs and policies.
(c) The last comprehensive update of the Palo Alto Zoning Code took place in
1978. Provisions for commercial and mixed use development in that update do not respond to
current Comprehensive Plan goals and highly constrain and create a cumbersome review process
for mixed use development.
//
N
II
N
SECTION 2. Chapters 18.41 (Neighborhood Commercial), 18.44 (Community
Commercial Combining District), 18.45 (Service Commercial), and 18.49 (Commercial
061011 syn0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
Downtown) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby repealed in their
entirety:
SECTION 3. Portions of Chapter 18.16 of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code are hereby added to read as follows (shaded areas are not included in this
ordinance):
Chapter 18.16
NEIGHBORHOOD,AND SERVICE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.16.010
18.16.020
18.16.030
18.16.040
18.16.050
18.16.060
18.16.070
18.16.080
18.16.090
18.16.100
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Definitions
Land Uses
Office Use Restrictions
Development Standards
Parking and Loading
Performance Standards
Context-Based Design Criteria
Grandfathered Uses
18.16.010 Purposes
The commercial zoning districts are intended to create and maintain sites for retail, personal
services, eating and drinking establishments, hotels and other business uses in a manner that
balances the needs of those uses with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding
neighborhoods.
(a)Neighborhood Commercial [CN]
The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood
shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking,
and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations
that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas.
061011 syn 0120176
2
NOT YET APPROVED
(c)Community Commercial (2) Subdistrict [CC(2)]
The community commercial (2) (CC(2)) subdistrict is intended to modify the site
development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied in
combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the community
commercial uses and development requirements in the CC district.
Service Commercial [CS]
The CS service commercial district is intended to create and maintain areas
accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood
or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for
customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or
parking of commercial service vehicles.
18.16.020 Applicable Regulations
(a)Applicable Chapters
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures
established by other relevant Chapters of the Zoning Code shall apply to the CN, CS, and
CC districts, and the subdistrict designated as CC(2), as shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
The term "abutting residential zones," where used in this Chapter, includes the R1, R2,
RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40, or residential Planned Community (PC) districts, unless
otherwise specifically noted.
(b)Applicable Combining Districts
The combining districts applicable to the CN, CS, [~ and CC(2) districts shall include,
but shall not be limited to, the following districts:
(1)The retail shopping (R) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter 18.46,
shall apply to the area of the CN, CS~ districts designated as "R" combining
district as shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
(2)The pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter
18.47, shall apply to the area of the CN, CS, ~ and CC(2) districts designated "P"
combining district as shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
18.16.030 Definitions
For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined:
(a)
(b)
"Charleston Shopping Center" is defined as all properties zoned CN and bounded by East
Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, and Cubberley Community Center.
"Midtown Shopping District" is defined as all properties zoned CN in the vicinity of the
intersection of Colorado Avenue and Middle field Road which border Moreno Avenue,
Bryson Avenue, Colorado Avenue, and San Carlos Court, or which border Middlefield
Road in the area extending from Moreno Avenue to San Carlos Court.
061011 syn0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
(e)"Neighborhood-serving offices" are medical offic.es, professional offices, travel agencies,
and insurance agencies that fit the definition of a neighborhood-serving use.
A "Neighborhood Serving Use" is a use that primarily serves individual consumers and
households, not businesses, is generally pedestrian oriented in design, and does not
generate noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than that typically expected for uses with a
local customer base. A neighborhood-serving use is also one to which a significant
number of customers and clients travel, rather than the provider of the goods or services
traveling off-site.
(g)"Ground Floor" shall mean the first floor that is above grade.
(h)"Mixed Use Development" shall mean a combination of nonresidential and residential uses
arranged on a site. The uses may be combined in a vertical configuration (within a
building) or in a horizontal configuration (separate buildings).
18.16.040 Land Uses
The uses of land allowed by this chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified in the
following tables. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not allowed, except where
otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to Regulations in")
includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to. the use;
however, provisions in other sections may apply as well.
(a) CommercialZones and Land Uses
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for each commercial zone are shown in Table 1"
Table 1: CN,~(2) and CS Permitted and Conditional Uses
Subject to
LAND USE CN(4~~CS(4~ RegulationsCC(2)in:
Accessory facilities and activities customarily
associated with or essential to permitted uses, and
operated incidental to the principal use.
Drive-in services or take-out services associated
with permitted uses(3)
Tire, battery, and automotive service facilities,
when operated incidental to a permitted retail
service or shopping center having a gross floor
area of more than 30,000 square feet.
P P
CUP CUP
CUP
P 18.88
CUP 18.88
061011 synO120176
18.88
4
NOT YET APPROVED
LAND USE
Business and Trade Schools
Churches and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
Private Clubs, Lodges, or
Fraternal Organizations
Recycling centers
Warehousing and Distribution
Administrative Office Services
Medical, Professional, and General Business
Offices
cc(2)
P P
P P P
CUP P P
CUP P
CUP CUP
CS<4~
CUP
CUP
Subject to
Regulations
in:
P P
P
P
18.16.050
18.16.050
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility
services but excluding construction or storage
yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards.
CUP CUP CUP
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
CUP CUP CUP
CUP CUP CUP
Multiple-Family p(l~V(1)P(I~18.16.060(b)
Home Occupations P P P 18.88
Residential Care Homes P P p
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in
and take-out services P P P
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores P P P
Liquor stores CUP P P
Shopping Centers P 18.16.060(e)
Ambulance Services CUP CUP CUP
061011 syn 0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
LAND USE CC(2)
Subject to
Regulations
in:
Animal Care, ekcluding boarding and kennels P P P
Boarding and Kennels CUP
Automobile Service Stations CUP CUP CUP 18.82
Automotive Services CUP
Convalescent Facilities CUP P P
Day Care Centers P P P
Small Family Day Care Homes P P P
Large Family Day Care Homes P P P
.Small Adult Day Care Homes P P P
Large Adult Day Care Homes CUP P P
Banks and Financial Services CUP pC)p(2)
General Business Services CUP P
Hotels P P 18.16.060(d)
Mortuaries CUP P P
Neighborhood Business Services P 18.16.060(0
Personal Services P P P 18.16.060(f)
Reverse Vending Machines P P P 18.88
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
Farmer’s Markets
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such
facilities shall remain no more than five years.
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
Parking as a principal use CUP
Transportation Terminals CUP
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
(1) Residential is only permitted as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.16.060(b), or on sites designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(c).
(a) Except drive-in services.
(3) So long as drive up facilities, excluding car washes, provide full access to pedestrians and bicyclists.
A maximum of two such services shall be permitted within 1,000 feet, and each use shall not be less
than 150 feet from one another.
(4) For properties in the CN and CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated activities
at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. require a conditional use permit.
061011 syn 0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
(b)Late Night Use and Activities
(c)
The following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated activities at
any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such site abuts or is located
within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties.
(1)Such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from
excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those
hours.
(2)For properties located in the CN or CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have
associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall
be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of
approval as are deemed necessary to assure that the operations or activities are
compatible with the nearby residentially zoned property.
CN District: Special Use Requirements in the Charleston and Midtown Shopping
Centers
The following regulations shall apply to areas of Charleston Center and the Midtown
Shopping Center as defined in Section 18.16.030.
Table 2 shows the uses permitted and conditionally permitted on the ground floor of the
applicable areas of the Charleston Center and Midtown Shopping Centers. Permitted and
conditional uses specified in subsection (a) of this section shall only apply to the ground
floor of the areas of the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers as listed in Table 2.
Uses lawfully existing on January 16, 2001 may be continued as non-conforming uses but
may only be replaced with uses permitted or conditionally permitted under this subsection.
Table 2: Charleston and Midtown Centers Ground Floor Uses
Accessory facilities and uses customarily
Churches and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
Recycling Centers
Neighborhood-serving offices that do not
exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area.
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
18.88
18.16.050
061011 syn0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
Neighborhood-serving offices exceeding
2,500 square feet in floor area.
Administrative office uses and general
business office uses (other than
neighborhood-serving travel agencies and
insurance agencies) other than those legally in
existence on January 16, 2001
Medical offices not exceeding 2,500 square
feet in area, professional offices, travel
agencies, and insurance agencies
Utility Facilities essential to Provision of
utility services but excluding construction or
storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards.
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
Private Clubs, Lodges, or
Fraternal Organizations
Residential uses of any nature
18.16.050
X
CUP
X
CUP
CUP
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
CUP
X
CUP
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding
drive-in and take-out services P P
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores P P
Liquor stores CUP CUP
Ambulance Services
061011 syn 0120176
18.16.050
18.16.050
CUP CUP
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels P P
Automobile Service Stations CUP CUP 18.82
Convalescent Facilities CUP CUP
Day Care Centers P P
Financial Services CUP CUP
Mortuaries CUP CUP
Neighborhood Business Services P P
NOT YET APPROVED
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
Farmers’ Markets
P
P
CUP
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that
such facilities shall remain no more than five
years.
CUP
P
P
CUP
CUP
18.88
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required X = Prohibited Use
(d)Charleston Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions
(e)
(1)Any office use first occupying space at the center on or after January 16, 2001, shall
obtain a written determination from the director of planning and community
environment that it qualifies as a neighborhood serving use, as defined in this chapter,
before occupying itspremises. The applicant shall submit such information as the
director shall reasonably require in order to make the determination, and the director
shall issue the determination within 30 days of receiving a complete application.
Failure to submit the required information shall be grounds for determining that a
business is not neighborhood-serving.
(2)No more than 7,850 square feet of total floor area at the Center shall be occupied by
office uses at any time.
Prior to approving a conditional use permit for neighborhood-serving offices larger
than 2,500 square feet in total floor area, the city shall find that the proposed use will
be neighborhood-serving, that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance and
strengthen the Center as a neighborhood resource, and that it will not diminish the
retail strength of the center.
Midtown Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions
(1) An existing ground floor office may be replaced with another office if
(2)
(a)the new tenant or owner will continue the existing business or practice; or
(b)a conditional use permit is issued for the new office use.
No conditional use permit shall be issued for any new office use on the ground floor
unless, in addition to the findings required for a conditional use permit as specified in
Chapter 18.76.010, the City finds that the proposed use will be neighborhood serving,
that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance and strengthen the Midtown
Shopping District as a neighborhood resource, and that it will not diminish the retail
strength of the District.
(3)For properties at 711,719, and 721 Colorado Avenue, and 689 Bryson Avenue,
buildings not fronting on Middlefield Avenue, designed and used for office purposes,
9
061011 syn0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
18.16.050
and not well suited to other uses are exempt from the provisions of this subsection
(b).
Office Use Restrictions
The following restrictions shall apply to office uses:
(a)
(b)
Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office
Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless
such offices either:
(1)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and as of
such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized
pursuant to Chapter 18.95;
Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services, personal services,
eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19, 2001 or thereafter;
In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage on E1 Camino Real, were not
occupied by housing on March 19, 2001;
Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001;
Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after March 19, 2001
if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking
services, personal services, and automobile services does not decrease;
Are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area plan,
which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional, and general
business offices; or
Are located anywhere in Building E or in the rear 50% of Building C or D of the
property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Park Boulevard and California
Avenue, as shown on sheet A2 of the plans titled "101 California Avenue
Townhouse/Commercial/Offices Palo Alto, CA" by Crosby, Thornton, Marshall
Associates, Architects, dated June 14, 1982, revised November 23, 1982, and on file
with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
Size Restrictions on Office Uses in the CN and CS Districts
(1)In the CN district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations:
(A) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the
lot area, provided:
(i) A lot shall be permitted to have at least a total floor area of 2,500 square
feet of office uses, provided the uses meet all other zoning regulations.
(ii)No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000
square feet of office uses.
(B)Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to issuance of
a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.76. The
061011 syn0120176
10
NOT YET APPROVED
maximum size for any conditional use shall be established by the zoning
administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such use.
(2)In the CS district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations:
(A) No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000 square
feet of office uses.
(B)Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to issuance of
a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.76. The
maximum size for any conditional use shall be established by the zoning
administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such use.
18.16.060 Development Standards
(a)Exclusively Non-Residential Uses
Table 3 specifies the development standards for exclusively non-residential uses and
alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, ~ CC(2) and CS districts.
These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following
requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in 18.16.090, provided that
more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and
approvedby the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section
18.76.020:
Table 3: Exclusivel~ Non-Residential Development Standards
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft)
CN ~ CC(2)CS
None Required
0-10’ to
create an
8’-12’
effective
sidewalk
width(1),(2)
0-10’ to
create an
8’-12’
effective
sidewalk
width
(1),(2)
0-10’ to
create an
8’-12’
effective
sidewalk
width(i),(2)
20’(2)
None required
None required
Subject to
regulations
in Section:
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of
this code may
apply
061011 syn 0120176
11
NOT YET APPROVED
Minimum Yard (ft) for
lot lines abutting or
opposite residential
districts or residential
PC districts
Build-To-Lines
Minimum setbacks from
alleys for structures
other than public
parking garages (ft)(3)
Comer lots, from rear
lot line on the alley
Comer lots, from side
lot line on the alley
All lots other than
comer lots
Maximum Site Coverage
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
Within 150 ft. of a
residential zone district
(other than an RM-40 or
PC zone) abutting or
located within 50 feet of
the site
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio(FAR)
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) for Hotels
Daylight Plane for lot
lines abutting one or
more residential zone
districts other than an
RM-40 or PC zone.
Initial Height at side or
rear lot line (ft)
~lope
CC(2)CS
10,(2)10,(2)
50% of frontage built to setback (7)
33% of side streel built to setback (7)
Not applicable
None
20’
None Required
37,(4)
35’
Not
applicable
50’
35’
Subject to
regulations
in Section:
2.0:1 0.4:1 18.18.060(e)
2.0:1 2.0:1 18.18.060(d)
50%
25’ and
2
stories
0.4:1
N/A
_(6)
_(6)
_(6)
_(6)
061011 syn 0120176
12
NOT YET APPROVED
Subject to
CN J CC(2)CS regulations
in Section:
(1> No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the fh’st
10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard.
(2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard Shall be planted and maintained as a
landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence
between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.
(3> No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage.
(4~ As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment
enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to
an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the
daylight plane.
~5~ See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 18.16.050.
<6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential
zone abutting the site line in question.<7~ 25’ driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not
apply to CC district.
(b)Mixed Uses
Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments.
These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following
requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in 18.16.090, provided that
more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and
approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section
18.76.020:
Table 4: Mixed Use Development Standards
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
CN J CC(2)
None required
CS
Subject to
regulations
in:
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant
to Chapter
20. 08 of this
code may
apply
061011 synO120176
13
NOT YET APPROVED
FrontYard (ft)
CN
0’ - 10’
to create
an 8’-
12’
effective
sidewalk
width
CC(2)
0’ - 10’
to create
an 8’-
12’
effective
sidewalk
width
CS
0’ - 10’
to create
an 8’-
12’
effective
sidewalk
width
Rear Yard (ft)10’ for residential portion; no requirement
for commercial portion
Rear Yard abutting residential zone
district (ft)10’
Interior Side Yard if abutting 10’residential zone district (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft)
Build-To-Lines
Permitted Setback Encroachments
Maximum Site Coverage
Landscape/Open Space Coverage
Usable Open Space
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
Within 150 ft. from residential zone
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting
one or more residential zoning
districts
Residential Density (net)(a)
Maximum Residential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
061011 syn 0120176
50% of frontage built to setback(1)
33% of side street built to setback (1)
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways,
and similar elements may extend up to 6’
into the setback. Cornices, eaves,
fireplaces, and similar architectural
features (excluding flat or continuous
walls or enclosures of interior space) may
extend up to 4’ into the front and rear
setbacks and up to 3’ into interior side
setbacks
50%~ 100% 50%
35%~ 20% 30%
200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units (2);
150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more(2~
35’(4)[]37’50’
35’
Daylight plane height and slope shall be
identical to those of the most restrictive
residential zoning district abutting the lot
line
15
0"5:1(4)
0.4:1
30 30
0.6:1 0.6:1
2.0:1 0.4:1
14
Subject to
regulations
in:
NOT YET APPROVED
Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor
Commercial FAR (6)
Parking
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
CN
0.9:1 (~)
0.15:1
cc(2)
2.0:1
0.15:1
0.2 5:1 (7)
CS
1.0:1
0.15:1
See Chapter 18.83 (Parking)
Subject to
regulations
in:
Chapter
18.83
25’ driveway access permitted regardless of frontage;
Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2)
does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3)
minimum private open space dimension 6’; and (4) minimum common open space dimension 12’.
Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of
the site devoted to commercial use.
For CN sites on E1 Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may
increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential).
For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC)
district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet.
(6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and
-drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in
ground floor regulations.
(7)If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District.
(1)Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and design
review in accord with Chapter 18.82, except that mixed use projects with four or
fewer residential units shall only require review and approval by the architectural
review board.
(c)
(2)Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in excess
.of the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, including but
not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in a mixed use
development with residential uses.
(3)Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with an
Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay.
Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CN, CS, [] and CC(2) zone
districts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a Housing
Opportunity Site in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Such sites shall be
developed pursuant to the regulations for the multi-family zone designation. (RM- 15,
RM-30, or RM-40) identified for the site in the Housing Element.
(d)Hotel Regulations
061011 synO120176
15
NOT YET APPROVED
(1)Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax (TOT),
may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1 .... ’
(2)Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to:
(A)
(B)
(0
No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use;
No more than 25% of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to
condominium use; and
A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium
building(s).
(f)Size of Establishments in the CN District
In the CN district, permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area per individual
use or business establishment shown in Table 5. Such uses may be allowed to exceed the
maximum establishment size, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with
Section 18.76.010. The maximum establishment size for any conditional use shall be
established by the zoning administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such
use.
Table 5: Maximum Size of Establishment
Personal Services
Retail services, except grocery stores
Grocery stores
Eating and drinking services
Neighborhood business services
2,500
15,000
20,000
5,000
2,500
061011 synO120176
16
NOT YET APPROVED
(g)Nuisances Prohibited
All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as to
preclude nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or characteristics,
including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, vibrations,
particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance, humidity, heat, cold, glare,
or night illuminations. Prior to issuance of a building permit, or occupancy permit, or at
any other time, the building inspector may require evidence that adequate controls,
measures, or devices have been provided to ensure and protect the public interest, health,
comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive
condition.
(h)Outdoor Sales and Storage
(1)In the CN district, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted
within a building, except for:
(2)
(A)Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying
no more than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display area,
(B) Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and
(C) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
In the ~ CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to
outdoor sales and storage:
(A)Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall
be conducted within a building, except for:
(i)Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies
occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display
area,
(ii)Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking
services,
(B)
(iii)Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and
(iv)Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be subject
to a conditional use permit.
(C)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph
(A)(iv) of this subsection.
(3)In the CS district, outdoor sales and display of merchandise, and outdoor eating areas
operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services shall be permitted
subject to the following regulations:
(A)Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding the gross
building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a conditional use
permit.
061011 synO120176
Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers,
camp trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall
17
NOT YET APPROVED
(c)
meet the minimum design standards applicable to off street parking facilities
with respect to paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alleys,
safety and protective features, lighting, landscaping, and screening.
Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or fence of
between 5 and 8 feet in height.
(i)Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more
floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage ofrecyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design,
construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval
by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that
board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
Employee Showers
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any
addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6.
Table 6: Em Showers uired
Medical, Professional, and General
Business Offices, Financial Services,
Business and Trade Schools, General
Business Services
Retail Services, Personal Services, and -
Eating and Drinking Services
0-9,999 ......
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000 and up
0-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000 and up
No requirement
1
2
4
No requirement
1
2
4
18.16.070 Parking and Loading
off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for al! permitted and conditional uses in
accord with Chapter 18.83 of this title. All parking and loading facilities on any site, whether
required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum requirements, shall comply
with the regulations and the design standards established by Chapter 18.83.
18.16.080 Performance Standards
In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development in the CN, CS,
[] and CC(2) districts shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.64 of
the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of
Chapter 18.28 of the Zoning Ordinance.
061011 synO120176
18
NOT YET APPROVED
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
(a) Contextual and Compatibility Criteria
Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible
with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented
design.
(1)Context
(A)Context ag used in this section is intended to indicate relationships
between the site’s development to adjacent street types, surrounding land
uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees.
Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly
reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies.
The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate
existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those
surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or
design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an
architectural response.
Compatibility
Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new
buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented
design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and
establishes design likages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the
visual unity of the street is maintained.
(B)Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means,
including but not limited to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
the siting, scale, massing, and materials;
the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width
of the buildings and the spacing between them;
the pattern of roof lines and projections;
the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays and
doorways;
the location and treatment of entryways;
the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features;
the siting and treatment of parking; and
the treatment of landscaping.
(b)Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of
the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the CN, CS, CC
and CC(2) districts, as further illustrated on the accompanying diagrams:
061011 syn0120176
19
NOT YET APPROVED
(1)Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian watkability, a bicycle friendly
environment, and connectivity through design elements such as:
No
Co
Do
go
Ground floor uses that are appealing to
pedestrians through well-designed
visibility and access (Figure 1-1);
On primary pedestrian routes, climate
and weather protection where possible,
such as covered waiting areas, building
projections and colonnades, and
awnings (Figure 1-2);
Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that
contribute to the area’s streetscape
environment such as street trees,
bulbouts,benches, landscape elements,
and public art (Figure 1-3);
Bicycle amenities that contribute to the
rea’s bicycle environment and safety
needs, such as bike racks, storage or
parking, or dedicated bike lanes or
paths (Figure 1-1); and
Vehicle access from alleys or
sidestreets where they exist, with
pedestrian access from the public street.
(Figure 1-1)
(Figure 1-2)
and ¢u~et parking
(Figure 1-3)
(2) Street Building Facades
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the
street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity
through design elements such as:
061011 syn 0120176
20
NOT YET APPROVED
No
No
Co
go
Placement and orientation of doorways,
windows, and landscape elements to
create strong, direct relationships with
the street (Figure 2-1);
Facades that include projecting eaves
and overhangs, porches, and other
architectural elements that provide
human scale and help break up building
mass (Figure 2-2);
Entries that are clearly defined features
of front facades, and that have a scale
that is in proportion to the size and type
of the building and number of units
being accessed; larger buildings should
have a more prominent building
entrance, while maintaining a
pedestrian scale;
Residential units and storefronts that
have a presence on the street and are
not walled-off or oriented exclusively
inward;
Elements that signal habitation such as
entrances, stairs, porches, bays and
balconies that are visible to people on
the street;
(Figure 2-1)
061011 syn0120176
21
NOT YET APPROVED
Fo
Go
No
All exposed sides of a building
designed with the same level of care
and integrity;
Reinforcing the definition and
importance of the street with building
mass; and
Upper floors set back to fit in with the
context of the neighborhood.
Prope~ ~ne
Residential
Buildln~ selb~¢k from He property line to c~eate an ef fecti~e 12’ s~devraik on Ei L’amino Real.
Upper floor5 set bad< to fR in ~n tile context of the neighbo~%ood.
(Figure 2-2)
(3)Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks through
elements such as:
No
go
Rooflines that emphasize and
accentuate significant elements of the
building such as entries, bays, and
balconies (Figure 3-1 );
Design with articulation, setbacks, and
materials that minimize massing, break
down the scale of buildings, and
provide visual interest (Figure 3-1);
(Figure 3-1)
061011 syn 0120176
22
NOT YET APPROVED
Co Comer buildings that incorporate
special features to reinforce important
intersections and create buildings of
unique architectural merit and varied
styles (Figure 3-1 );
D.Building facades articulated with a
building base, body and roof or parapet
edge (Figure 3-2);
Buildings set back from the property
line to create an effective 12’ sidewalk
.on E1 Camino Real, 8’ elsewhere
(Figure 3-4);
F.A majority of the building frontage
located at the setback line (Figure 3-3);
and
G°No side setback for midblock
properties, allowing for a continuous
street facade, except when abutting low
density residential (Figure 3-3).
(Figure 3-2)
(Figure 3-3)
(Figure 3-4)
061011 syn 0120176
23
NOT YET APPROVED
(4)Low-Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care
shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties through:
No
Do
Transitions of development intensity
from higher density development
building types to building types that are
compatible with the lower intensity
surrounding uses (Figure 4-1);
Massing and orientation of buildings
that respect and mirror the massing of
neighboring structures by stepping back
upper stories to transition to smaller
scale buildings, including setbacks and
daylight planes that match abutting R-1
and R-2 zone requirements (Figure 4-
2);
Respecting privacy of neighboring
structures, with windows and upper
floor balconies positioned so they
minimize views into neighboring
properties (Figure 4-3);
Minimizing sight lines into and from
neighboring properties (Figure 4-3);
Limiting sun and shade impacts on
abutting properties; and
Providing pedestrianpaseos and mews
to create separation between uses.
existing future development ’
(Figure 4-1)
and oIienta!ion of bullrings ~1~ ~ and mirror-the massing of neighboring
stJ’uctu~s by ~epping back upper ~ories to "l~ansNon to sr~l ler scale Ix~]61ngs.
~" ~~’Exlstlng SF HomesP..omblnatlon
of "i~es and
hedges for
Screening
(Figure 4-2)
(Figure 4-3)
061011 synO120176
24
NOT YET APPROVED
(5)Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents,
visitors, and/or employees of a site.
A. The type and design of the usable
private open space shall be appropriate
to the character of the building(s), and
shall consider dimensions, solar access,
wind protection, views, and privacy;
No Open space should be sited and
designed to accommodate different
activities, groups, active and passive
uses, and should be located convenient
to the users (e.g., residents, employees,
or public)
C°Common open spaces should connect
to the pedestrian pathways and existing
natural amenities of the site and its
surroundings;
Usable open space may be any
combination of private and common
spaces;
go Usable open space does not need to be
located on the ground and may be
located in porches, decks, balconies
and/or podiums (but not on rooftops)
(Figure 5-1);
No Open space should be located to
activate the street fagade and increase
."eyes on the street" when possible
(Figure 5-1);
Both private and common open space
areas should be buffered from noise
where feasible through landscaping and
building placement;
(Figure 5-1)
061011 syn0120176
25
NOT YET APPROVED
No Open space situated over a structural
slab/podium or on a rooftop shall have
a combination of landscaping and high
quality paving materials, including
elements such as planters, mature trees,
and use of textured and/or colored
paved surfaces (Figure 5-2); and
Parking may not be counted as open
space.
(Figure 5-2)
(6)Parking Design
Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the
character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that:
No
C6
Do
Parking is located behind buildings,
below grade or, where those options are
not feasible, screened by landscaping,
low walls, etc.;
Structured parking is fronted or
wrapped with habitable uses when
possible (Figure 6-1);
Parking that is semi-depressed is
screened with architectural elements
that enhance the streetscape such as
stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art;
Landscaping such as trees, shrubs,
vines, or groundcover is incorporated
into surface parking lots (Figure 6-2);
Parking podiums shall be fronted or wrapped with habitable or active uses when
possible.
(Figure 6-1)
!~ndscaping ~tJch ~,trees, shrubs, \4nes or ground cover is incorporated into
sUrfaceparking lots,
(Figure 6-2)
061011 syn 0120176
26
NOT YET APPROVED
go For properties with parking access from
the rear of the site (such as a rear alley
or driveway) landscaping shall provide
a visual buffer between vehicle
circulation areas and abutting properties
(Figure 6-3);
Fo Street parking is utilized for visitor or
customer parking and is designed in a
manner to enhance traffic calming;
G.For properties with parking accessed
from the front, minimize the amount of
frontage used for parking access, no
more than 25% of the site frontage
facing a street should be devoted to
garage openings, carports, or
open/surface parking (on sites with less
than 100 feet of frontage, no more than
25 feet);
No Where two parking lots abut and it is
possible for a curb cut and driveway to
serve several properties, owners are
strongly encouraged to enter in to
shared access agreements (Figure 6-4);
and
I.Parking is accessed from side streets or
alleys when possible.
Landscaping sha~l pro,Ade a ~sual buffer between veNde areas arid adjacent propertiez,
(Figure 6-3)
VVhe~l possible adiacent aropertles are strongly encouraged to share d6ve~qags
to limit curb cuts.
(Figure 6-4)
061011 syn 0120176
27
NOT YET APPROVED
’-- 12’ effective sidewalk width
(Figure 6-5: Mixed-Use with Surface Parking)
40 ft
daylight plane
t~- I2’ effective sidgwa k w dth
(Figure 6-6: Mixed-Use with Parking Podium)
20 ft
~_~ 12’ effective sidewalk width
(Figure 6-7: Mixed-Use with Partial Sub-Grade Parking Podium)
40 ft he
daylight plane
12’ effective sidewalk width
(Figure 6-8: Mixed-Use with Below-Grade Parking Podium)
061011 syn 0120176
28
NOT YET APPROVED
(7)Large (multi.acre) Sites
Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building
patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that:
No
No
Co
New development of large sites
maintains and enhances connectivity
with a hierarchy of public streets,
private streets, walks and bike paths
(integrated with Palo Alto’s Bicycle
Master Plan, when applicable);
The diversity of building types
increases with increased lot size (e.g.,
<1 acre = minimum 1 building type; 1-
2 acres = minimum 2 housing types;
greater than 2 acres = minimum 3
housing types) (Figures 7-1 through 7-
3); and
Where a site includes more -than one
housing type, each building type should
respond to its immediate context in
terms of scale, massing, and design
(e.g., Village Residential building types
facing or abutting existing single-
family residences) (Figures 7-2 and 7-
3).
(Figure 7-1)
(Figure 7-2)
(Figure 7-3)
ha,~e I00~ residential buildin#
building
061011 syn 0120176
29
NOT YET APPROVED
(8) Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be
incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during
design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local
environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are
energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and
high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site
and building design:
Optimize building orientation for heat
gain, shading, daylighting, and natural
ventilation (Figure 8-1).
Design landscaping to create
comfortable micro-climates and reduce
heat island effects.
Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit access.
Maximize onsite stormwater
management through landscaping and
permeable pavement (Figure 8-2).
Use sustainable building materials.
Design lighting, plumbing, and
equipment for efficient energy and
water use.
Create healthy indoor environments.
Use creativity and innovation to build
more sustainable environments. One
example is establishing gardens with
edible fruits, vegetables or other plants
to satisfy a portion of project open
space requirements.
South facing windows with
Direct,_ sunlight, through~uth facing v~ndows would
improve ~he passl~e I’eating
Use of Shading Devices to Control Solar loads in Summer and
gain Pass~¢e heat in ~Mtrdec
(Figure 8-1)
Minimize stormwater i~noff to impermiable areas with l~ndscaping, green roofs,
and swaies when possible,
(Figure 8-2)
061011 syn 0120176
30
NOT YET APPROVED
Provide protection for creeks and
riparian vegetation and integrate
stormwater management measures and
open space to minimize water quality
and erosion impacts to the creek
environment.
Encourage installation ofphotovoltaic
panels.
;Encourage installation of photovoltaic panels,
(Figure 8-3)
Photovoltaics
Buildlng integ’~ed PV’s
in the form of sunshades]
18.16.100 Grandfathered Uses
(a)CN District office Uses
In the CN district, all office uses existing as of August 1, 1989, which were lawful
Conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit
and which, as of such date, exceed 5,000 square feet in size or 25% of lot area, may remain
as legal nonconforming uses and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to
termination pursuant to Current Code Chapter 18.94, provided, however, that in the case of
a conflict between the provisions of this section and the provisions of Current Code
Chapter 18.94, this section shall control. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel,
improve, or replace site improvements in accordance with current applicable site
development regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement
shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses.
(b)CS District Office Uses
In the CS district, medical, professional or general business or administrative office uses
existing on August 1, 1989 and which, as of such date, were lawful conforming permitted
uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit may remain as legal
nonconforming uses and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to
termination pursuant to Current Code Chapter 18.94, provided, however, that in the case of
a conflict between the provisions of this section and the provisions of Current Code
Chapter 18.94, this section shall control. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel,
improve, or replace site improvements in accordance with current applicable site
development regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement
shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses.
061011 syn 0120176
31
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4. Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) of the Palo .Alto
Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 18.18
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
18.18.010
18.18.020
18.18.030
18.18.040
18.18.050
18.18.060
18.18.070
18.18.080
18.18.090
18.18.100
18.18.110
18.18.120
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Definitions
Repeal of Regulations
Land Uses
¯Development Standards
Floor Area Bonuses
Transfer of Development Rights
Parking and Loading
Performance Standards
Context-Based Design Criteria
Grandfathered Uses and Facilities
18.18.010 Purposes
(a)Downtown Commercial District [CD]
The CD downtown commercial district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning district
for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving
city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses
and neighborhood service needs. The CD commercial downtown district is specifically
created to promote the following objectives in the downtown area of Palo Alto:
(1)control the rate and size of commercial development;
(2)preserve and promote ground-floor retail uses;
(3)enhance pedestrian activity;
(4)create harmonious transitions from the commercial areas to adjacent residential
areas; and
(5)where applied in conjunction with Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
preserve historic buildings.
18.18.020 Applicable Regulations
(a)Applicable Chapters
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures
established by other relevant Chapters of the Zoning Code shall apply to the CD
commercial downtown district, including subdistricts designated as CD-C (community),
CD-S (service) and CD-N (neighborhood) and site development areas within the CD
district, as shown on the City’s Zoning Map. The term "abutting residential zones," where
32
061011 syn 0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
used in this Chapter, includes the R1, R2, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40, or residential
Planned Community (PC) districts, unless otherwise specifically noted.
(b)Applicable Combining Districts
The combining districts applicable to the CD district shall include, but shall not be limited
to, the following districts:
(1)
(2)
The pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter
18.47, shall apply to the area of the CD district designated "P" combining district as
shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
The ground floor (GF) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter 18.50,
shall apply to the area of the CD district designated "GF" combining district as
shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
18.18.030 Definitions
(a)For the purposes of calculating floor area ratio for nonresidential uses under this chapter,
"gross floor area" includes not only the area defined in Chapter 18.04, but also all covered
at-grade or above-grade parking for nonresidential uses, no matter how slightly above
grade such parking is.
(b)
(c)
As used in this chapter, "historic rehabilitation" means returning a property to a state of
utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use
while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its
historic, architectural, and cultural values. "Historic rehabilitation" shall remedy all the
known rehabilitation needs of the building, and shall not be confined to routine repair and
maintenance as determined by the director of planning and community environment.
As used in this chapter, "certification" means certification, by the director of planning and
community environment, of floor area eligible for transfer to another site as described in
Section 18.18.070.
(d)As used in this chapter, "receiver site" means a site which receives floor area pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.18.080.
(e)As used in this chapter, "sender site" means a site which has received a certification by the
director of planning and community environment of floor area eligible for transfer to
another site pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
"Transferable development right" or "TDR" means the floor area eligible for transfer to a
receiver site as described in Draft Updated Code Section 18.18.080 of this code.
18.18.040 Repeal of Regulations
The department of planning and community environment shall monitor the number of square feet
approved for nonresidential development in the CD district and the number of square feet
approved for nonresidential development pursuant to a planned community (PC) zone if the site
of the PC zone was within the CD district on the effective date of this chapter. When 350,000
33
061011 syn0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
square feet of nonresidential development have received final design review approval pursuant to
Chapter 18.76 or have received building permits, if no design approval is required, this chapter
shall be repealed and a moratorium shall be imposed. This moratorium shall prohibit the city’s
acceptance or processing of any application for planning approval or a building permit for new
nonresidential square footage in the CD district. This moratorium shall remain in effect for one
year while the city undertakes a study of what regulations would be appropriate in the CD
district. The moratorium may be extended by the council until such study is completed and
appropriate regulations are implemented.
18.18.050 Land Uses
The uses of land allowed by this chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified in the
following table. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not allowed, except where
otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to Regulations in")
includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the use;
however, provisions in other sections may apply as well.
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for the CD district are shown in Table 1:
Table 1: CD Permitted and Condition Permitted Uses
Accessory facilities and activities
customarily associated with or essential to
permitted uses, and operated incidental to
the principal use.
Drive-in or Take-out Services associated
with permitted uses(2)
Tire, battery, and automotive service
facilities, when operated incidental to a
permitted retail service or shopping center
having a gross floor area of more than
P P P
CUP CUP CUP
CUP
18.88
30,000 square feet.
Business and Trade Schools
Churches and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
Private Clubs, Lodges, or
Fraternal Organizations
Centers
Administrative Office Services
P
P
P
P
CUP
P
P P
P CUP
P CUP
CUP CUP
P 18.18.060(0
34
061011 syn 0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
Business Offices on any floor other than P P P 18.18.060(0
the ground floor of a building
Utility Facilities essential to provision of
utility services but excluding construction CUP CUPor storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation ?’ards.
Commercial Recreation CUP CUP CUP
Outdoor Recreation Services -CUP CUP CUP
Multiple-Family p(l~p(l~p(l~18.18.060(b)
Home Occupations P P P 18.88
Residential Care Homes ..P p p
Eating and Drinking Services, except
drive-in or take-out services
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores
Shopping Centers
Liquor Stores
Animal Care, excluding boarding and
kennels
Ambulance Services
Automobile Service Stations
Automotive Services
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
Small Adult Day Care Homes
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Financial Services, except drive-up
services
General Business Services
Hotels
Mortuaries.
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
P
18.18.060(g)
18.18.060(g)
18.18.060(g)
18.88
18.82
18.18.060(d)
18.18.060(g)
18.88
061011 synO120176
35
NOT YET APPROVED
Parking as a principal use
Passenger Transportation Terminals
CUP CUP
CUP
Indoor Farmers’ Markets CUP CUP CUP
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided
that such facilities shall remain no more CUP CUP CUP
than five years.
(1)Residential is only permitted as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.18.060(b), or on sites designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.18.060(c).
(2)Drive-up facilities, excluding car washes, provide full access to pedestrians and bicyclists. A
maximum of two such services shall be permitted within 1,000 feet and each use shall not be less than
150 ft from one another
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
18.18.060 Development Standards
(a)Exclusively Non-Residential Use
Table 3 specifies the development standards for new exclusively non-residential uses and
alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CD district, including the CD-C, CD-
S, and CD-N subdistricts. These developments shall be designed and constructed in
compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined
in 18.18.110, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the
architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community
environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020:
Table 3:Non-Residential )ment Standards
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (if)
Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft)
Minimum street setback for sites
sharing a common block face with any
abutting residential zone district
Minimum yard (ft) for lot lines abutting
or opposite residential zone districts
None required
None required
None required
None required
_(4)_(4)
10,(I)10,(l)
10,(1)
20’(0
_(4)
10’0)
061011 syn 0120176
36
Setback )ines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of
this code may
apply
NOT YET APPROVED
Maximum Site Coverage None Required
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard 50 50
Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential _(3~_(3~
zone district
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)1.0:1(5~0.4:1(5~0.4:1(5~18.18.060(e)
18.18.070
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
Hotels 2.0:1 2.0:1 N/A 18.18.060(d)
Maximum Size of New Non-Residential
Construction or Expansion Projects.
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one
or more residential zone districts.
Initial Height at side or rear lot line
Slope ~-
25,000 square feet of gross floor area or
15,000 square feet above the existing
floor area, whichever is greater, provided
the floor arez limits set forth elsewhere
in this chapter are not exceeded
_(2)10 10_(2)1:2 1:2
(1) The yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding area required for site
access.(2~ The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the residential zone abutting the site line in
question. ~ ¯3~ The maximum height within 150 feet of any abutting residential zone district shall not exceed the
height limit of the abutting residential district.(4~ The minimum street setback shall be equal to the residentially zoned setback for 150 feet from the
abutting single-family or multiple family development. ~
(5~ FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic
rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the
CD-S or CD-N subdistricts.
(b)Mixed Use
Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments.
These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following
requirements and the context-based design criteria outlines in 18.18.110, provided that
more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and
approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section
18.76.020:
Table 4: Mixed Use ~ment Standards
061011 syn 0120176
37
NOT YET APPROVED
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard (fl)
Street Side Yard (fl)
Permitted Setback Encroachments
Maximum Site Coverage
Landscape Open Space Coverage
Usable Open Space
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential
zone
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one
or more residential zoning districts or a
residential PC district
Residential Densit), (net) (2)
Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Parking Requirement
No requirement 10’
10’ for residential portion; no
requirement for commercial portion
10’ if 10’ if
No
requirement
No
requirement
abutting
residential
zone
abutting
residential
zone
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways,
and similar elements may extend up to 6’
into the setback. Cornices, eaves,
fireplaces, and similar architectural
features (excluding flat or continuous
walls or enclosures of interior space)
may extend up to 4’ into the front and
rear setbacks and up to 3’ into interior
side setbacks
No 50% 50%requirement
20%30%35%
200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units ~1/;
150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more (1/
50’50’
40,(4/40,(41
35’
35,(4/
Daylight plane height and slope identical
to those of the most restrictive residential
zone abutting the lot line
30
0.6:1
0.4:1
1.0:1(3/
30
0.5:1
0.4:1
S~tback l&es
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant to
Chapter 20. 08
of this code may
apply
40
1.0:1(3/
18.18.070
See Chapter 18.83 (Parking)Chapter 18.83
061011 synO120176
38
NOT YET APPROVED
Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination ofp.rivate and common open spaces; (2)
does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3)
minimum private open space dimension 6’; and (4) minimum common open space dimension 12’.
Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of
the site devoted to commercial use. There shall be no deduction for that portion of the site area in
nonresidential use.
FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic
rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in
the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict.
For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC)
district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet.
(d)
(1)
(2)
Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be’ subject to site and design
review in accord with Current Code Chapter 18.82, except that mixed use projects
with four or fewer units shall only require review and approval by the architectural
review board
Nonresidential uses-that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in excess
of the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, including but
not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in a mixed use
development with residential uses.
Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CD district and subdistricts.
Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site
in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Such sites shall be developed
pursuant to the regulations for the multi-family zone designation (RM-15, RM-30, or
RM-40) identified for the site in the Housing Element.
Hotel Regulations
(1) Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax (TOT),
may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1.
(2)Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to:
(A)No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use;
(B)No more than 25% of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to
condominium use; and
(C)A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium
building(s).
(e)Exempt Floor Area
When a building is being expanded, square footage which, in the judgement of the chief
building official, does not increase the usable floor area, and is either necessary to conform
the building to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, regarding handicapped
061011 synO120176
39
NOT YET APPROVED
access, or is necessary to implement the historic rehabilitation of the building, shall not be
counted as floor area.
(f)Restrictions on Office Uses
(1)
(2)
In all CD subdistricts, no medical, professional, or general business office shall be
located on the ground floor, except such offices which:
(A)Have been in continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001,
and, as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being
amortized pursuant to Current Code Chapter 18.95;
(B)Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services, eating and
drinking services, personal services, or automotive service on March 19, 2001
or thereafter;
(C)Occupy a space that was Vacant on March 19, 2001;
(D)Are located in new or remodeled ground floor areas built on or after March 19,
2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and
drinking services, personal services, and automobile services does not
decrease; or
(E)Are on a sitelocated in an area subject to a Specific Plan or Coordinated Area
Plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional, or
general business offices.
In the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, the following requirements shall apply to office
uses:
No new gross square footage of a medical, professional, general business, or
administrative office use shall be allowed, once the gross square footage of
such office uses, or any combination of such uses, on a site has reached 5,000
square feet.
No conversion of gross square footage from any other use to a medical,
professional, general business, or administrative office use shall be allowed
once the gross square footage of such office uses, or any combination of such
uses, on a site has reached 5,000 square feet.
061011 synO120176
40
NOT YET APPROVED
(g)Restrictions on Size of Commercial Establishments in CD-N Subdistrict
In the CD-N subdistrict, permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area per
individual use or business establishment shown in Table 4. Such uses may be allowed to
exceed the maximum establishment size, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit
in accordance with Current Code Chapter 18.90. The maximum establishment size for any
conditional use shall be established by the zoning administrator and specified in the
conditional use permit for such use.
Table 4: Maximum Size of Establishment
Personal Services 2,500
Retail services, except grocery stores 15,000
Grocery stores 20,000
Eating and drinking services 5,000
(h)Outdoor Sales and Storage.
The following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage in the CD district:
(1)CD-C Subdistrict
In the CD-C subdistrict, the following regulations apply:
(A)Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall
be conducted within a building, except for:
(i)Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies
occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display
area,
(ii)Outdoor eating areas operated incidental m permitted eating and drinking
services,
(iii)Farmers’ markets which have obtained a conditional use permit, and
(iv)Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(B)Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be subject
to a conditional use permit.
(C)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except recycling centers which have
obtained a conditional use permit.
(2)CD-S Subdistrict
In the CD-S subdistrict, outdoor sales and display of merchandise, and outdoor
eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services shall be
permitted subject to the following regulations:
(A) Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding the gross
building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a conditional use
permit.
(B)Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers,
camp trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall
41
061011 synO120176
NOT YET APPROVED
O)
(i)
meet the minimum design standards applicable to off-street parking facilities
with respect to paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alleys,
safety and protective features, lighting, landscaping, and screening.
(C)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or fence of
between 5 and 8 feet in height.
CD-N Subdistrict
In the CD-N subdistrict, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be
conducted within a building, except for:
(A) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying
not more than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display area, and
(B) Farmers’ markets that have obtained conditional use permits.
Employee Showers
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any
addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 5.
Table 5: Em Showers Re~ uired
Medical, Professional, and General
Business Offices, Financial Services,
Business and Trade Schools, and General
Business Services ’
Retail Services, Personal Services, and
Eating and Drinking Services
0-9,999
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000 and up
0-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000 and up
No requirement
1
2
4
No requirement
1
2
4
(J)Nuisances Prohibited
All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as to
preclude nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or characteristics,
including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, vibrations,
particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance, humidity, heat, cold, glare,
or night illuminations. Prior to issuance of a building permit, or occupancy permit, or at
any other time, the building inspector may require evidence that adequate controls,
measures, or devices have been provided to ensure and protect the public interest, health,
comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive
condition.
Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more
floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
061011 synO120176
42
NOT YET APPROVED
enclosures for the storage ofrecyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design,
construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval
by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that
board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 16.48.070.
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
(a)
(1)
Available Floor Area Bonuses
Minor Bonus for buildings not eligible for historic or seismic bonus
A building that is neither in Historic Category 1 or 2 nor in Seismic Category I, II, or
III shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 200 square feet without having this
increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such
increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1
in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts.
(2)Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or iII, and is undergoing seismic
rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase its
floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater,
without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in
subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that
exceed a FAR of 3.0:l in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:l in the CD-N or CD-
S subdistricts.
(3)Historic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic
rehabilitation, but is not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to increase
its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is
greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the
restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for
buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the
CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as provided in subsection (5).
(4)Combined Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic
rehabilitation, and is also in Seismic Category I, II, or Ill, and is undergoing seismic
rehabilitation, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 5,000 square feet or 50%
of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this increase count
toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor
area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C
subdistrict or a FAR of2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as provided in
subsection (5).
(5)Historic Bonus for Over-Sized buildings
A building in Historic Category 1 or 2 that is undergoing historic rehabilitation and
that currently exceeds a FAR of 3.0:1 if located in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 if
located in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts shall nevertheless be allowed to obtain a
061011 synO120176
43
NOT YET APPROVED
floor area bonus of 50% of the maximum allowable floor area for the site of the
building, based upon a FAR of 3.0:1 if in the CD-C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0:1 in
the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b) and the
following limitation:
(a)The floor area bonus shall not be used on the site of the Historic Category 1 or
2 building, but instead may be transferred to another property or properties
under the provisions of Section 18.18.080.
(b)Restrictions on Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses in subsection (a) shall be subject to the following restrictions:
(1)All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for the purposes of the
350,000 square foot limit on development specified in Section 18.18.040.
(2)All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for the purposes of the
project size limit specified in Section 18.18.060 (a).
(3)In no event shall a building expand beyond aFAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or
a FAR of 2.0:l in the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict..
(4)
(5)
The bonus shall be allowed on a site only once.
For sites in Seismic Category I, II, or III, seismic rehabilitation shall conform to the
analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of this code.
(6)For sites in Historic Category 1 or 2, historic rehabilitation shall conform to the
Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36 CFR §67,7).
(7)For sites in both Seismic Category I, II, or Ill and Historic Category 1 or 2, no bonus
shall be granted unless the project includes both seismic and historic rehabilitation
conforming to the standards in subsections (5) and (6).
(8)For sites in both Seismic Category I, II, or III and Historic Category 1 or 2, a bonus
granted under this section that will be used on-site is subject to the following
requirements:
(A) The city council must approve on-site use of such a FAR bonus. Such
approval is discretionary, and may be granted only upon making both of the
following findings:
(i)The exterior modifications for the entire project comply with the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36 CFR §67,7); and
(ii)The on-site use of the FAR bonus would not otherwise be inconsistent
with the historic character of the interior and exterior of the building and
site.
(B)The applicant for on-site use of a cumulative floor area bonus shall have the
burden of demonstrating the facts necessary to support the findings required
for council approval.
061011 synO120176
44
NOT YET APPROVED
(c)Transfer of Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the floor area bonus in
subsection (a)(1), may be transferred to a non-historic receiver site as described in Section
18.18.080. Such transfer shall not be subject to the discretionary council approval set forth
in subsection (b)(8).
(d)Procedure for Granting of Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in
subsection (a)(1), shall be granted in accordance with the following requirements:
(1)An application for such floor area bonus(es) must be filed with the director of
planning and community environment in the form prescribed by the director, stating
the amount of such bonus(es) applied for, the basis therefor under this section, and
the extent to which such bonus(es) are proposed to be used on-site and/or for
transfer. An application for floor area bonus for rehabilitation of a Category 1 or 2
historic building shall include a historic structure report, prepared by a qualified
expert, retained by the city, at the applicant’s expense, in accordance with the
standards and guidelines of the California State Office of Historic Preservation. It
shall also include a plan for rehabilitation; if any part of the existing building is
proposed to be removed or replaced, the historic rehabilitation project plans
submitted for review shall clearly show and identify any and all material proposed
for removal or replacement.
The city may retain an expert in historic rehabilitation or preservation, at the
applicant’s expense, to provide the city with an independent evaluation of the
project’ s conformity with the Secretary of the Interior’ s"Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation Historic Buildings."
061011 syn0120176
(3)The historic resources board shall review the historic structure report, the historic
rehabilitation project plans, and, if required, the expert independent evaluation of the
project, and make a recommendation to the director of planning and community
environment on the project’s conformity with the Secretary of the Interior’s
"Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation Historic Buildings."
(4)Upon completion of such an application, written determination of the sender site’s
eligibility for bonus(es) shall be issued by the director of planning and community
environment or the director’s designee, based upon the following:
(a)
(B)
In the case of a floor area bonus for seismic rehabilitation, the chief building
official has made a determination that the project complies with or.exceeds the
analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of this code;
(c)
In the case of the floor area bonus for historic rehabilitation of a building in
Historic Category 1 or 2, the director, taking into consideration the
recommendations of the historic resources board, has found that the project
complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36 CFR §67,7); and
In the case of a bonus for both seismic and historic rehabilitation that is
proposed to be use on-site, the city council has made the findings set forth in
subsection (b)(8) of this section.
45
NOT YET APPROVED
(e)Certification of FAR Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in
subsection (a)(1), may be used on the site of the proposed seismic and!or historic
rehabilitation project and a building permit issued therefor only upon satisfaction of all the
requirements in subsection (d) above. Upon determining that the project has been
completed as approved, or in the case of city-owned buildings upon completion of all of
the requirements of 18.32.090, the director or director’s designee shall issue a written
certification which shall state the total floor area bonus utilized at the site (in the case of
buildings in the CD-Commercial Downtown District), and the amount (if any) of
remaining floor area bonus which is eligible for transfer to another site pursuant to the
provisions of this Chapter. The certification shall be recorded in the office of the county
recorder and a copy shall be provided to the applicant.
As a condition precedent to being credited with a historic rehabilitation floor area bonus
whether for use on-site or for transfer, the owner of the site shall enter into an
unsubordinated protective covenant running with the land in favor of the city (or, if the city
is the owner, in favor of a qualified and disinterested third party), in a form satisfactory to
the city attorney, to assure that the property will be rehabilitated and maintained in
accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic
Buildings," together with the accompanying interpretive "Guidelines for Rehabilitation of
Historic Buildings," as they may be amended from time to time.
18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights
(a)Purpose
The purpose of this section is to implement the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging
seismic rehabilitation of buildings in Seismic Categories I, II, and III, and encouraging
historic rehabilitation of buildings or sites in Historic Category 1 and 2, and by establishing
standards and procedures for the transfer of specified development rights from such sites to
other eligible sites. Except as provided in subsection (e)(1) and for city-owned properties
as provided in 18.32.090, this section is applicable only to properties located inthe CD
district, and is the exclusive procedure for transfer of development rights for properties so
zoned.
(b)Establishment of Forms
The city may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements, fees
and such other requirements and guidelines as will aid in the efficient implementation of
this chapter.
Eligibility for Transfer of Development Rights
Transferable development rights may be transferred to an eligible receiver site upon:
(1) certification by the city pursuant to Code Section 18.18.070 of the floorarea from
the sender site which is eligible for transfer, and
(2) compliance with the transfer procedures set forth in subsection (h).
061011 syn0120176
46
NOT YET APPROVED
(d)Availability of Receiver Sites.
The city does not guarantee that at all times in the future there will be sufficient eligible
receiver sites to receive such transferable development rights.
(e)Eligible Receiver Sites
(0
(g)
A site is eligible to be a receiver site only if it meets all of the following criteria:
(1)
(2)
It is located in the CD commercial downtown district, or is located in a planned
community (PC) district if the property was formerly located in the CD commercial
downtown district and the ordinance rezoning the property to planned community
(PC) approves the use of transferable development rights on the site.
It is neither an historic site, nor a site containing a historic structure, as those terms
are defined in Section 16.49.020(e) of Chapter 16.49 of this code; and
(3)The site is either:
(A) located at least 150 feet from any property zoned for residential use, not
including property in planned community zones or in commercial zones within
the downtown boundaries where mixed use projects are permitted; or
(B)separated from residentially zoned property by a city street with a width of at
least 50 feet, and separated from residentially zoned property by an intervening
property zoned CD-C, CD-S, or CD-N, which intervening property has a width
of not less than 50 feet.
Limitations On Usage of Transferable Development Rights
No otherwise eligible receiver site shall be allowed to utilize transferable development
rights under this chapter to the extent such transfer would:
(2)
(3)
Be outside the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result in a
maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1 above what exists or would otherwise be
permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is greater, or result in total
additional floor area of more than 10,000 square feet. ~
Be within the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result in a
maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1 above what exists, or would otherwise be
permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is greater, or result in total
additional floor area of more than 10,000 square feet.
Cause the development, limitation or project size limitation set forth in Code Section
18.18.040 to be exceeded.
(4)Cause the site to exceed 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0 to 1 FAR in the
CD-S or CD-N subdistricts.
Parking Requirements
The first 5,000 square feet of floor area transferred to a receiver site, whether located in the
CD District or in the PC District, shall be exempt from the otherwise-applicable on-site
parking requirements. Any additional square footage allowed to be transferred to a
061011 synO120176
47
NOT YET APPROVED
receiver site pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the parking regulations applicable
to the district in which the receiver site is located.
(h)Transfer Procedure
Transferable development rights may be transferred from a sender site (or sites) to a
receiver site only in accordance with all of the following requirements:
(1)An application pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of this code for major ARB review of the
project proposed for the receiver site must be filed. The application shall include:
(A) A statement that the applicant intends to use transferable development rights
for the project;
(B)Identification of the sender site(s) and the amount of TDRs proposed to be
transferred; and
(C) ¯ Evidence that the applicant owns the transferable development rights or a
signed statement from any other owner(s) of the TDRs that the specified
amount of floor area is available for the proposed project and will be assigned
for its use.
(2)
(4)
The application shall not be deemed complete unless and until the city determines
that the TDRs proposed to be used for the project are available for that purpose.
In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section, the
architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section
16.48.120 of this code; however, the project may not be required to be modified for
the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to satisfy the
criteria for approval under Chapter 16.48 or any specific requirement of the
municipal code.
Following ARB approval of the project on the receiver site, and prior to issuance of
building permits, the director of planning and community environment or the
director’s designee shall issue written confirmation of the transfer, which identifies
both the sender and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been
transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder
prior to the issuance of building permits and shall include the written consent or
assignment by the owner(s) of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the
applicant.
(i)Purchase or Conveyance of TDRs - Documentation
(1)Transferable development rights may be sold or otherwise conveyed by their
owner(s) to another party. However, no such sale or conveyance shall be effective
unless evidenced by a recorded document, signed by the transferor and transferee
and in a form designed to run with the land and satisfactory to the city attorney. The
document shall clearly identify the sender site and the amount of floor area
transferred and shall also be filed with the department of planning and community
environment.
061011 synO120176
48
NOT YET APPROVED
(2)Where transfer of TDRs is made directly to a receiver site, the recorded confirmation
of transfer described in subsection (h)(4) shall satisfy the requirements of this
section.
18.18.090 Parking and Loading
The provisions of Chapter 18.83 shall apply within the CD district, except the provisions of
Chapter 18.83 regarding on-site and off-site parking for non-residential uses within an
assessment district wherein properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G financing pursuant to
Title 13. With respect to such uses, the following requirements shall apply in the CD district in
lieu of the requirements in Chapter 18.83:
(a)On-Site Parking Requirement
Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or any use of
any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G financing pursuant to
Title 13, shall provide one parking space for each two hundred fifty gross square feet of
floor area, except as may be exempt from such requirement by the provisions of subsection
(b) of this section. The purpose of this subsection is to regulate the number of parking
spaces required. Requirements for the size and other design criteria for parking spaces shall
continue to be governed by the provisions of Chapter 18.83.
(b)Exceptions to On-Site Parking Requirement
The requirement for on-site parking provided in subsection (a) of this section shall not
apply in the following circumstances:
(1)The following square footage shall be exempt from the on-site parking requirement
of subsection (a):
-(A)Square footage for handicapped access which does not increase the usable
floor area, as determined by Code Section 18.18.060(e);
(B)An increase in square footage in conjunction with seismic or historic
rehabilitation, pursuant to Code Section 18.18.070;
(C) An increase in square footage for buildings not in.Seismic Category I, II, or II
or Historic Category 1 or 2 pursuant to Code Section 18.18.070(a)(1);
(D)Square footage for at or above grade parking, though such square footage is
included in the FAR calculations in Section 18.18.060(a).
(2)A conversion to commercial use of a historic building in Categories 1 and 2 shall be
exempt from the on-site parking requirement in subsection (a), provided that the
building is fifty feet or less in height and has most recently been in residential use.
Such conversion, in order to be exempt, shall be done in conjunction with exterior
historic rehabilitation approved by the director of planning and community
environment upon the recommendation of the architectural review board in
consultation with the historic resources board. Such conversion must not eliminate
any existing on-site parking.
(3)Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the requirements of subsection (a) of this
section at the time when development occurs as provided herein. Such development
49
061011 syn 0120176
NOT YET APPROVED
(4)
shall be exempt to the extent of parking spaces for every one thousand square feet of
site area, provided that such parcels were at some time assessed for parking under a
Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16 or were subject to other ad valorem
assessments for parking.
No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the
development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for nonresidential use
equal to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site shown on the engineer’s
report for fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond Plan G financing for parking
acquisition or improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of
the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled, "Proposed Boundaries of
University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District, City of
Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California," dated October 30, 1978, and
on file with the city clerk.. However, square footage which was developed for
nonresidential purposes or which has been used for nonresidential purposes but
which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the time of the engineer’s
report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for this exemption. No
exemption from parking requirements shall be available where a residential use
changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to subsection (2).
(c)Off-Site Parking
Parking required by this chapter may be provided by off-site parking, provided that such
off-site parking is within a reasonable distance of the site using it or, if the site is within an
assessment district, within a reasonable distance of the assessment district boundary and
approved in writing by the director of planning and community environment. The director
shall assure that sufficient covenants and guarantees are provided to ensure use and
maintenance of such parking facilities, including an enforceable agreement that any
development occurring on the site where parking is provided shall not result in a net
reduction of parking spaces provided, considering both the parking previously provided
and the parking required by the proposed use.
(d)In-lieu Parking Provisions
In connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the CD
commercial downtown district, the city shall allocate a number of spaces for use as "in-lieu
parking" spaces to allow development to occur on sites which would otherwise be
precluded from development due to parking constraints imposed by monetary contribution
to the city to defray the cost of providing such parking. Contributions for each required
parking space shall equal the incremental cost of providing a net new parking space in an
assessment district project plus cost for the administration of the program, all as
determined pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of Title 16 of this code, by the director of planning
and community environment, whose decision shall be final. Only sites satisfying one or
more of the following criteria, as determined by the director of planning and community
environment, shall be eligible to participate in the in-lieu parking program:
(1)Construction of on-site parking would necessitate destruction or substantial
demolition of a designated historic structure;
061011 syn0120176
50
NOT YET APPROVED
(2)The site area is tess than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual configuration
that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on-site parking;
(3)The site is greater than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual configuration that
it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on-site parking;
(4)The site is located in an area where city policy precludes curb cuts or otherwise
prevents use of the site for on-site parking; or
(5)The site has other physical constraints, such as a high groundwater table, which
preclude provision of on-site parking without extraordinary expense.
(e)Underground Parking
Underground parking deeper than two levels below grade shall be prohibited unless a soils
report or engineering analysis demonstrates that regular pumping of subsurface water will
not be required.
18.18.100 Performance Standards
In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply
with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use
development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.28 of the Zoning Ordinance.
18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria
(a)Contextual and Compatibility Criteria
Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible
with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented
design.
(1)Context
(A)Context as used in this section is intended to indfcate relationships
between the site’s development to adjacent street types, surrounding land
uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees.
Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly
reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies.
(B)The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate
existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those
surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or
design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an
architectural response.
(2)Compatibility
061011 syn0120176
(A)Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new
buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented
design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and
51
NOT YET APPROVED
.establishes design likages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the
visual unity of the street is maintained.
(B)Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means,
including but not limited to:
(i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials;
(ii) the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width
of the buildings and the spacing between them;
(iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections;
(iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays and
doorways;
(v)the location and treatment of entryways;
(vi)the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features;
(vii)the siting and treatment of parking; and
(viii)the treatment of landscaping.
(b)Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of
the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable inthe CD district
and subdistricts, as further illustrated on the accompanying diagrams:
(1.)Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly
environment, and connectivity through design elements such as:
061011 synO120176
52
NOT YET APPROVED
No
go
Co
Do
go
Ground floor uses that are appealing to
pedestrians through well-designed
visibility and access (Figure 1-1);
On primary pedestrian routes, climate
and weather protection where possible,
such as covered waiting areas, building
projections and colonnades, and
awnings (Figure 1-2);
Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that
contribute to the area’s streetscape
environment such as street trees,
bulbouts,benches, landscape elements,
and public art (Figure 1-3);
Bicycle amenities that contribute to the
rea’s bicycle environment and safety
needs, such as bike racks, storage or
parking, or dedicated bike lanes or
paths (Figure 1-1); and
Vehicle access from alleys or
sidestreets where they exist, with
pedestrian access from the public street.
(Figure 1-1)
weather pmt~tlon and , ~’l- ~
(Figure 1-2)
(Figure 1-3)
(2) Street Building Facades
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the
Street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity
through design elements such as:
061011 syn 0120176
53
NOT YET APPROVED
No
No
Co
Do
go
Placement and orientation of doorways,
windows, and landscape elements to
create strong, direct relationships with
the street (Figure 2-1);
Facades that include projecting eaves
and overhangs, porches, and other
architectural elements that provide
human scale and help break up building
mass (Figure 2-2);
Entries that are clearly defined features
of front facades, and that have a scale
that is in proportion to the size and type
of the building and number of units
being accessed; larger buildings should
have a more prominent building
entrance, while maintaining a
pedestrian scale;
Residential units and storefronts that
have a presence on the street and are
not walled-off or oriented exclusively
inward;
Elements that signal habitation such as
entrances, stairs, porches, bays and
balconies that are visible to people on
the street;
Building mass shou~ a~’~.~
late a de(knead pedesb~an
Clearly defined entries-
tha~ are propo~or~l to
(Figure 2-1)
061011 syn 0120176
54
NOT YET APPROVED
Fo
Go
No
All exposed sides of a building
designed with the same level of care
and integrity;
Reinforcing the definition and
importance of the street with building
mass; and
Upper floors set back to fit in with the
context of the neighborhood.
(Figure 2-2)
(3)Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks through
elements such as:
No
Rooflines that emphasize and
accentuate significant elements of the
building such as entries, bays, and
balconies (Figure 3-1 );
Design with articulation, setbacks, and
materials that minimize massing, break
down the scale of buildings, and
provide visual interest (Figure 3-1);
enmes a~d ba~.
gu~d’SN~s sho,Ad provide ped~Mar,-~aled detai~, aotlculation and c,’aftrnansNp orthe facade.
(Figure 3-1)
061011 syn 0120176
55
NOT YET APPROVED
Co ¯
Do
go
Fo
G°
Comer buildings that incorporate
special features to reinforce important
intersections and create buildings of
unique architectural merit and varied
styles (Figure 3-1);
Building facades articulated with a
building base, body and roof or parapet
edge (Figure 3-2);
Buildings set back from the property
line to create an effective 12’ sidewalk
on E1 Camino Real, 8’ elsewhere
(Figure 3-4);
A majority of the building frontage
locatedat the setback line (Figure 3-3);
and
No side setback for midblock
properties, allowing for a continuous
street facade, except when abutting low
density residential (Figure 3-3).
(Figure 3-2)
(Figure 3-3)
(Figure 3-4)
061011 syn 0120176
56
NOT YET APPROVED
(4)Low-Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care
shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties through:
Transitions of development intensity
from higher density development
building types to building types that are
compatible with the lower intensity
surrounding uses (Figure 4-1);
Massing and orientation of buildings
that respect and mirror the massing of
neighboring structures by stepping back
upper stories to transition to smaller
scale buildings, including setbacks and
daylight planes that match abutting R-1
and R-2 zone requirements (Figure 4-
2);
Respecting privacy of neighboring
structures, with windows and upper
floor balconies positioned so they
minimize views into neighboring
existing future development
(Figure 4-1)
properties (Figure 4-3);
D.Minimizing sight lines into and from
neighboring properties (Figure 4-3);
E.Limiting sun and shade impacts on
abutting properties; and
Fo ProViding pedestrian paseos and mews
to create separation between uses.
(Figure 4-2)
(Figure 4-3)
Deign w]ndov~ to ComblnaUon of
Trees & Hedgesenhance pdvacy
Combination
of Trees and
hedge~/or
Screening
061011 synO120176
57
NOT YET APPROVED
(5)Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents,
visitors, and!or employees of a site.
A. The type and design of the usable
private open space shall be appropriate
to the character of the building(s), and
shall consider dimensions, solar access,
wind protection, views, and privacy;
No Open space should be sited and
designed to accommodate different
activities, groups, active and passive
uses, and should be located convenient
to the users (e.g., residents, employees,
or public)
Common open spaces should connect
to the pedestrian pathways and existing
natural amenities of the site and its
surroundings;
D.Usable open space may be any
combination of private and common
spaces;
Usable open space does not need to be
located on the ground and may be
located in porches, decks, balconies
and/or podiums (but not on rooftops)
(Figure 5-1 );
Open space should be located to
activate the street fagade and increase
"eyes on the street" when possible
(Figure 5-1);
Go Both private and common open space
areas should be buffered from noise
where feasible through landscaping and
building placement;
(Figure 5-1)
061011 synO120176
58
NOT YET APPROVED
No Open space situated over a structural
slab/podium or on a rooftop shall have
a combination of landscaping and high
quality paving materials, including
elements such as planters, mature trees,
and use of textured and!or colored
paved surfaces (Figure 5-2); and
Parking may not be counted as open
space.
(Figure 5-2)
(6)Parking Design
Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the
character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that:
No
No
Co
Do
Parking is located behind buildings,
below grade or, where those options are
not feasible, screened by landscaping,
low walls, etc.;
Structured parking is fronted or
wrapped with habitable uses when
possible (Figure 6-1);
Parking that is semi-depressed is
screened with architectural elements
that enhance the streetscape such as
stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art;
Landscaping such as trees, shrubs,
vines, or groundcover is incorporated
into surface parking lots (Figure 6-2);
Parking podiums shall be fronted or wrapped with habitable or active uses when
possible,
(Figure 6-1)
Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines or ground cover is incorporated into
surface pm’klng lots,
(Figure 6-2)
061011 synO120176
59
NOT YET APPROVED
go
Fo
No
For properties with parking access from
the rear of the site (such as a rear alley
or driveway) landscaping shall provide
a visual buffer between vehicle
circulation areas and abutting properties
(Figure 6-3);
Street parking is utilized for visitor or
customer parking and is designed in a
manner to enhance traffic calming;
For properties with parking accessed
from the front, minimize the amount of
’ ~ontage used for parking access, no
more than 25% of the site frontage
facing a street should be devoted to
garage openings, carports, or
open/surface parking (on sites with less
than 100 feet of frontage, no more than
25 feet);
Where two parking lots abut and it is
possible for a curb cut and driveway to
serve several properties, owners are
strongly encouraged to enter in to
shared access agreements (Figure 6-4);
and
Parking is accessed from side streets or
alleys when possible.
Existing Residential Alley
L~:~nclscaping shall provide a ~sual buffer between vel’Jcle aroas and adjacent plx~perties.
(Figure 6-3)
When possible, adjacent properties are strontgb, encouraged to sharo ddvewaTs
to liroit curb cuts.
(Figure 6-4)
061011 syn 0120176
60
NOT YET APPROVED
daylight plane
~.~ 12’ effective sidewalk width
(Figure 6-5: Mixed-Use with Surface Parking)
lOft
40 ft height limit~\
daylight plane
t~- 12’ effe~ive sidewalk width
(Figure 6-6: Mixed-Use with Parking Podium)
daylight plane
~_’~- 12’ effective sidewalk width " I0 ft
(Figure 6-7: Mixed-Use with Partial Sub-Grade Parking Podium)
daylight plane
12’ effective sidewalk width
(Figure 6-8: Mixed-Use with Below-Grade Parking Podium)
061011 synO120176
61
NOT YET APPROVED
(7)Large (multi-acre) Sites
Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building
patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that:
No
No
Co
New development of large sites
maintains and enhances connectivity
with a hierarchy of public streets,
private streets, walks and bike paths
(integrated with Palo Alto’s Bicycle
Master Plan, when applicable);
The diversity of building types
increases with increased lot size (e.g.,
<1 acre = minimum 1 building type; 1-
2 acres = minimum 2 housing types;
greater than 2 acres = minimum 3
housing types) (Figures 7-1 through 7-
3); and
Where a site includes more than one
housing type, each building type should
respond to its immediate context in
terms of scale, massing, and design
(e.g., Village Residential building types
facing or abutting existing single-
family residences) (Figures 7-2 and 7-
3).
ires g’eaterthan one acre may
ave 1@% ~idenfi~ Nildin#
"~con .ept
(Figure 7-1)
(Figure 7-2)
(Figure 7-3)
061011 syn 0120176
62
NOT YET APPROVED
(8) Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be
incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during
design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local
environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In. general, sustainable buildings are
energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and
high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site
and building design:
Optimize building orientation for heat
gain, shading, daylighting, and natural
ventilation (Figure 8-1).
Design landscaping to create
comfortable micro-climates and reduce
heat island effects.
Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit access.
Maximize onsite stormwater
management through landscaping and
permeable pavement (Figure 8-2).
Use sustainable building materials.
Design lighting, plumbing, and
equipment for efficient energy and
water use.
Create healthy indoor environments.
Use creativity and innovation to build
more sustainable environments. One
example is establishing gardens with
edible fruits, vegetables or other plants
to satisfy a portion of project open
space requirements.
Direct. sunlight, through
so~th facing v~ ndo’¢vs would
improve tile passive heating
Use of Shadirrg Devices m Con~l Solar t~ad~ in Summer ~nd
gain Passive heat
(Figure 8-1)
Minimize ~ormv,-ater runoffto imp~Tniable areas with landscaping, green roofs,
and ~vales when possible.
(Figure 8-2)
061011 syn 0120176
63
NOT YET APPROVED
Jo
Provide protection for creeks and
riparian vegetation and integrate
stormwater management measures and
open space to minimize water quality
and erosion impacts to the creek
environment.
Encourage installation ofphotovoltaic
panels.
~ncourage in~allation of pho~.c~¢oltaic panels,
(Figure 8-3)
18.18.120 Grandfathered Uses and Facilities
(a)GrandfatheredUses
(1)
(2)
The following uses and facilities may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall not
require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94:
(A)Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or
(B)A use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was temporarily
discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before August 28, 1986; or
(c)Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and GF
combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to August 28,
1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use.
The grandfathered uses in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or
replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the
same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement:
(A)shall not result in increased floor area;
(B)shall not shift the building footprint;
(C)shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, or any
other increase in the size of the improvement;
(D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the
exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; or
in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative office
uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square feet in the CD-S or CD-N district that are
deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1), such remodeling,
improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to
such office uses.
061011 synO120176
64
NOT YET APPROVED
(3)
(4)
If a grandfathered use deemed existing pursuant to subsection (1) ceases and
thereafter remains discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it shall be considered
abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use.
A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1) which is changed to or
replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or
any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a grandfathered use to a
conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming
use.
(b)Grandfathered Facilities
(1)Any noncomplying facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when built, was
a complying facility, may remain as a grandfathered facility and shall not be subject
to the provisions of Chapter 18.94.
The grandfathered facilities specified in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel,
improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and
occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or
replacement:
(A)shall not result in increased floor area;
(B)shall not shift the building foot print;
(c)
(D)
shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, or any
other increase in the size of the improvement;
shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the
exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070.
SECTION 5. Section 16.20.120(a) (Signs) of Title 16 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
"16.20.120 Freestanding Signs
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every freestanding sign shall comply with the
requirements of this section.
(a)Freestanding signs over five feet.
Freestanding signs over five feet in height shall be permitted only on nonresidential
properties in the GM zones and on E1 Camino Real in the CN and CS zones and for service
stations, restaurants and shopping centers elsewhere.
(1)Area and height. The maximum area and height of such signs is set forth in
Table 2.
(2) Location. Every sign shall be wholly on the owner’s property, except that for any
site that encompasses a minimum often (10) acres in size and contains a minimum of
50,000 square feet of retail square footage, but does not have its primary frontage on a
freeway, expressway, or major arterial, a freestanding sign may be located offsite on
65
061011 synO120176
II
II
II
II
N
N
II
N
II
N
II
N
N
II
N
061011 synO120176
NOT YET APPROVED
private property with frontage on the nearest major arterial roadway. The sign size and
height shall be governed by the criteria set forth in Table 2, using the average site length
dimension as the lot frontage for calculation purposes. The sign shall comply with all other
regulations of this Chapter, the total site signage (’including the offsite sign) shall not
exceed the total allowed for the site, and all other signs on the offsite property_ must
comply with sign regulations for that site.
(3)Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be one such
sign for each frontage and one additional sign for any portion of frontage in excess of two
hundred fifty feet. The size of any additional sign shall be determined from Table 2 by
counting as frontage that portion thereof which is in excess of two hundred fifty feet. In the
case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies having a common frontage, the
frontage shall be deemed to be that of the shopping center or commonly used parcel and
not the frontages of the individual businesses or occupancies.
(4) Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such
sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-
resistant material."
¯66
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after the date of its adoption.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance or the Palo Alto Municipal Code, all
applications submitted prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be subject to the PAMC
Title 18 Zoning Regulations in effect on the date the application is received by the City.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AB S TENTION S:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
061011 syn 0120176
67
ATTACHMENT B
Section 18~x~ Context-Based Design: ComrnerciallMixed-use
Context-Based Design Criteria
Palo Alto
Commercial/
Mixed-Use Development
Section 18.xx~xx Context-Based Design: Commercial/Mixed-use
Section 8.xx~o~x Context-Based Design: Commercial/Mixed-use
Context-Based Design Criteria - Commercial/Mixed-use
The diagrams below outline appropriate transitions between a project site and adjacent
residential or commercial uses, roadway frontages or environmental features. The proximity
of development to other uses can create varied, lively neighborhoods, but for the relationships
to have a positive impact transitions between different building scales need to be carefully
considered and designed.
I. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment,
and connectivity through design elements such as:
ections
envlror~mel
Bike
Active
floor uses
Bulb~u~ increase
pedestrian safe~
Awnings provide
weather protection and
cmale a pedestrian scale
Wide sidewalks provide a
positive pedestrian experi-
ence in front of retail uses
Bulbouts ir~rease
pedestrian safety
Minimize vehicle access to
provide a continuous facade
and street parking
Section 18aocx~x Context-Based Design: Commercial/Mixed-use
07
2. Street Building Facades and Frontages
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the
street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through
design elements such as:
a.Placement and orientation of doorways,
windows, and landscape elements to
create strong, direct relationships with
f.’All exposed sides of a building designed
with the same leve of care and integrity;
Odent doorways and
windows to create strong
relationship to stceet.
Building mass should arldcu-ate a definted pedestrian
base,
~ea~ defined entries,
l~al: ate p~oporlJona~ tosize of I~ilding and use.
Property Line /~ upper floor setback
Build to Unej/
T Residential
Residential
Cornmerlcal
X~ 12 ft ~-~ctiw sidewalk
Buildingl setbad~ 6orn the pmp~’~y llne to o~eato an e~ctlve 12’ sidewaJk on [] Camino Real.
Upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood.
Section 18.xx.~o<x Context-Based Design: Commercial/Mixed-use
3. Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and and conform to proper setbacks through
elements such as:
a. Rooflines that emphasize and accentu-
ate significant elements of the building
such as entries, bays, and balconies;
c.Corner bu Idings that incorporate
special features to reinforce important
intersections and create buildings of
unique architectural merit and varied
styles;
d. Building facades articulated with a
building base, body and roof or parapet
Rooflines can emphasize
significant elements such as
entries and ba~-
be used to mini’once
important intersections. A
reizdl envy can strengthen
Buildings should Drovlde pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation ~ craffrnanship of the facade.
Buildings should be set
backto create a 12’ effec-
tlve sidewaJk aJong ECR
Building facades art~oJlated wilh a building base, bod,/and roof or parapet edge.
Upper floor setbad¢ "-
should be used to rel~e to
exLstJng context,
Buildings should ma~m~e ~he pencen~ge of ~i~ ~ ~g build ~ lin~ Buildings
~!ler ~ ~r ~un~ng co~ shoed ~p ~ ~ ~n a ~nuo~ ~t at
¯ e build-~ li~.
Section 8.x~xxx Context-Based Design: CommerciallMixed-use
4. Low-Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built adjacent to existing lower-scale residential development, care shall
be taken to respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties through:
a.Transitions of development intensity
from higher densitydevelopment building
types to bud ng types that are compat-
ible with the lower intensity surrounding
uses;
existing i! future development "
b.Massing and orientation of buildings that
respect and mirror the massing of neigh-
boring structures by stepping back upper
stories to transition to smaller scale
buildings, including setbacks and daylight "
planes that match adjacent R-I and R-2
16’ at r~ar yard. 10’ at ride yard
Massing and orientatJon of bullrings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboringstructures by stepping b~ck upper stories to transition to smaller scale building~
Design w~ndows to
07/S ! lO6
Section 18.~o~,x~x Context-Based Design: Commercial/Mixed-use
5. Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors,
and/or employees of a site.
¯ a. The type and design of the usable privateOpen space Shall be appropriate tO the
character of the building(s), and Shall
consider dimensions, solar access, wind
ay beany combina-
aN iacrease"eyes
/Usable open space may ~Podium open space should
~e Io~ated on parking be connected to groundpodiumslevel o0en space,
gh quality materials an~l
landscaping elements such a~
planters, mature ~a~ees. and
textured and/or colored pavers
should be used.
Section 180o~xxx Context-Based Design= CommercialMixed-use
6, Parking Design
Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the
project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that:
a. Parking is located behind buildings,
below grade or, where those options
~ are not feasiblei screened by landscap:
ing, low walls, etc.;
b. Structured parking is fronted or
wrapped with habitable Uses when
c. Parking that is Semi-depressed is
’ screened with aPchitectural elements
that enhancethe streetscape such as
Stoops, baicony overhangs, and/or art;
i d. LandsCaping Such as trees, shrubs, vines
or groundcover is incorporated into
surface parking lots;
e.For properties with parking access
from the rear of the site (such aS a
rear a ley or driveway) landscaping
shall provide a visual buffer between
Vehic e circulation areas and adjacent
properties; ~. ~ ~
f. Street parking i~ utilized forvisitor~r -
customer parking and is designed in aJ
manner to enhance traffic calming; :
g. For properties with parking aCcesSed
from the front, minimize the amount ~
of frontage used for parking access. :
no more ~han 25% ~f the site frontage
facing a street Should be devoted to’ _
garage Openings, carports, or open/:
surf~c~ parking (on sites with less than
I00 fee~ Of frontage, no more than 25
h.where two parking lots abut and it~ is
possible fora curbcut and driveway-
to serve several properties, owners
are strongly encouraged to enter in :to
seared access agreements; and ~
i.Parking is accessed from side streets or
alleys when possible;
Landscaping such as trees, shrub~ vines or ground cover is incoq~orated intosurface parking lots.
Landscaping shall provide a visual buffer between vehicle areas and adjacent proper~es.
Section 8.xx.xxx Context-Based Design: Commercialll~lixed-use
Mixed-use with Surface Parking
~40 ft height limit~
’,\’,\
I:\\~ayllght plane
-L~’~ 12, effective sidewalk width
Mixed-use with Parking Podium,,
,. Resldentlal:~-
"~ 12’ effective sidewalk width
Mixed-use with Partial Sub-grade Parking Podium
,,
,,
,,,I
20 ft
~_ 12 effective sidewalk w~dth lOft
Mixed-use with Below-grade Parking Podium
i __
light plane
12 effective sidewalk width
Section 18~xxx Context-Based Design: Commercial/Mixed-use
7. Large (multi-acre) Sites
Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns
are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that:
)e and s~e should
relate to adjacent or futur~
contexts
Section 18~xxx Context-Based Design: Commercial/Mixed-use
8. Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incor-
porated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and
construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect,
respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserv-
ing, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The fol-
lowing considerations should be included in site and building design:
South facing windows with
~.._I~ shading devices to controloverheating in S .....
Direct sunlight, through
south facing windows would
improve the 0assi~ heating
in Winter,
more su
Use of Shading Devices to Control Solar loads in Summer andgain Passive heat in winter.
Building integrated PV’S
in l~e form of ~Jnshaded
Encourage ins+aJlation of ohotovoltaic panel~
Minimize s~o~nwater r~nofi’to impermiable area~ wi~ landscapin& green roofs,
and ~aJes when possible. D ~Ii, ~ I~I I~
Section lS.~o~x Context-Based Design:Commercial/Mixed-use
PLANNING
ATTACHMENT C
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT: "
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Clare Campbell, Planner
Curtis Williams, Chief Planning and
Transportation Official
DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Community Environment
September 27, 2006
Zoning Ordinance Update - Recommendation Regarding Proposed Ordinance
Deleting Chapters 18.41 (Neighborhood Commercial), 18.43 (Community
Commercial), 18.44 (Community Commercial Combining District), 18.45
(Service Commercial), and 18.49 (Downtown Commercial) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code and Adding Chapters 18.16 (Neighborhood, Service, and
Community Commercial) and 18.18 (Downtown Commercial) Providing for
Allowable Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones, including
Mixed Use Criteria, and Amending Sections 18.94.070 and 16.20.120 to
Delete Amortization Requirements and to Allow Additional Signage for 3200
Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue (Fry’s Electronics); Environmental
Assessment: Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report,
RECOMMENDATION
S taft recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the
City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendments (Attachments A, B, C and D).
Alternative Recommendation A: Adopt the ordinance amendments, but delete the allowed
ground floor office use in the Service Commercial (CS) zone district.
Alternative Recommendation B: Adopt the ordinance amendments, but require an average
residential unit size of 1,250 square feet for mixed use development.
Alternative Recommendation C: Adopt the ordinance amendments regarding the commercial
zone districts, but defer action on the signage and amortization amendments related to Fry’s.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy L-9 directs that the City:
City of Palo Alto Page 1
"Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning
process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. "’
Program L- 10 implements the policy by directing that the City:
"Create and apply the following four new Mixed use zoning standards: A "Live/Work"
designation that permits individuals to live on the same site where they work by allowing
housing and other uses such as office, retail, and light industrial to co-exist in the same
building space," and "Retail/Office, "’ "Residential/Retail, ’" and "Residential/Office ’"
designations that permit a mix of uses on the same site or nearby Sites.
Develop design standards for all mixed use designations providing for buildings with one
tO three stories, rear parking or underground parking, street-facing windows and entries,
and zero setback along the street, except that front gardens may be provided for ground
floor residential uses. "’
The Comprehensive Plan also includes several policies to address transitions in scale and density
and intensity between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of
different densities. Program L-5 specifically directs the City to:
"Establish new performance and architectural standards that minimize negative tmpacts
where land use transitions occur. ’"
Mixed use development is encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan to provide opportunities to
sustain and support residential and commercial uses and to reduce trips by locating residential,
employment, and retail services in close proximity to each other. Staff has presented the mixed
use development concept and related policy issues to the community, the Council, the P&TC,
and the ARB in 2003 and 2004. Specific mixed use development standards and context-based
design criteria (form-basedcode) have been presented to the P&TC’s Design and Environment
Committee (including Commissioners Cassell and Lippert at the time) and the ARB. Revisions
to the commercial districts and performance standards have not been presented previously.
Prior ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission Review .
In mid-2003, the staff and ZOU design consultants conducted community workshops and a joint
study session with the P&TC and City Council regarding new land use types, including mixed
use, village residential, and transit-oriented residential. Staff brought to the Commission on
January 28, 2004a set of 3 priority policy statements for each land use. The Commission
modified the policies for mixed use to read as follows:
Integration of uses is more important than whether the mixed use is vertical or
horizontal~ or the specific mix of uses; uses should be supportive of one another,
complementary, visually integrated, and connected with walkways, trails, etc.
Shared parking allowances should be limited and tailored to uses that complement
each other relative to hours of use, e.g., residential and office (based on studies
elsewhere).
Maximum floor area ratios should be established, but should require desirable land
use mixes to attain the maximum, especially including residential at preferred
City of Palo Alto Page 2
densities, street level retail in pedestrian-oriented areas, and public spaces or open
space in some areas. Flexibility shouldbe provided to allow for some modification of
uses over time.
On August 25, 2004, the Commission considered specifics about potential changes to mixed use
criteria and village residential uses. Staff worked with the Design & Environment Committee
and ARB in 2004 and 2005 regarding these land use types, including a December 16, 2004
presentation to ARB of development standards for mixed use development. On July 6, 2006, a
final set of standards was provided to ARB for review, including tables of standards and context-
based design criteria.
On August 30, 2006, the Commission conducted a study session regarding the commercial
districts, mixed use, and performance criteria. The study session was continued for further input
on September 13, 2006. Responses to Commission questions were included in the September 13
staff report (Attachment I). At the September 13 meeting, staff indicated that consideration of the
performance criteria would bedeferred until after consideration of the commercial zoning
changes (tentatively scheduled for October 25, 2006).
Limitations on Conversion of Commercial Uses to Residential Uses
On August 7, 2006, the City Council considered options for restricting the conversion of
commercial uses and/or commercially-zoned properties to residential use. The intent of this
discussion was to identify ways to preserve commercial (particularly retail) uses, as well as to
limit the impacts of further housing development. The Council directed that staff should include
in the Zoning Ordinance Update provisions to limit residential use in commercial zones to
"mixed use" only, Council also expressed a desire to adopt these changes in advance of
November 7, 2006, when Proposition 90 will be considered by California voters (Proposition 90
could have implications for a city’s ability to restrict uses or densities through rezoning).
The Council has also directed staff to review and discuss zoning and development criteria related
to Fry’s Electronics to work to retain the business at its present site or elsewhere in Palo Alto.
Community Outreach
Staff has provided summaries of the proposed changes to the ordinance at a meeting of the Palo
Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) representatives and to local architects. Community input was also
part of the Commission’s study sessions. Subsequent to the study sessions, staff also reviewed
the changes with the Palo Verde Residents Association on September 20th and the Ventura
Neighborhood Association (including the revisions affecting Fry’s Electronics) on September
21st. Substantial background information and the proposed revisions regarding the commercial
districts and mixed use criteria have been added to the City’s Zoning Ordinance Update website
for public review as well,
DISCUSSION
The City’s commercial zoning districts include the Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Service
Commercial (CS), Community Commercial (CC), Community Commercial Combining (CC2),
and Downtown Commercial (CD-C, CD-N, and CD-S) districts. A map of the commercial zones
is provided as Attachment E. Mixed use development is currently allowed in all of the
commercial districts in the City.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The following discussion outlines potential-revisions to the commercial zoning districts, mixed
use regulations, and specific revisions applicable to the Fry’s Electronics site.
Summary of Proposed Revisions to Commercial Districts
The commercial districts are organized into two chapters: Chapter 18.16 for the CN, CC, CC(2),
and CS districts (Attachment A), and Chapter 18.18 for the CD district and subdistricts
(Attachment B). Each chapter contains tab les of allowable uses and development standards,
similar to the format for residential and research/manufacturing zones adopted previously. The
basic allowable uses and intensities (density and FAR) of uses, as well as parking requirements,
for development in the commercial districts are not proposed for revision.
There are, however, a few substantive modifications to the commercial zoning districts that
respond to the Council’s desire to protect commercial (particularly retail) uses in these zones, to
respond to design needs consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidance as reflected in the E1
Camino Real Design Guidelines, or to better address transition impacts near low-density
residential uses. Redtined versions of the two chapters are provided in Attachments F and G
(these do not show verbatim changes, since the existing chapters have been consolidated and
reformatted, but they do reflect substantive changes and significant wording changes). The key
revisions proposed in the commercial districts include:
Limiting residential uses to "mixed use" only, pursuant to the mixed use criteria outlined
in the following section, ~ for properties designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in
the City’s Housing Element.
Increasing the floor.area ratio (FAR) for hotels, generally to 2.0:1 (except in the CN zone,
where hotels are not a permitted use). This provision also allows for up to 25% of the
FAR and/or rooms to be used for residential condominium purposes, as further incentive
for hotel use generating transient occupancy taxes for the City.
Requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) for commercial retail (including restaurants)
and service uses operating between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in the CN and CS districts,
.when adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
Reducing the front setback along E1 Camino Real to allow buildings up to the property
line, so long as they provide for adequate sidewalk width (generally 8-12 feet) and
appropriate pedestrian streetscape design.
The 150 foot residential transition area is maintained but the related setbacks, daylight
plane and height requirements only apply if the residential property abuts the site.
Other minor cleanup changes are also proposed, such as 1) deleting the maps from the
Downtown Commercial (CD) Chapter, as they are now better shown on the City’s zoning map,
and 2) clarifications in the historic rehabilitation bonuses of the CD-C zone, including the
definition of "historic rehabilitation." Relevant overlay and combining districts (such as Ground
Floor, Retail, or Pedestrian combining districts) will still be applicable. Ground floor
requirements and other limitations in the Midtown and Charleston Center areas (including
prohibition of all residential development) are also retained in the updated CN district.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Ground Floor Office Use in CS Zone on E1 Camino Real
Ground floor office uses are currently prohibited in the commercial districts, except where office
uses existed in May of 2001 or the site has been vacant. This provision protects existing retail,
personal services, and eating and drinking establishments (and sometimes housing) from
conversion to office use. The only exception to these provisions is in the Service Commercial
(CS) district, where office use is permitted on the ground floor of properties with frontage on El
Camino Real. Even then, however, office uses are limited to 5,000 square feet on the entire site
unless a conditional use permit is granted.
Staff has provided an Alternative Recommendation A for the Commission’s consideration,
which would delete the El Camino Real exception from the CS zone. While this would provide
additional protection for retail along El Camino Real, staff believes the combination of the size
limitation on office uses will adequately address concerns about extensive office use, and that
such a restriction would make it even more difficult for medical professionals to relocate from
Stalaford to commercial zones in the city.
Proposed Mixed Use Development Standards
Mixed residential/non-residential development is currently allowed in all of the City’s
commercial zoning districts. The requirements for mixed use generally apply multiple-family
zoning standards (RM-40 in CD-C, RM-15 in CN, and RM-30 in other districts) to the
commercial site and specify the maximum site floor-to-area ratio (FAR), including the mix of
residential and non-residential FAR. This creates constraints on mixed use development where
residential setbacks, daylight planes and height restrictions result in poor design and preclude
achieving allowable development levels, even when there are no abutting residential uses. The
ZOU urban design consultants evaluated these constraints and developed prototypes for revised
standards, as outlined in the "Introduction to Design Prototypes" analysis (Attachment M).
The proposed mixed use development standards are intended to replace the multi-family overlay
with specific development criteria. Table 4 in each ordinance (Attachments A and B) outline
these criteria, including allowable densities, FAR, heights, setbacks and daylight planes, and
open space. For the most part, the requirements mimic the multi-family requirements,
particularly relative to density, height, and FAR. The key differences include:
Setbacks and daylight planes would apply only when abutting residential uses, and would
in those cases match the setbacksand daylight planes for the residential zone.
Front setbacks would be determined by the ARB, but would generally be set at 5-10 feet,
accommodating a sidewalk width of 8-12 feet (12 feet along E1 Camino Real). At least
50% of the building frontage would need to be "built to" this setback.
Height, which is now reduced when within 150 feet of a residential zone (even if there is
an intervening nonresidential lot), is proposed to be reduced only when the residential
zone abuts the project site.
Coverage/open space/landscape percentages would be retained similar to the multifamily
standards, but adding requirements for "usable" open space per unit (200 square feet per
unit for 5 or fewer units, 150 square feet per unit for more than 5 units), a qualitative
description of "usable open space," and flexibility to divide open space between common
City of Palo Alto Page 5
and private open space and to locate usable open space above the ground level (e.g.,
rooftops or podiums).
CN mixed use requirements on E1 Camino Real are revised to allow a height of 40 feet
(rather than 35 feet) and an FAR of 1.0 (rather than 0.9), to reflect the relationship of
height to the width of the arterial.
The maximum FAR for a mixed use development in the CC(2) zone is reduced from 3.0
to 2.0, as it is not feasible to exceed 2.0 given other development standards.
Site and Design review for mixed use projects in the CN, CS, and CC districts would not
be required where 4 or fewer residential units are proposed.
A minimum commercial FAR is required for mixed use in each zone to assure that there
is a substantial commercial component for such projects. The percentage ranges from
0.15:1 FAR in the CN and CS zones to 0.25 FAR in the CC and CC(2) zones. Rick
Williams, the ZOU urban design consultant, has provided a letter (Attachment N)
indicating the basis for maintaining the FARs at this level (he will not be in attendance at
the meeting).
Uses involving the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials in excess of exempt
amounts would not be permitted in a mixed use project.
Mixed use development would not be permitted on a site designated with the Automobile
Dealership (AD) overlay.
Attachment H provides a comparison of the proposed.development standards for mixed use in
the CN and CD districts with the current zoning.
Maximum Average Unit Size
Staffhas not proposed an average unit size for residential uses in a mixed use configuration. An
Alternative Recommendation B is presented, however, which would provide for a maximum
average unit size of 1,250 square feet. That figure is consistent with requirements in the SOFA
plan and regulations, and would require a variety of housing types (and potentially a greater
number of units), However, staffbelieves that the unit size limit may restrict the feasibility of
some mixed use projects, so it is not presently included. As mentioned at the study session, other
options would include requiring the maximum average unit size only if parking reductions are
requested.
Staff believes that application of these revised criteria to mixed use projects will provide
improved design and feasibility, while maintaining protections for adjacent low density
residential and the basic density, intensity, and height limits of the current code.
Context-Based Design Criteria
A Context-Based Design Criteria section is included for each chapter, but is presented separately
in Attachment C. This section will be plugged into the text of each chapter prior to moving
forward to the City Council, as was the case for the PTOD ordinance. The criteria include text
and diagrams illustrating preferred transitions to residential areas, streetscape design, massing
and articulation approaches, and sustainability. Many of the context-based criteria are the same
or similar to those reviewed for the PTOD ordinance, with a few exceptions. Staffbelieves that
the criteria provide appropriate guidance for all of the commercial districts and apply to entirely
nonresidential projects as well as to mixed use development.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Fry’s Electronics Site
The City Council has directed staff to determine and recommend revisions to regulations that
might facilitate the retention of Fry~s at its site in Palo Alto. Staffwill be discussing zoning
options with the business representatives for consideration at a future date. In the interim, staff
has identified two code changes that would provide enhanced signage for Fry’s and eliminate the
amortization date by which Fry’s would need to vacate the site. The two potential amendments
(Attachment D) include:
Amendment to the sign regulations (Chapter 16.20 of the Municipal Code) to allow for
off-site signage for sites in excess of 10 acres with a minimum of 50,000 square feet of
retail use and without frontage on an arterial roadway. The effect of this change appears
to apply only to the Fry’s site and would allow their current off-site sign to increase from
its (approximately) 24-30 square feet to about 65 square feet and to a maximum height of
25 feet.
Amendment to Chapter 18.94 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities) to
delete the July 16, 2019 amortization date for the Fry’s site. All of the other restrictions
of the nonconforming use would remain (limits on square footage and truck deliveries)
unless and until the site is rezoned.
Staff has identified Alternative Recommendation C to defer the Fry’s related revisions from the
remainder of the commercial ordinance discussions, if they appear to be problematic. Staff
believes, however, that the revisions are minimal and would provide a positive message to Fry’s
from the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance would have, at most, minor incremental
impacts on the amount of development permitted in commercial zones or for mixed use projects.
Most of the draft amendments involve minor revisions and context-based criteria intended to
provide design more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and protections in transitions from
low density to residential to higher density and non-residential uses. The amendments are
consistent with the policies and programs outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and with the
Comprehensive Plan EIR. Site specific impacts will be addressed upon environmental review of
a proposed application.
NEXT STEPS
Upon recommendation by the Commission, the draft ordinance amendments will be presented to
the City Council for review and approval. The City Attorney will combine all of the components
of the approval into a single ordinance prior to the Council meeting. The Council is tentatively
scheduled to hear this item on October 16, 2006. The performance criteria are tentatively
scheduled to return to the Commission on October 25, 2006.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Chapter 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial)
B. Draft Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial)
C. Draft Context-Based Criteria for Commercial and Mixed Use
City of Palo Alto Page 7
D.Draft Revisions to Sections 18.94.070 and t6.20.120(a) re: Amortization and Signage
E.Map of Commercial Zones
F.Redlined Version of Chapter 18.16 (CN, CC, CC(2), and CS Zones)
G.Redlined Version of Chapter 18.18 (CD Zone)
H.Comparison of Mixed Use Development Standards for CN and CS Zones
I.September 13, 2006 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report
J.Section 18.94.070 (Nonconforming Use - Required Termination)
K.SectiOn 16.20.120(a) (Freestanding Signs) and Table 2 (Size and Height)
L.Mixed Use Development: Issues Paper: July 2003
M.Introduction to Urban Design Prototypes, prepared by VMWP, December 2002
N.Letter from Van Meter Williams Pollack, dated September 20, 2006
COURTESY COPIES
City Council
Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Doug Moran, Barron Park Association
Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association
Chamber of Commerce
Elaine Johnson
Joy Ogawa
Joe Bellomo
Tony .Carrasco
Ken Hayes
Jim Baer, Premier Properties
Roxy Rapp
Bob Peterson
PREPARED BY:Clare Campbell, Planner
REVIEWED BY:
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Curtis Williams
Chief Planning and Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto Page 8
18.16.010 Purposes
ATTACHMENT A
Chapter 18.16
NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMUNITY, AND SERVICE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
1.8.16.010
18.16.020
18.16.030
18.16.040
18.16.050
18.16.060
18.16.070
18.16.080
18.16.090
18.16.100
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Definitions
Land Uses
Office Use Restrictions
Development Standards
Parking and Loading
Performance Standards
Context-Based Design Criteria
Grandfathered Uses
18.16.010 Purposes
The commercial zoning districts are intended to create and maintain sites for retail,
personal services, eating and drinking establishments, hotels and other business uses in a
manner that balances the needs of those uses with the need to minimize impacts to
surrounding neighborhoods.
(a)Neighborhood Commercial’ [CN]
The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain
neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal
service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate
neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with
surrounding residential areas.
(b)Community Commercial [CC]
The CC community commercial district is intended to create and maintain major
commercial centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail sales, and other
commercial activities of community-wide or regional significance. The CC
community commercial district is intended to be applied to regional/community
commercial centers identified by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
(c)Community Commercial (2) Subdistrict [CC(2)l
The community commercial (2) (CC(2)) subdistrict is intended to modify the site
development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied
in combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the community
commercial uses and development requirements in the CC district.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean. doc.doc
18.16.020 Applicable Regulations
(d)Service Commercial [CS]
The CS service commercial district is intended to create and maintain areas
accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in
neighborhood or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas, and which generally require
automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment,
loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service Vehicles.
18.16.020 Applicable Regulations
(a) Applicable Ch apters
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and
procedures established by other relevant Chapters Of the Zoning Code shall apply to
the CN, CS, and CC districts, and the subdistrict designated as CC(2), as shown on
the City’s Zoning Map. The term "abutting residential zones," where used in this
Chapter, includes the R1, R2, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40, or residential Planned
Community (PC) districts, unless otherwise specifically noted.
(b)Applicable Combining Districts
The combining districts applicable to the CN, CS, CC and CC(2)districts shall
include, but shall not be limited to, the following districts:
(1)The retail shopping (R) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter
18.46, shall apply to the area of the CN, CS, and CC districts designated as
~’R’" combining district as shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
(2)The pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations, as specified in
Chapter 18.47, shall apply to the area of the CN~ CS, CC and CC(2) districts
designated "P" combining district as shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
18.16.030 Definitions
For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined:
(a)"Charleston Shopping Center" is defined as all properties zoned CN and bounded
by East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, and Cubberley Community Center.
(b)"Midtown Shopping District" is defined as all properties zoned CN in the vicinity
of the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Middlefield Road which border
Moreno Avenue, Bryson Avenue, Colorado Avenue, and San Carlos Court, or
which border Middlefield Road in the area extending from Moreno Avenue to San
Carlos Court.
(c)"Town and Country Village Shopping Center" is defined as all properties zoned
CC and bounded by E1 Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, Encina Avenue, and the
Southern Pacific ri ght-of-way.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc
18.16.040 Land Uses
(d)"Stanford Shopping Center" is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by
E1 Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane.
(e)"Neighborhood-serving offices" are medical offices, professional offices, travel
agencies, and insurance agencies that fit the definition of a neighborhood-serving
use.
(0 A "Neighborhood Serving Use" is a use that primarily serves individual consumers
and households, not businesses, is generally pedestrian oriented in design, and does
not generate noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than that typically expected for
uses with a local customer base. A neighborhood-serving use is also one to which
a significant number of customers and clients travel, rather than the provider of the
goods or services traveling off-site.
(g)
(h)
"Ground Floor" shall mean the first floor that is above grade.
"Mixed Use Development" shall mean a combination of nonresidential and
residential uses arranged on a site. The uses may be combined in a vertical
configuration (within a building) or in a horizontal, configuration (separate
buildings).
18.16.040 Land Uses
The uses of land allowed by this chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified
in the following tables. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not allowed, except
where otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to
Regulations in") includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section
also apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well.
(a)Commercial Zones and Land Uses
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for each commercial zone are shown in
Table 1:
Table 1 : CN, CC, CC(2) and CS Permitted and Conditional Uses
Accessory facilities and activities customarily
associated with or essential to permitted uses, and
operated incidental to the principal use.
P
Tire, battery, and automotive service facilities,
when operated incidental to a permitted retail
service or shopping center having a gross floor
area of more than 30,000 square feet.
P P
Drive-in services or take-out services associated CUP CUP CUPwith permitted uses(4)
CUP
18.88
18.88
18.88
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 3
18.16.040 Land Uses
Business and Trade Schools
Churches and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
Private Clubs, Lodges, or
Fraternal Organizations
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Recycling centers CUP CUP CUP
P
CUPWarehousing and Distribution
OFFICE USES, .
Administrative Office Services
Medical, Professional, and General Business
Offices
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility
services but excluding construction or storage
yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards.
:RECREATION usES
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
P 18.16.050
18.16.050
CUP
P P
,CUPCUP
CUP
CUP
. p0), (2)
P
P
P
Multiple-Family
Home Occupations
Residential Care Homes
RET IL ES
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in
and take-out services
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores
Liquor stores
Shopping Centers
SERVICE USES -
P P
CUP P
P
P P
P
P
18.16.060(b)
18.88
18.16.060(e)
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 4
18.16.040 Land Uses
Ambulance Services
Animal Care excluding boarding and kennels
Boarding and Kennels
Automobile Service Stations .
Automotive Services
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
Small Adult Day Care Homes
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Banks and Financial Services
General Business Services
Hotels
Mortuaries
Neighborhood Business Services
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
Farmer’ s Markets
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such
facilities shall remain no more than five years.
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
p
cup
CUP
Parking as a principal use
Transportation Terminals
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
CUP CUP
p,
CUP
P
P.
.P
P
P
P
CUP
P
P
P
P
Cup
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
.p
p(3)
P
P
P
P
P
cup
CUP
CUP
18.82
18.16.060(d)
18.16.060(0
18.16.060(0
18.88
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc
18.16.040 Land Uses
(1) Residential is only permitted as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.16.060(b), of on sites designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(c).
(2) A Conditional Use Permit is required for any residential mixed use development in the CC (but not
CC(2)) zone.
(3) Except drive-in services.
(4) So long as drive up facilities, excluding car washes, provide full access to pedestrians and bicyclists..
A maximum of two such services shall be permitted within 1,000 feet, and each use shall not be less
than 150 feet from one another.
(~) For properties in the CN and CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated activities
at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. require a conditional use permit.
(b)Late Night Use and Activities
(c)
The following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated
activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such
site abuts residentially zoned properties.
(1)Such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties
from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources
during those hours.
(2)For properties located in the CN or CS zone districts, businesses that operate
or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director
may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure that the
operations or activities are compatible with the abutting residentially zoned
property.
CN District: Special Use Requirements in the Charleston and Midtown
Shopping Centers
The following regulations shall apply to areas of Charleston Center and the
Midtown Shopping Center as defined in Section 18.16.030.
Table 2 shows the uses permitted and conditionally permitted on the ground floor of
the applicable areas of the Charleston Center and Midtown Shopping Centers.
Permitted and conditional uses specified in subsection (a) of this section shall only
apply to the ground floor of the areas of the Charleston and Midtown Shopping
Centers as listed in Table 2. Uses lawfully existing on January 16, 2001 may be
continued as non-conforming uses but may only be replaced with uses permitted or
Conditionally permitted under this subsection.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 6
18.16.040 Land Uses
Table 2: Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers Ground Floor Uses
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and uses customarily
incidental to permitted uses.
Churches and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
Recycling Centers
Neighborhood-serving offices that do not
exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area.
Neighborhood-serving offices exceeding
2;500 square feet in floor area.
Administrative office uses and general
business office uses (other than
neighborhood-serving travel agencies and
insurance agencies) other than those legally in
existence on January i6, 2001
Medical offices not exceeding 2,500 square
feet in area, professional offices, travel
agencies, and insurance agencies
Utility Facilities essential to provision of
utility services but excluding construction or
storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards,
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
Private Clubs, Lodges, or
Fraternal Organizations
RESIDENTIAL USES
Residential uses of any nature
CLIP
CUP
CUP
X
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
X
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
18.88
18.16.050
18.16.050
18.16.050
18.16.050
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc
18.16,040 Land Uses
Eating and Drinking Services,. excluding p p
drive-in and take-out services
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores P P
Liquor stores CLIP ’CUP
ERWC : SES. . .
Ambulance Services
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels
Automobile Service Stations "
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers
Financial Services
Mortuaries
Neighborhood Business Services
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
TEMPORARY USES: -
Farmers’ Markets
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that
such facilities Shall remain no more than five
years.
P = Permitted Use
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
.p
P
CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
cUP
P
cup
cup
P
cUP
cup
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
18.82
18.88.
X = Prohibited Use
(d)Charleston Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions
(i)Any office use first occupying space at the Center on or after January 16,
2001, shall obtain a written determination from the director of planning and
community environment that it qualifies as a neighborhood serving use, as
defined in this chapter, before occupying its premises. The applicant shall
submit such information as the director shall reasonably require in order to
make the determination, and the director shall issue the determination within
30 days of receiving a complete application. Failure to submit the required
information shall be grounds for determining that a business is not
neighborhood-serving.
(2)No more than 7,850 square feet of total floor area at the Center shall be
occupied by office uses at any time.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 8
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
(e)
(3)Prior to approving a conditional use permit for neighborhood-serving offices
larger than 2,500 square feet in total floor area, the city shall find that the
proposed use will be neighborhood-serving; that it will be conducted in a
manner that will enhance and strengthen the Center as a neighborhood
resource, and that it will not diminish the retail strength of the center.
Midtown Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions
(1)An existing ground floor office may be replaced with another office if
(a) the new tenant or owner will continue the existing business or practice;
or
(2)
(3)
(b) a conditional use permit is issued for the new office use.
No conditional use permit shall be issued for any new office use on the ground
floor unless, in addition to the findings required for a conditional use permit as
specified in Chapter 18.76.010, the City finds that the proposed use will be
neighborhood serving, that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance
and strengthen the Midtown Shopping District as a neighborhood resource,
and that it will ~aot diminish the retail strength of the District.
For properties at 711,719, and 721 Colorado Avenue, and 689 Bryson
Avenue, buildings not fronting on Middlefield Avenue, designed and used for
office purposes, and not well suited to other uses are exempt from the
provisions of this subsection (b).
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
The following restrictions shall apply to office uses:
(a)Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office
Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground
floor, unless such offices either:
(1)Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and
as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being
amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.95;
(2)Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services, personal
services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19,
2001 or thereafter;
(3)In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage on E1 Camino Real,
were not occupiedby housing on March 19, 2001;
(4)Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001;
(5)Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after March 19,
2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and
drinking services, personal services, and automobile services does not
decrease;
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
(b)
(6)
(7)
Are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area
plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional,
and general business offices; or
Are located anywhere in Building E or in the rear 50% of Building C or D of
¯ the property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Park Boulevard and
California Avenue, as shown on sheet A2 of the plans titled "101 California
Avenue Townhouse/Commercial/Office, Palo Alto, CA" by Crosby,
Thornton, Marshall Associates, Architects, dated June 14, 1982, revised
November 23, 1982, and on file with the Department of Planning and
Community Environment.
Size Restrictions on Office Uses in the CN and CS Districts
(1)In the CN district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations:
(A) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25%
of the lot area, provided:
(i) A lot shall be permitted to have at least a total floor area of 2,500
square feet of office uses, provided the uses meet all other zoning
regulations.
(ii)No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of
5,000 square feet of office uses.
(B)Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of
Chapter 18.76. The maximum size for any conditional use shall be
established by the zoning administrator and specified in the conditional
use permit for such use.
(2)In the CS district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations:
(A)
(B)
No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000
square feet of office uses.
Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of
Chapter 18.76. The maximum size for any conditional use shall be
established by the Zoning administrator and specified in the conditional
use permit for such use.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 10
18.16.060 Development Standards
18.16.060 Development Standards
(a)Exclusively Non-Residential Uses
Table 3 specifies the development standards for exclusively non-residential uses
and alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS
districts. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with
the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in
18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the
architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community
environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020:
Table 3: Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards "
Minimum Site
Specifications
Site Area (itz)
Site Width (ft)
site Depth (it)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (it)
Rear Yard (fl)
Interior Side Yard (it)
Street Side Yard (it)
Minimum Yard (it)
for lot lines abutting
or opposite residential
districts or residential
PC districts
Minimum setbacks
from alleys for
structures other than
public parking
garages (ft)(3)
Comer lots, from rear
lot llne on the alley
Comer lots, from side
lot line on the alley
None Required
0-10’ to create an 8’-12’ effective sidewalk
width 0),(2)
20’(2)
None required
None required
10,(2)10,(2)10’(2)10’(2)
None
Not
applicableNot applicable
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant
¯ to Chapter
20.08 of this
code may apply
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 11
18.16.060 Development Standards
All lots other than
comer lots
Maximum Site
Coverage "
Maximum Height (fl)
Standard
Within 150 ft. of an
abutting residential
zone dis~ct
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) for
Hotels
Daylight Plane for lot
lines abutting One or
more residential zone
districts
Initial Height at side
or rear lot line (ft)
Slope
50%
25’ "
and 2
stories
0.4:1
N/A
_(6)
_(6)
_(5)
2.0:1
_(6)_(6)
_(6)_(6)
None Required
37’(4)
2.0:i
50’
0.4:1
2.0:1
_(6)
_(6)
2.0:1
18.18.060(e)
1S.lS.O60(d)
(!) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the
first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard.
(~) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as
a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or
fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior
lot line.
(3) No Setback from an alley is required for a publi~ parking garage.
(4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and
equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but
shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall
not intrude into the daylight plane.
is) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this sectionl 8.16.050.
(6YThe initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive
residential zone abutting the site line in question.
(b)Mixed Uses
Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use
developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in
compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria
outlined in 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be
recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of
planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020:
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doC 12
18.16.060 Development Standards
Table 4: Mixed Use Development Standards
:~, .Shbject.io
.: :::IC~I!~ ~ .: re~u!ations
:i in:~ i
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (fi)
None required
Rear Yard (ft)
Rear Yard abutting residential zone.. 10’district (ft) ¯
Interior Side Yard if abutting 10’residential zone district (ft)
Street Side Yard (fi)5’
Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback
33% of side street built to setback
Permitted Setback Encroachments
Maximum Site Coverage
Landscape/Open Space Coverage
Usable Open Space
0’ 10’to create an 8’-12’ effective
sidewalk width
10’ for residential portion; no requirement
for commercial portion
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairwaysl
and similar elements may extend up to 6’
into the setback. Cornices, eaves,
fireplaces, and similar architectural
features (excluding flat or continuous
walls or enclosures of interior space) may
extend up to 4’ into .the front and rear
setbacks and up to 3’ into interior side
setbacks
50%50%100%50%
35%30% ¯20%30%
200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units
150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more
35 ,(4)50’37’ 50’
Maximum Height (It)
Standard
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant
to Chapter
20. 08 of this
code may
apply
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9,27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 13
18.16.060 Development Standards
Within 150 ft. from abutting residential
zone
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting
one or more residential zoning
districts
Residential Density (net) (3)
Maximum. Residential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)..
Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor
Commercial FAR (6)
Parking
35’35’(s)35’(s)35
Daylight plane height¯ and slope, shall be
identical to those of the residential zoning
district abutting the lot line
30
0.6:1
2.0:1
2.0:11
0.15:1
0.25:1 (7).
15 30 30
0.5:1(4)0.6:1 0.6:1
0.4:1 0.4:1 0.4:1
0.9:1(4)1.0:1 1.0:1
0.15:1 0.25:1 0.15:1
Chapter
18.83
(1)25’ driveway access permitted regardless of frontage
(~)Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2)
does not need to be located on the ground; (3) minimum private open space dimension 6’; and (4)
minimum common open space dimension 12’.
o)Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of
the site devoted to commercial use.
(4) ¯ For CN sites on E1 Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may
increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.4:1 for nonresidential, 0.6:1 for residential).
(5)For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC)
district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet.
(6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, and eating and drinking
establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor
regulations.
(~)If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District.
(1)
(2)
Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and
design review in accord with Chapter 18.82, except that mixed use projects
with four or fewer residential units shall only require review and approval by
the architectural review board
Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in
excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code,
including but not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited
in a mixed use development with residential uses.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 14
18.16.060 Development Standards
(c)
(e)
(3)Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with
an Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay.
Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CN, CS, CC, and
CC(2) zone districts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated
as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Such sites shall be developed pursuant to the regulations for the multi-
family zone designation (RM-15, RM-30, or RM-40) identified for the site in the
Housing Element.
Hotel Regulations
(1) Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax
(TOT), may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1.
(2)Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to:
(A)No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominiu~m
use;
(B)No more than 25% of the total number of lodging units shall be
devoted to condominium use; and
(C)A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/cond0minium
building(s).
CC District Shopping Center Floor Area Ratio Regulations
(1)The maximum floor area for the Town and Country Shopping Village
Shopping Center shall be .35 to 1; and office uses at said shopping center
shall be limited to 15% of the floor area of the shopping center existing as of
August 1, 1989.
(2)Stanford Shopping Center shall not be permitted to add more than 80,000
square feet of floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping
center existing as of June 14, 1996, 1,332,362 square feet, fora total square
footage not to exceed 1,412,362.
(f)Size of Establishments in the CN District
In the CN district, permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area per
individual use or business establishment shown in Table 5. Such uses may be
allowed to exceed the maximum establishment size, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accord with Section 18.76.010. The maximum
establishment size for any conditional use shall be established by the zoning
administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such use.
Table 5: Maximum Size of Establishment
Type of Establishment i Maximum Size (ft2)
Personal Services 2,500
Retail services, except grocery stores 15,000
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 15
18.16.060
Grocery stores 20,000
Eating and drinking services 5,000
Neighborhood business services 2,500
Development Standards
(g)Nuisances Prohibited
All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as
to preclude nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or
characteristics, including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes,
odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance,
humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illuminations. Prior to issuance of a building
permit, or occupancy permit, or at any other time, the building inspector may
require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices have been provided to
ensure and protect the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and
general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition.
Outdoor Sales and Storage
(1) In the CN district, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be
conducted within a building, except for:
(A)Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies
occupying no more than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display
area,
(B)Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and
(C)Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(2)In the CC district andin the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall
apply to outdoor sales and storage:
(A)Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial
activities shall be conducted within a building, except for:
(i)Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden
supplies occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior
sales and display area,
(ii)Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and
drinking services,
(iii)Farmers" markets that have obtained a conditional use permit,
and
(iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(B)Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be
subject to a conditional use permit.
(C)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under
subparagraph (A)(iv) of this subsection.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc i 6
18.16.060 Development Standards
(3)In the CS district, outdoor sales and display of merchandise, and outdoor
eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services
shall be permitted subject to the following regulations:
Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding
the gross building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a
conditional use permit.
(B)Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats,
campers, camp trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar
conveyances shall meet the minimum design standards applicable to off
street parking facilities with respect to paving, grading, drainage,
access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective features,
lighting, landscaping, and screening.
(C)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or
fence of between 5 and 8 feet in height.
(i)Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or
more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas
or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate
containers. The.design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and
enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in
accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city
council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
Employee Showers
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or
for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6.
Showers Required
Medical, Professional, and General
Business Offices, Financia! Services,
Business and Trade Schools, General
Business Services
Retail Services, Personal Services, and
Eating and Drinking Services
0-9,999
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000 and up
0-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000 and up
No requirement
1
2
4
No requirement
1
2
4
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 17
18.16.070 Parking and Loading
18.16.070 Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional
uses in accord with Chapter 18.83 of this title. All parking and loading facilities on any
site, whether, required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum
requirements, shall comply with the regulations and the design standards established by
Chapter 18.83.
18.16.080 Performance Sta ndards
In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development in the
CN, CS, CC, and CC(2) districts shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in
Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply
with the provisions of Chapter 18.28 of the Zoning Ordinance.
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
(a)Contextual andCompatibility. Criteria
Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and
compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of
pedestrian oriented design.
(1)Context
(A)Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationships
between the site’s development to adjacent street types,
surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such
as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and
features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies.
The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate
existing gurroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions
to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to
architectural style or desigli, though in some instances
relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response.
(2)Compatibility
Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of
new buildings is consisten with the pattern of achieving a
pedestrian oriented design, andwhen new construction shares
general characteristics and establishes design likages with the
overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is
maintained.
(B)Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means,
including but not limited to:
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 18
18.16.100 Grandfathered Uses
(i)the siting, scale, massing, and materials;
(ii)the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general
width of the buildings and the spacing between them;
(iii) the pattern ofroofiines and projections;
(iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays
and doorways;.
(v)the location and treatment of entryways;
(vi)the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features;
(vii)the siting and treatment of parking; and
(viii)the treatment of landscaping.
(b)Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section
18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are
applicable in the CN, CS, CC and CC(2) districts, as further illustrated on the
accompanying diagrams:
[SEE CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA DOCUMENT; TO BE
INCORPORATED INTO FINAL ORDINANCE]
18.16.100 Grandfathered Uses
(a)CN District Office Uses
In the CN district, all office uses existing as of August 1, 1989, which were lawful
conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional
use permit and which, as of such date, exceed 5,000 square feet in size or 25% of
lot area, may remain as legal nonconforming uses and shall not require a
conditional use permit or be subject to termination pursuant to Current Code
Chapter 18.94, provided, however, that in the case of a conflict between the
provisions of this section and the provisions of Current Code Chapter 18.94, this
section shall control. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace
site improvements in accordance with current applicable site development
regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall
not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses.
(b)CS District Office Uses
In the CS district, medical, professional or general business or administrative office
uses existing on August 1, 1989 and which, as of such date, were lawful
conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional
use permit may remain as legal nonconforming uses and shall not require a
conditional use permit or be subject to termination pursuant to Current Code
Chapter 18.94, provided, however, that in the case of a conflict between the
provisions of this section and the provisions of Current Code Chapter 18.94, this
section shall control. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace
site improvements in accordance with current applicable site development
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 19
regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall
not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27,06 - AttAClean.doc.doc 20
18.18.01,0 Purposes
ATTACHMENT B
Chapter 18.18
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
18.18.010
18.18.020
18.18.030
18.18.040
18.18.050
18.18.060
18.18.070
18.18.080
18.18.090
18.18.100
18.18.110
18.18.120
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Definitions
Repeal of Regulations
Land Uses
Development Standards
Floor Area Bonuses
Transfer of Development Rights
Parking and Loading
Performance Standards
Context-Based Design Criteria
Grandfathered Uses and Facilities
18.18.010 Purposes
(a)Downtown Commercial District [CD]
The CD downtown commercial district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning
district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of
commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well
as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The CD
commercial downtown district is specifically created to promote the following
objectives in the downtown area of Palo Alto:
(1)control the rate and size of commercial development;
(2)preserve and. promote ground-floor retail uses;
(3)enhance pedestrian activity;
(4)create harmonious transitions from the commercial areas to adjacent
residential areas; and
(5)where applied in conjunction with Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, preserve historic buildings.
18.18.020 Applicable Regulations
(a)Applicable Chapters
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and
procedures established by other relevant Chapters of the Zoning Code shall apply
to the CD commercial downtown district, including subdistricts designated as CD-
C (community), CD-S (service) and CD-N (neighborhood) and site development
areas within the CD district, as shown on the City’s Zoning Map. The term
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- AttBClean.doc.doc
18.18.030 Definitions
"abutting residential zones," where used in this Chapter, includes the R1, R2,
RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40, or residential Planned Community (PC) districts,
unless otherwise specifically noted.
(b)Applicable Combining Districts
The combining districts applicable to the CD district shall include, but shaltnot be
limited to, the following districts:
(1)The pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations, as specified in
Chapter 18.47, shall apply to the area of the CD district designated "P"
combining district as shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
(2)The ground floor (GF) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter
18.50, shall apply to the area of the CD district designated "GF" combining
district as shown on the City’s Zoning Mapi
18.18.030 Definitions
(a)For the purposes of calculating floor area ratio for nonresidential uses under this
chapter, "gross floor area" includes not only the area defined in Chapter 18.04, but
also all covered at-grade or above-grade parking for nonresidential uses, no matter
how slightly above grade such parking is.
(b)As used in this chapter, "historic rehabilitation" means returning a property to a
state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient
contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property
which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. "Historic
rehabilitation" shall remedy all the known rehabilitation needs of the building, and
shall not be confined to routine repair and maintenance as determined by the
director of planning and community environment.
(c)As used in this chapter, "certification" means certification, by the director of
planning and community environment, of floor area eligible for transfer to another
site as described in Section 18.18.080.
(d)
(e)
(0
As used in this chapter, "receiver site" means a site which receives floor area
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.18.070.
As used in this chapter, "sender site" means a site which has received a certification
by the director of planning and community environment of fl oor area eligible for
transfer to another site pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
"Transferable development right" or "TDR" means the floor area eligible for
transfer to a receiver site as described in Draft Updated Code Section 18.18.080 of
this code.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc
18.18.040 Repeal of Regulations
18.18.040 Repeal of Regulations
The department of planning and community environment shall monitor the number of
square feet approved for nonresidential development in the CD district and the number of
square feet approved for nonresidential development pursuant to a planned community
(PC) zone if the site of the PC zone was within the CD district on the effective date of
this chapter. When 350,000 square feet of nonresidential development have received
final design review approval pursuant to Chapter 18.76 or have received building permits,
if no design approval is required, this chapter shall be repealed and a moratorium shall be
imposed. This moratorium shall prohibit the city’s acceptance or processing of any
application for planning approval or a building permit for new nonresidential square
footage in the CD district. This moratorium shall remain in effect for one year while the
city undertakes a study of what regulations would be appropriate in the CD district. The
moratorium may be extended by the council until such. study is completed and
appropriate regulations are implemented.
18.18.050 Land Uses
The uses of land allowed by this chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified
in the following table. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not allowed, except
where otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subject to
Regulations in") includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section
¯ also apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well.
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for the CD district are shown in Table 1"
Table 1: CD Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses
Accessory facilities and activities
customarily associated with or essential to
permitted uses, and operated incidental to
the principal use.
Drive-in or Take-out Services associated
with permitted Uses~2)
Tire, battery, and automotive service
facilities, when Operated incidental to a
permitted retail service or shopping center
having a gross floor area of more than
30,000 square feet.
Business and Trade Schools
Churches and Religious Institutions.
Private Educational Facilities
P
CLIP
CUP
P P
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
18.88
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 3
18.18.050 Land Uses
Private Clubs, Lodges, or
Fraternal Organizations
¯ Recycling Centers
’ Warehousing and Distribution
,Adminis~ative Office Se~ices
Medical~ ProfessionM, and General
Business Offices on any floor other than
the ~ound floor of a building "
UtiliW Facilities essential to provision of
utili~ services but excluding cons~ction
or storage yards, maintenance NciJities, or
co~oration yards.
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
18.18.o6o(0
!8.18.o6o(0
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
Multiple-Family
Home Occupations .
Residential Care Homes
p(l)
P
P
,
P
P
pO3 18.18.060(b)¯P .18.88
P
Eating and Drinking Services, except
drive-in or take-out services
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores
Shopping Centers
Liquor Stores
Animal Care, excluding boarding and
kennels
Ambulance Services
Automobile Service Stations
Automotive Services
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
Small Adult Day Care ¯Homes
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
18.18.060(g)
18.18.o6o(g)
18.18.060(g)
CUF 18.88
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
18.82
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 4
18.18.060 Development Standards
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Financial Services, except drive-up
services
General Business Services
Hotels
Mortuaries
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
Parking as a principal use
Passenger Transportation Terminals
P
CUP
P
P
p
P
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
P
P
18.18.060(d)
18.18.060(g)
18.88
Indoor Farmers’ Markets CUP CUP CUP
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided
that such facilities shall remain no more CUP CUP CUP
than five years.
°)Residential is only permitted as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.18.060(b), or on sites designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element of
the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.18.060(c).
(Z)Drive-up facilities, excluding car washes, provide full access to pedestrians and bicyclists. A
maximum of two such services shall be permitted within 1,000 feet and each use shall not be less than
150 fl from one another "
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
18.18.060 Development Standards
(a)Exclusively Non-Residential Use
Table 3 specifies the development standards for new exclusively non-residential
uses and alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CD district, including
the CD-C, CD-S, and CD-N subdistricts. These developments shall be designed and
constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based
design criteria outlined in 18.18.110, provided that more restrictive regulations may
be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of
planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020:
Table 3: Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- AttBClean.doc.doc 5
18.18.060 Development Standards
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (it)
Minimum street setback for sites
sharing a common block face with any
abutting residential zone district
Minimum yard (it) for lot lines abutting
or opposite residential zone districts
Maximum Site Coverage
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
. Within 150 ft~ of an abutting residential
zone district
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
Hotels
Maximum Size of New Non-Residential
Construction or Expansion Projects.
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one
or more residential zone districts.
- Initial Height at side or rear lot line
Slope
None required 10’(1)
None required
None required
None required
None Required
50
_(3)
1.0:1(s)
2.0:1.
5O
_(3) .
0.4: l(S)
2.0:1
20’0)
_(4)
10,(t)
50%
25
.~(3)
0.4:1
N/A
25,000 square feet of gross floor area or
15,000 square feet above the existing
floor area, whichever is greater, provided
the floor area limits set forth elsewhere
in this chapter are not exceeded
32)10 10
32)1:2 1:2
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of
this code may
apply
The yard shall be planted and maintained as a landScaped screen, excluding area required for site
18.18.060(e)
18.18.070
1S.18,060(d)
access.(2) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the residential zone abutting the site line in
question.(3) The maximum height within 150 feet of any abutting residential zone district shall not exceed the
height limit of the abutting residential district. ’(4) The minimum street setback shall be equal to the residentially zoned setback for 150 feet from the
abutting single-family or multiple family development.(s) FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic
rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the
CD-S or CD-N subdistricts.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc
18.18.060 Development Standards
(b)Mixed Use
Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use
developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in
compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria
outlines in 18.18.110, provided that more restrictive regulations may be
recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of
planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020:
Table 4: Mixed Use Development Standards
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard (fl)
St:eetSide Yard (fi)
Permitted Setback Encroachments
Maximum Site Coverage
Landscape Open Space Coverage
Usable Open Space
Maximum Height fit)
Standard
Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential
zone
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one
or more residential zoning districts or a
residential PC district
No requirement 10’
10’ for residential portion; no
requirement for commercial portion
10’ if 10’ if
No
requirement
, No
requirement
abutting
residential
zone
abutting
residential
zone
Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways,
and similar elements may extend up to 6’
into the setback. Cornices, eaves,
fireplaces, and similar architectural
features (excluding flat or continuous
walls or enclosures of interior space)
may extend up to 4’ into the front and
rear setbacks and up to 3’ into interior
side setbacks
No 50% 50%requirement
20%30%35%
200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units (1);
150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more(1)
50’35’
40’(4)35 ,(4)
Daylight plane height and slope identical
to those of the most restrictive residential
zone abutting the lot line
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant to
Chapter 20. 08
of this code may.
apply
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.d0c 7
18.18.060 Development Standards
Residential Density’ (net)
Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio
(FA )
Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (5)
Parkin~ Requirement
40
1.0:1(3)
! .0:1(3)
2.0:1 (3)
30
0.6:1
0.4:1
1.0:1 (3)
30
0.5:1
0.4:1
0.9:1(~) .18.18.070
Chapter 18.83
Required usable open..space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces;.(2)
does not need to be located on the. ground; (3) minimum private open space dimension 6’; and (4)
minimum common open space dimension 12’.
Residential density shall be computedbased upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of
the site devoted to commercial use. There shall be no deduction for that portion of the site area in
nonresidential use.
FAR may be increased with transfers of development and!or bonuses for seismic and historic
rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in
the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict.
For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC)
district, maximum height may be .increased to 50 feet.
(c)
(d)
(1)Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and
design review in accord with Current Code Chapter 18.82, except that mixed
use projects with four or fewer units shall only require review and approval
by the architectural review board
(2)Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in
excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code,
including but not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited
in a mixed use development with residential uses.
Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CD district and
subdistricts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a
Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Such sites shall be developed pursuant to the regulations for the multi-family zone
designation (RM-15, RM-30, or RM-40) identified for the site in the Housing
Element.
Hotel Regulations
(1) Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax
(TOT), may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1.
(2)Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to:
(A)No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium
use;
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 8
18.18.060 Development Standards
(c)
No more than 25% of the total number of lodging units shall be
devoted to condominium use; and
A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium
building(s).
(e)Exempt Floor Area
(0
When a building is being expanded, square footage which, in the judgement of the
chief building official, does not increase the usable floor area, and is either
necessary to conform the building to Title 24 of the CaliforniaCode of
Regulations, regarding handicapped access, or is necessary to implement the
historic rehabilitation of the building, shall not be counted as floor area2
Restrictions on Office Uses
(1)
(2)
In all CD subdistricts, no medical, professional, or general business office
shall be located on the ground floor, except such offices which:
(A)Have been in continuously in existence in that space since March 19,
2001, and, as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the
process of being amortized pursuant to Current Code Chapter 18.95;
Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services,
eating and drinking services, personal services, or automotive service
on March 19, 2001 or thereafter;
(c)
(D)
(E)
Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001;
Are located in new or remodeled ground floor areas built on or after
March 19, 2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail
services, eating and drinking services, personal services, and
automobile services does not decrease; or
Are on a site located in an area subject to a Specific Plan or
Coordinated Area Plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor
medical, professional, or general business offices.
In the CD:S and CD-N subdistricts, the following requirements shall apply to
office uses:
(B)
No new gross square footage of a medical, professional, general
business, or administrative office use shall be allowed, once the gross
square footage of such office uses, or any combination of such uses, on
a site has reached 5,000 square feet.
No conversion of gross square footage from any other use to a medical,
professional, general business, or administrative office use shall be
allowed once the gross square footage of such office uses, or any
combination of such uses, on a site has reached 5,000 square feet.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 9
18.18.060 Development Standards
(g)Restrictions on Size of Commercial Establishments in CD-N Subdistrict
In the CD-N subdistrict, permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area
per individual use orbusiness establishment shown in Table 4. Such uses may be
allowed to exceed the maximum establishment size, subject to the issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with Current Code Chapter 18.90. The
maximum establishment size for any conditional use shall be established by the
zoning administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such use.
Table 4: Maximum Size of Establishment
(h)
Personal Services
Retail Services, except grocery stores
Grocery stores
Eating and drinking services
2,500
15,000
20,000
5,000
Outdoor Sales and Storage.
The following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage in the CD
district:
(1).CD-C Subdistrict
In the CD-C subdistrict, the following regulations apply:
(A)Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial
activities shall be conducted within a building, except for:
(i)Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden
supplies occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior
sales and display area,
(ii) Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and
drinking services,
(iii)Farmers’ markets which have obtained a conditional use permit,
and
(iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be
subject to a conditional use permit.
(C)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except recycling centers which
have obtained a conditional use permit.
(2)CD-S Subdistrict
In the CD-S subdistrict, outdoor sales and display of merchandise, and
outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking
services shall be permitted subject to the following regulations:
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 10
18.18.060 Development Standards
0)
(A)
(c)
Oulidoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding
the gross building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a
conditional use permit.
Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats,
campers, camp trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar
conveyances shall meet the minimum design standards applicable to
off-street parking facilities with respect to paving, grading, drainage,
access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective features,
lighting, landscaping, and screening.
Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or
fence of between 5 and 8 feet in height.
(3)CD-N Subdistrict
In the CD-N subdistrict, all permitted office and commercial activities shall
be conducted within a building, except for:
(A)Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies
occupying not more than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display
area, and
(B) Farmers’ markets that have obtained conditional use permits.
Employee Showers
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or
for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 5.
Table 5: Employee Showers Required
Medical, Professional, and General
Business Offices, Financial Services;
Business and Trade Schools, and General
Business Services
Retail Services, Personal Services, and
Eating and Drinking Services
0-9,999
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000 and up
0-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000 and up
No requirement
1
2
4
No requirement
1
2
4
(j)Nuisances Prohibited
All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as
to preclude nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or
characteristics, including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes,
odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance,
humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illuminations. Prior to issuance of a building
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 11
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
permit, or occupancy permit, Or at’any other time, the building inspector may
require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices have been provided to
ensure and protect the public interest, health, comfort; convenience, safety, and
general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition.
(k)Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or
more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas
or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate
containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and
enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in
accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the cits)
council pursuant to Section 16.48.070.
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
(a)Available Floor Area Bonuses
(1)Minor Bonus for buildings not eligible for historic or seismic bonus
A building that is neither in Historic Category 1 or 2 nor in Seismic Category
I, II, or III shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 200 square feet
without.having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions
in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for
buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:l in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of
2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts.
(2) Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic
rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to
increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building,
whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR,
subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall
not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C
subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:l in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts.
(3)Historic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category I or 2, and is undergoing historic
rehabilitation, but is not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to
increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building,
whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR,
subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall
not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C
subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:l in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as
provided in subsection (5).
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 12
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
(4) Combined Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic
rehabilitation, and is also in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing
seismic rehabilitation, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 5,000
square feet or 50% of the existing building; whichever is greater, without
having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in
subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings
that exceed a FAR of 3.0:l in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the
CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as provided in subsection (5).
(5)Historic Bonus for Over-Sized buildings
A building in Historic Category 1 or 2 that is undergoing historic
rehabilitation and that currently exceeds a FAR of 3.0:1 if located in the CD-
C subdistrict or 2.0:1 if located in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts shall
nevertheless be allowed to obtain a floor area bonus of 50% of the maximum
allowable floor area for the site of the building, based upon a FAR of 3.0:1 if
in the CD-C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0:l in the CD-S and CD-N
subdistricts, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b) and the following
limitation:
(a)The floor area bonus shall not be used on the site of the Historic
Category 1 or 2 building, but instead may be transferred to another
property or properties under the provisions of Section 18.18.080.
(b)Restrictions on Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses in subsection (a) shall be subject to the following
restrictions:
All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for thepurposes
of the 350,000 square foot limit on development specified in Section
18.18.040.
(2)All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for the purposes
of the project size limit specified in Section 18.18.060 (a).
(3)In no event shall a building expand beyond a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C
subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
The bonus shall be allowed on a site only once.
For sites in Seismic Category I, II, or III, seismic rehabilitation shall conform
to the analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of this code.
For sites in Historic Category 1 or 2, historic rehabilitation shall conform to
the Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36 CFR §67,7).
For sites in both Seismic Category I, II, or III and Historic Category 1 or 2,
no bonus shall be granted unless theproject includes both seismic and
historic rehabilitation conforming to the standards in subsections (5) and (6).
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- AttBClean.doc.doc 13
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
(c)
(d)
(8)-For sites in both Seismic Category I, II, or III and Historic Category 1 or 21 a
bonus granted under this section that will be used on-site is subject to the
following requirements:
(A)The city council must approve on-site use of such a FAR bonus. Such
approval is discretionary, and may be granted only upon making both
of the following findings:
(i)The exterior modifications for the entire project comply with the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36 CFR
§67,7); and
(B)
(ii)¯ The on-site use of the FAR bonus would not otherwise be
inconsistent with the historic character of the interior and exterior
of the building and site.
The applicant for on-site use of a cumulative floor area bonus shall
have the burden of demonstrating the facts necessary to support the
findings required for council approval.
Transfer of Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the floor area bonus in
subsection (a)(1), may be transferred to a non-historic receiver site as described in
Section 18.18.080. Such transfer shall not be subject to the discretionary council
approval set forth in subsection (b)(8).
Procedure for Granting of Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in
subsection (a)(1), shall be granted in accordance with the following requirements:
(1)An application for such floor area bonus(es) must be filed with the director of
planning and community environment in compliance with Section
18.49.060(c), stating the amount of such bonus(es) applied for, the bases
therefor under this section, and the extent to which such bonus(es) are
proposed to be used on-site and/or for transfer. An application for floor area.
bonus for rehabilitation of a Category 1 or 2 historic building shall include a
historic structure report, prepared by a qualified expert, retained by the city,
at the applicant’s expense, in accordance with the standards and guidelines of
the California State Office of Historic Preservation. It shall also include a
plan for rehabilitiation; if any part of the e.xisting building is proposed to be
removed or replaced, the historic rehabilitation project plans submitted for
review shall clearly show and identify any and all material proposed for
removal or replacement.
(2)The city may retain an expert in historic rehabilitation or preservation, at the
applicant’s expense, to provide the city with an independent evaluation of the
project’s conformity with the Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation Historic Buildings."
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc,doc 14
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
(3)
(4)
The historic resources board shall review the historic structure report; the
historic rehabilitation project plans, and, if required, the expert independent
evaluation of the project, and make a recommendation to the director of
planning and community environment on the project’s conformity with the
Secretary of the Interior~s "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation Historic Buildings."
Upon completion of such an application, written determination of the sender
site’s eligibility for bonus(es) shall be issued by the director of planning and
community environment or the director’s designee, based upon the following:
In the case of a floor area bonus for seismic rehabilitation, the chief
building official has made a determination that the project complies
with or exceeds the analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of
this code;
(13)In the case of the floor area bonus for historic rehabilitation of a
building in Historic Category 1 or 2, the director, taking into
consideration the recommendations of the historic resources board, has
found that the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s
"Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings" (36 CFR §67,7); .and
(c)In the case of a bonus for both seismic and historic rehabilitation that is
proposed to be use on-site, the city council has made the findings set
forth in subsection (b)(8) of this section.
(e)Certification of FAR Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in
subsection (a)(1), may be used on the site of the proposed seismic and/or historic
rehabilitation project and a building permit issued therefor only upon satisfaction of
all the requirements in subsection (d) above. Upon determining that the project has
been completed as approved, the director or director’s designee shall issue a written
certification which shall state the total floor area bonus utilized at the site, and the
amount (if any) of remaining floor area bonus which is eligible for transfer to
another site pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. The certification shall be
recorded in the office of the county recorder and a copy shall be provided to the
applicant.
As a condition precedent to being credited with a historic rehabilitation floor area.
bonus whether for use on-site or for transfer, the owner of the site shall enter into an
unsubordinated protective covenant running with the land in favor of the city (or, if
the city is the owner, in favor of a qualified and disinterested third party), in a form
satisfactory to the city attorney, to assure that the property will be rehabilitated and
maintained in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s "Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings," together with the accompanying interpretive
"Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings," as they may be amended
from time to time.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- AttBClean.doc.doc 15
18.18.080 Transfer Of Development Rights
18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights
(a)Purpose
The purpose of this section is to implement the Comprehensive Plan by
encouraging seismic rehabilitation of buildings in Seismic Categories I, II, and III,
and encouraging historic rehabilitation of buildings or sites in Historic Category 1
and :2, and by establishing standards and procedures for the transfer of specified
development rights from such sites to other eligible sites. Except as provided in
subsection (e)(1), this section is applicable only to properties located in the CD
district, and is the exclusive procedure for transfer of development rights for
properties so zoned.
(b)Establishment of Forms
The city may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements,
fees and such other requirements and guidelines as will aid in the efficient
implementation of this chapter.
(c)Eligibility for Transfer of Development Rights
Transferable development rights may be transferred to an eligible receiver site
upon:
(1) certification by the City pursuant to Code Section 18.18.070 of the floor area
from the sender site which is eligible for transfer, and
(2) compliance with the transfer procedures set forth in subsection (h).
(d)Availability of Receiver Sites.
The city does not .guarantee that at all times in the future there Will be sufficient
eligible receiver sites to receive such transferable development rights.
(e)Eligible Receiver Sites
A site is eligible to be a receiver site only if it meets all of the following criteria:
(1)It is located in the CD commercial downtown district, or is located in a
planned community (PC) district if the property was formerly located in the
CD commercial downtown district and the ordinance rezoning the property to
planned community. (PC) approves the use of transferable development rights
on the site.
(2)It is neither an historic site, nor a site containing a historic structure, as those
terms are defined in Section 16.49.020(e) of Chapter 16.49 of this code; and
(3)The site is either:
(A)located at least 150 feet from any property zoned for residential use, not
including property in planned community zones or in commercial zones
within the downtown boundaries where mixed use projects are
permitted; or
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- AttBClean.doc.doc 16
18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights
(B)separated from residentially zoned property by a city street with a width
of at least 50 feet, and separated from residentially zoned property by
an intervening property zoned. CD-C, CD-S, or CD-N, which
intervening property has a width of not less than 50 feet.
Limitations On Usage of Transferable Development Rights
No otherwise eligible receiver site shall be allowed to utilize transferable
development rights under this chapter to the extent such transfer would:
(1)Be outside the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result
in a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1 above what exists or would
otherwise be permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is
greater, or result in total additional floor area of more than 10,000 square
feet.
(2)Be within the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result
in a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1 above what exists, or would
otherwise be permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is
greater, or result in total additional floor area of more than 10,000 square
feet.
(3)Cause the development limitation or project size limitation set forth in Code
Section 18.18.040 to be exceeded.
(4)Cause the site to exceed 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0 to 1 FAR
in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts.
(g)Parking Requirements
(h)
The first 5,000 square feet of floor area transferred to a receiver site, whether
located in the CD District or in the PC District, shall be exempt from the otherwise-
applicable on-site parking requirements. Any additional square footage allowed to
be transferred to a receiver site pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the
parking regulations applicable to the district in which the receiver site is located.
Transfer Procedure
Transferable development rights may be transferred from a sender site (or sites) to
a receiver site only in accordance with all of the following requirements:
(1)An application pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of this code for major ARB review
of the project proposed for the receiver site must be filed. The application
shall include:
(A)A statement that the applicant intends to use transferable development
rights for the project;
(B)Identification of the sender site(s) and the amount of TDRs proposed to
be transferred; and
(C)Evidence that the applicant owns the transferable development rights or
a signed statement from any other owner(s) of the TDRs that the
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- AttBClean.doc.doc 17
18.18.090 Parking and Loading
(2)
(3)
(4)
specified, amount of floor area is available for the proposed project and
will be a.ssigned for its use.
The application shall not be deemed complete unless and until the city
determines that the TDRs proposed to be used for the project are available for
that purpose.
In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section, the
architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section
16.48.120 ofthis code; however, the project may not be required to be
modified for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in
order to satisfy the criteria for approval under Chapter 16.48 or any specific
requirement of the municipal code,
Following ARB approval of the project on the receiver site, and prior to
issuance of building permits, the director of planning and community
environment or the director’s designee shall issue written confirmation of the
transfer, which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the amount
of TDRs which have been transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in
the office of the county recorder prior to the issuance of building permits and
shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s) of the TDRs
where such owner(s) are other than the applicant.
(i)Purchase or Conveyance of TDRs - Documentation
(1) Transferable development rights may be sold or otherwise conveyed by their
owner(s) to another party. However, no such sale or conveyance shall be
effective unless evidenced by a recorded document, signed by the transferor
and transferee and in a form designed to run with the land and satisfactory to
the city attorney. The document shall clearly identify the sender site and the
amount of floor area transferred and shall also be filed with the department of
planning and community environment.
(2)Where transfer of TDRs is made directly to a receiver site, the recorded
confirmation of transfer described in subsection (h)(4) shall satisfy the
requirements of this section.
18.18.090 Parking and Loading
The provisions of Chapter 18.83 shall apply within the CD district, except the provisions
of Chapter 18.83 regarding on-site and off-site parking for non-residential uses within an
assessment district wherein properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G financing
pursuant to Title 13. With respect to such uses, the following requirements shall apply in
the CD district in lieu of the requirements in Chapter 18.83:
(a)On-Site Parking Requirement
Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or
any use of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G
financing pursuant to Title 13, shall provide one parking space for each two
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- AttBClean.doc.doc 18
18.18.090 Parking and Loading
hundred fifty gross square feet of floor area, except as may be exempt from such
requirement by the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. The purpose of this
subsection is to regulate the number of parking spaces required. Requirements for
the size and other design criteria for parking spaces shall continue to be governed
by the provisions of Chapter 18.83.
(b)Exceptions to On-Site Parking Requirement
The requirement for on-site parking provided in subsection (a) of this section shall
not apply in the following circumstances:
(1)The following square footage shall be exempt from the on-site parking
requirement of subsection (a):
(A)Square footage for handicapped access which does not increase the
usable floor area, as determined by Code Section 18.18.060(e);
(B)An increase in square footage in conjunction with seismic or historic
rehabilitation, pursuant to Code Section 18.18.070;
(C) An increase in square footage for buildings not in Seismic Category I,
II, or II or Historic Category 1 or 2 pursuant to Code Section
18.18.070(a)(1);
(D)Square footage for at or above grade parking, though such square
footage is included in the FAR calculations in Section 18.18.060(a).
(2)A conversion to commercial use of a historic building in Categories 1 and 2
shall be exempt from the on-site parking requirement in subsection (a),
provided that the building is fifty feet or less in height and has most recently
been in residential use. Such conversion, in order to be exempt, shall be done
in conjunction with exterior historic rehabilitation approved by the director of
planning and community environment upon the recommendation of the
architectural review board in consultation with the historic resources board.
Such conversion must not eliminate any existing on-site parking.
(3)
(4)
Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the requirements of subsection (a) of
this section at the time when development occurs as provided herein. Such
development shall be exempt to the extent of parking spaces for every one
thousand square feet of site area, provided that such parcels were at some
time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter
13.16 or were subject to other ad valorem assessments for parking.
’No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the
development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for
nonresidential use equal to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site
shown on the engineer’s report for fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond
Plan G financing for parking acquisition or improvements in that certain area
of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking
assessment district entitled, "Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off,
Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County
of Santa Clara, State of California," dated October 30, 1978, and on file with
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 19
18.18.090 Parking and Loading
the city clerk. However, square footage which was developed for
nonresidential purposes or which has been used for nonresidential purposes
but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the time of the
engineer’s report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for
this exemption. No exemption from parking requirements shall be available
where a residential use changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to
subsection (2).
(c)Off-Site Parking
Parking required by this chapter may be provided by off-site parking, provided that
such off-site parking is within a reasonable distance of the site using it or, if the site
is within an assessment district, within a reasonable distance of the assessment
district boundary and approved in writing by the director of planning and
community environment. The director shall assure that sufficient covenants and
guarantees are provided to ensure use and maintenance of such parking facilities,
including an enforceable agreement that any development occurring on the site
where parking is provided shall not result in a net reduction of parking spaces
provided, considering both the parking previously provided and the parking
required by the proposed use.
(d)In-lieu Parking Provisions
In connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the
CD commercial downtown district, the city shall allocate a number of spaces for
use as "in-lieu parking" Spaces to allow development to occur on sites which would
otherwise be precluded from development due to parking constraints imposed by
monetary contribution to the city to defray the cost of Pr0viding such parking.
Contributions for each required parking space shall equal the incremental cost of
providing a net new parking space in an assessment district project plus Cost for the
administration of the program, all as determined pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of Title
16 of this code, by the director of planning and community environment, whose
decision shall be final. Only sites satisfying one or more of the following criteria,
as determined by the director of planning and community environment, shall be
eligible to participate in the in-lieu parking program:
(1)Construction of on-site parking would necessitate destruction or substantial
demolition of a designated historic structure;
(2)The site area is less than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual
configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required
on-site parking;
(3)The site is greater than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual
configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required
on-site parking;
(4)The site is located in an area where city policy precludes curb cuts or
otherwise prevents use of the site for on-site parking; or
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 20
18.18.100 Performance Standards
(5)The site has other physical constraints, such as a high groundwater table,
which preclude provision of on-site parking without extraordinary expense.
(e)Underground Parking
Underground parking deeper than two levels below, grade shall be prohibited unless
a soils report or engineering analysis demonstrates that regular pumping of
subsurface water will not be required.
18.18.100 Performance Standards
In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall
comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Ordinance.
All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.28 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria
(a)Contextual and Compatibility Criteria
Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and
compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of
pedestrian oriented design.
(1)Context
(a)Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationships
between the site’s development to adjacent street types,
surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such
as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and
features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies.
The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate
existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions
to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to
architectural style or design, though in some instances
relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response.
(2)Compatibility
(A)Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of
new buildings is consisten with the pattern of achieving a
pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares
general characteristics and establishes design likages with the
overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is
maintained.
(B)Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means,
including but not limited to:
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- AttBClean.doc.doc 21
[See Context-Based Design Criteria document; to be incorporated into final ordinance]
(i)the siting, scale, massing, and materials;
(ii)the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general
width of the buildings and the spacing between them;
(iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections;
(iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays
and doorways;
(v)the location and treatment of entryways;
(vi)the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features;
(vii)the siting and treatment of parking; and
(viii)the treatment of landscaping.
(b)Context-BasedDesign Considerations and Findings
In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section
18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are
applicable in the CD district and subdistricts, as further illustrated on the
accompanying diagrams:
[SEE CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA DOCUMENT; TO BE
INCORPORATED INTO FINAL ORDINANCE]
18.18.120 Grandfathered Uses and Facilities.
(a)Grandfathered Uses
(1)The following uses and facilities may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall
not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter
18.94:
(A)
(B)
Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or
A use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was
temporarily discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before
August 28, 1986; or
(C)Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and
GF combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to
August 28, 1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use.
The grandfathered uses in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel,
improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and
occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or
replacement:
(A)shall not result in increased floor area;
(B)shall not shift the building footprint;
(C)shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope,
or any other increase in the size of the improvement;
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- AttBClean.doc.doc 22
18.18.120 Grandfathered Uses and Facilities
(D)shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the
exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070;
or
(E)in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative
office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square feet in the CD-S or CD-N
district that are deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1), such
remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased
floor area devoted to such office uses.
(3)If a grandfathered use deemed existing pursuant to subsection (1) ceases and
thereafter remains discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it shall be
considered abandoned and may be .replaced only by a conforming use.
(4)A use deemed grandfathered p~rsuant to subsection (1) which is changed to
or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of
a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a
grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to
accommodate a conforming use.
(b)Grandfathered Facilities
(1)
(2)
Any noncomplying facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when
built, was a complying facility, may remain as a grandfathered facility and
shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94.
The grandfathered facilities specified in subsection (1) shall be permitted to
remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for
continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling,
improvement, or replacement:
(A)shall not result in increased floor area;
(B)shall not shift the building foot print;
(C)shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope,
or any other increase in the size of the improvement;
(D)shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the
exceptions to floor area ratio r~gulations set forth in Section 18.18.070.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-AttBClean.doc.doc 23
Attach ment D
DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS RE: FRY’S ELECTRONICS
Amend Section 16.20.120(a) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as
follows:
"16.20.120’Freestanding Signs
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every freestanding sign shall comply with
the requirements of this section.
(a)Freestanding signs over five feet.
Freestanding signs over five feet in height shall be permitted only on nonresidential
properties in the GM zones and on E1 Camino Real in the CN and CS zones and for
service stations, restaurants and shopping centers elsewhere.
(1)Area and height. The maximum area and height of such signs is set forth
in Table 2.
(2) Location. Every sign shall be wholly on the owner’s property, except that
for any site that encompasses a minimum often (10) acres in size and contains a
minimum of 50,000 square feet of retail square footage, but does not have its
primary frontage on a freeway, expressway, or major arterial, a freestanding sign
may be located offsite on private property with frontage on the nearest major
arterial roadway. The sign size and height shall be governed by the criteria set forth
in Table 2, using the average site length dimension as the lot frontage for
calculation purposes. The sign shall comply with all other regulations of this
Chapter, the total site signage (including the offsite sign) shall not exceed the total
allowed for the site, and all other signs on the offsite property must comply with
sign regulations for that site.
(3)Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be one
such sign for each frontage and one additional sign for any portion of frontage in
excess of two hundred fifty feet. The size of any additional sign shall be determined
from Table 2 by counting as frontage that portion thereof which is in excess of two
hundred fifty feet. In the case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies
having a common frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be that of the shopping
center or commonly used parcel and not the frontages of the individual businesses
or occupancies.
(4). Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every
such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other
approved fire-resistant material."
ZOU Draft
Fry’s Signage. 09 27 06.doc
Amend Section 18.94.070(b)(2)(E) of the City of Palo Alt0 Municipal Code
(Nonconforming. Use - Required Termination) to read as follows:
"(E) The nonconforming use(s) of the property at 3200 Park Boulevard/340
Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue for commercial, warehouse, and storage uses may
continue after July 16, 1999, subject to the following limitations: (1) retail uses
shall not exceed 60,000 square feet, and (2) truck deliveries and other noisy
outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays
and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p:m. weekends. Nothing in the ordinance codified in this
section shall be construed to create a vesting right for the nonconforming uses to
remain after July 16, 1999. Without limitation with respect to any other authority,
the architectural review board shall be permitted to review, modify, and approve
the treatment of the landscaping parking layout for the Park Boulevard entrance
with regard to truck access issues."
ZOU Draft
Fry’s Signage_09 27 06.doc
[ 18.16.010 Purposes
Attachment F
Chapter 18.16
NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMUNITY, AND SERVICE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
i8.16.010
18.16.020
18.16.030
18.16.040
18.16.050
18.16.060
18.16.070
18.16.080
18.16.090
18.16.100
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Definitions
Land Uses
Office Use Restrictions
Development Standards
Parking and Loading
Performance Standards
Context-Based Design Criteria
Grandfathered Uses
18.16.010 Purposes
The commercial zoning districts are intended to create and maintain sites for retail,
personal services, eating and drinking establislmaents, hotels office, ser-~4c-~, and other
business uses in a manner that balances the needs of those uses with the needs
mir_~imize impacts to ~he-surrounding neighborhoods.
(a)Neighborhood Commercial [CN]
The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain
neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating ~=’,4.:.l~.~;esretaiI sales, personal
service, ~.~.n_g~..’Ar.~_.(~_d._!’..inkiL~g:~.and ~÷~-a4.-1-....sa-t.esg.. f_"~.~_c_’~ uses of moderate size serving the
immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum
compatibility with surrounding residential areas.
(b)Community Commercial [CC]
The CC community commercial district is intended to create and maintain major
commercial centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail sales, and other
commercial activities of community-wide or regional significance. The CC
community commercial district is intended to be applied to regional/community
commercial centers identified by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
(c)Community Commercial (2) Subdistrict [CC(2)]
The community commercial ~_2) (CC(2)) subdistrict is intended to modify the site
development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied
in combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the community
commercial uses fia a less intensiveand development requirements Fattem t!~an in
the CC district.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06-RedlineAttF.docCN C~.9.27.05 Rcd!ine.’,lec.doc
n. I~fL]O[IS18.1.6.020 Applicable v, egu .... "- --
(d)Service Commercial [CS]
The CS service commercial district is intended to create and maintain areas
accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in
neighborhood or pedestrian-oriented shopping areas, and which generally require
au{omotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment,
loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles.
18.16.020 Applicable Regulations
(a)Applicable Chapters
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and
procedures established by other relevant Chapters of the Zoning Code C-hapte~s
4-8=4~" 1-8x~~&ve-shall apply to the CN, CS, and CC districts,
subdistrict~; designated as CC(2)., a~d-as shown on the City’s Zoning Map,
term "abutting residential zones." where used in this (2h~k.~er, includes the R1. R2,
RMD. RIM-15, RM-30, RM-40, or residentiM Planned Communil¥ (PC) districts,
unless otherwise s_3?_ecificallv noted.
(b)Applicable Combining Districts
The combining districts applicable to the CN, CS, CC and CC(2) districts shall
include, but shall not be limited to, the following districts:
(1)The retail shopping (R)combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter
i8.46, shall apply to the area of the CN, CS, and CC districts designated as
"R" combining district as shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
(2)The pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations, as specified in
Chapter 18.47, shall apply to the area of the CN, CS; CC and CC(2) districts
designated "P" combining district as shown on the City’s Zoning Map.
18.16.030 Definitions
For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined:
(a)"CharleSton Shopping Center" is defined as all properties zoned CN and bounded
by East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, and Cubberley
(b)"Midtown Shopping District" is defined as all properties zoned CN in the vicinity
of the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Middlefield Road which border
Moreno_..d!~5!.¢_~)~_~, Bryson_._,.~.r.)_~_~, Colorado Avenues, and San Carlos Court, or
which border Middlefield Road in the area extending from Moreno Avenue to San
Carlos Court.
ZOU Draft
(..’_~2f.;.~_9_.~.7_.._0(~_v_.R_e...0_l.iAa_~..A_tt..F._0o._.cC-~N CS.9.27.0,6 Redlin.,~.d,~.c.doc
8.16.040 Land Uses
(c)"Town and Country Village Shopping Center" is defined as all properties zoned
CC and bounded by E1 Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, Encina Avenue, and the
Southern Pacific right-of-way.
(d)"Stanford Shopping Center" is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by
E1 Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and ~e-g~e-a.tignment-of
Vineyard Lane.
(e)"Neighborhood-serving offices" are medical offices, professional offices, travel
agencies, and insurance agencies that fit the definition of a neighborhood-serving
use.
(0 A "Neighborhood Serving Use" is a use that primarily serves individual consumers
and households, not businesses, is generally pedestrian oriented in design, and does
not generate noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than that typically expected for
uses with a local customer base, A neighborhood-serving use is also one to which
a significant number of customers and clients travel, rather than the provider of the
goods or services traveling off-site.
(g)"Ground Floor" shall mean the first floor that is above grade.
M..~xed Use .D~velopm~nt shall mean a combination, of nonresidential and
residential uses arranged on a site. The uses ma be combined in a vertical
buiI.din~
18.16.040 Land Uses
The uses oflmad allowed by this chapter in each commercial zonim{ district are identified
in the following tables. Land uses that are not listed on tim tables are not allowed, e~xceot
where otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables ("Subiect to
Regulations in") includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section
a!so apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well.
(a)Commercial Zones and Land Uses
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for each commercial zone are shown in
Table 1 :
Table 1: CN, CC, CC(2) and CS Permitted and Conditional Uses
Accessory facilities and activities customarily
associated with or essential to permitted uses, and
operated incidental to the principal use.
P P i8.88
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - RedlineAttt:’.doc,,.~, c,c a ~-7 no, Red!ine.,2oc.doc
8.16.040 Land Uses
Drive-in services or take-out services associated
with permitted uses(4)
Tire, battery, and automotive service facilities,
a, hen operated incidental to a permitted retail
service or shopping center having a gross floor
area of more than 30,000 square feet.
-ASSEMBLY USES::":.:: " ’. ~: " ~ ii:;-: :: .
Business and Trade Schools
(~hurcties and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
Private Clubs, Lodges, or
Fraternal Organizations
MANUFACTURING AND
PROCESSING USES
Recycling Centers
Warehousing and Distribution
OFFICE USES
Administrative Office Services
Medical, Professional, and General Business
Offices
PUBLIC!QUASIrgUBLIC USES-i.:.
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility
services but excluding construction or storage
yards, maintenance facilities, or .corporation yards.
RECREATION USES
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
RESIDENTIAL USES ..
w,o Yami!y
~ultiple-Family
Home Occupations
Residential Care Homes
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
cup
CUP
CUP
pm
p.
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
pm
P
P
18.88
18.88
18:16.050
18A6.050
18.16.060(b)
18.88
ZOU Draft
118.16.040 Land Uses
~ETAIL USES . - i
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in
and take-out services
Retail Services, excluding liquor stores
Liquor stores
~hopping Centers
Ambulance Services
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels
Boa}ding and Kennels
Automobile Service Stations
Automotive Services
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
Small Adult Day Care Homes
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Banks and Financial Services
General Business Services
l totels without !dtchen faci!itie~
, provl ng any
t.umber of rooms with !dtchens -.
MOrtuaries
eighborhood Business Services
l~ersonal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
TEMPORARY USES.
Farmer’s Markets
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such
facilities shall remain no more than five years.
TRANSPORTATION USES ~ "
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
p(3)
CUP
P
P P
P P
P P
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
P
P
.p
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
P
P
P
p(3)
P
P
18.82
i 8.16
18.16 060(t)
18. l 6.060(
18.88
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - RedlineAttF.doc,.,~.,~."-r CS.9.27,,n,6 ~ ~,m~ ..... :~-.-
8.16.040 Land Uses
Parking as a principal use CUP CLIP
Transportation Terminals CUP CLIP
P - Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
~1~ Residen.tia| is only per~nitted as pal’t, of a mixed use dea, elop.mel~.t,_i~ursuant to the provisions o~.
(1~ Except drive-in se~ices.
(4~ So long as drive up Ncilities, excluding car washes, wovide full access to pedes~ians and bidyclists.
A maximum of two such se~ices shall be periled within 1,000 feet, and each use shall not be less
than 150 feet from one another.
t any2 rime between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. require a conditional use pm’mit.
(c)
Late Night Use and Activities
The following regulations restrict businesses that g.!.l?.~.~g~;g:...c.?L}2!~,iig...~!5.~9.gJ:~!{@.
activities at any time between fhe ihours of 10:00 t).m., and 6:00 a,m., where sucla
site abuts re_sidentiMlv zonedproperties.
(1)Such busfllesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties
ti’om excessive noise, odors, lighting_or other nuisances fi-om any sources
during those hours.
~L-~.~..~:~-~.~:~.~....~i;~2~.~....~L~.~2.~.~5~....~?..~7~.~.~2.-~:~ hours of 10:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.:m. shall bereq_u:ired to obtain, a c/onditional use pe:rnfi:~. The director
mawr reply conditions of approval as are dee.reed necessary to assure tlmt
CN District: Special Use Requirements in the Charleston and Midtown
Shopping Centers
The following regulations shall apply to .~h~areas of~h~Charleston Center and the
Midtown Shopping Center a~ defined in Sectio:t~ 1
Table 2 shows the uses permitted and conditionally permitted on the ground floor of
the applicable areas of the Charleston Center and Midtown Shopping Centers.
p~!.ermitted and conditional uses specified in subsection (a) of this section shall ~:)~-
o~?ATi_apply to the ground floor of the areas of the Charleston and Midtown Shopping
Centers ~,:.~..m....i[~::.~!l~i-bi-~-~.as 1isted :in ~Fabl.e 2. Uses lawfully existing on January
ZOU Draft
Rcdlfi’~c.de~.doc
8.16.040 Land Uses
16, 2001 may be continued as non-conforming uses but may only be replaced with
uses permitted or conditionally permitted under this subsection.
Table 2: Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers Ground Floor Uses
Accessory facilities and uses customarily
incidental to permitted uses.
Churches and Religious Institutions
Private Educational Facilities
Recycling Centers
]~eighborhood-serving offices that do not
dxceed 2,500 square feet in floor area.
~,eighborhood-serving offices exceeding
500 square feet in floor area.
Administrative office uses and general
business office uses (other than~eighborhood-servintravel andagencies
insurance agencies) other than those legally in
existence on January 16, 2001
Medical offices not exceeding 2,500 square
fleet in area; professional offices, travel
~ gencies, and insurance agencies.=-a~:.~..-i4m-i-~÷<-I
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
X
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
18.88
18.16.050
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
CUP CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of
utility services but excluding construction or
storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards.
RECREATION USES ::.
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
Private Clubs, Lodges, or
Fraternal Organizations
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06- RedlineAttF.doc,.,i, C2.9.27.06 7
18.16.040 Land Uses
Residential uses of any nature
Eating and Drinking Services, excluding
drive-in and take-out services -
Retail Services, excluding!iquor stores
Liquor stores
X
P ~p
Ambulance Services
Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels
Automobile Service Stations
Convalescent Facilities
Day Care Centers
Financial Services
Mortuaries
Neighborhood Business Services
Personal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
TEMPORARY USES.
Farmers’ Markets
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that
such facilities shall remain no more than five
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P
CUP
CUP
P
P
¯P
CUP
CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required X = Prohibited Use
18.88
years.
P = Permitted Use
(d)Charleston Shopping Center: AdditionalUse Restrictions
(1)Any office use first occupying space at the Center on or after January 16,
2001, shall obtain a written determination from the director of planning and
community environment that it qualifies as a neighborhood serving use, as
defined in this chapter, before occupying its premises. The applicant shall
submit such information as the director.shall reasonably require in order to
make the determination, and the director shall issue the determination within
30 days of receiving a complete application. Failure to submit the required
ZOU Draft
_.2_2....LL_2 ..........i... _~._.1_2 ..........L_! ,t~..-,r ~c o o’7 hr, .P, ed!ine,d,q~.docCN CS.9.27.06 - R~,dlmcAttI x .o_c_ .......................
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
(e)
(2)
information shall be grounds for determining that a business is not
neighborhood-serving.
No more than 7,850 square feet of total floor area at the Center shall be
occupied by office spae-e-uses at any time.
(3)iBefo~:~.iPrior to approving a conditional use permit for neighborhood.serving
offices larger than 2,500 square feet in total floor area, the city shall find that
the proposed use will be neighborhood-serving, that it will be conducted in a
manner that will enhance and strengthen the Center as a neighborhood
resource, and that it will not diminish the retail strength Of the center.
Midtown Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions
(1)An existing ground floor office may be replaced with another office if
(a) the new tenant or owner will continue the existing business or practice;
or
(2)
(3)
(b) a conditional use permit is issued for the new office use.
No conditional use permit shall be issued for any new office use on the ground
floor unless, in addition to the findings required for a conditional use permit as
specified in Chapter 18.76.010, the City finds that the proposed use will be
neighborhood serving, that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance
and strengthen the Midtown Shopping District as a neighborhood resource,
and that it will not diminish the retail strength of the District.
For properties at 711,719, and 721 Colorado Avenue, and 689 Bryson
Avenue, buildings not fronting on Middlefield Avenue, designed and used for
office purposes, and not well suited to other uses are exempt from the
provisions of this subsection (b).
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
The following restrictions shall apply to office uses:
(a)Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office
Medical, Professional,.and Business offices shall not be located on the ground
floor, unless such offices either:
(1)
(2)
Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and
as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being
amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.95;
Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services, personal
services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19,
2001 or thereafter;
(3)In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage onE1 Camino Real,
were not occupied by housing on March 19, 2001;
(4)Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001;
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06- RedlineAtff’.doc,,.~, CS.9,27.9,6 Red!ine.doc.doc 9
18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions
(b)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or atter March 19,
2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and
drinking services, personal services, and automobile services does not
decrease;
Are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area
plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional,
and general business offices; or
Are located anywhere in Building E or in the rear 50% of Building C or D of
the property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Park Boulevard and
California Avenue, as shown on sheet A2 of the plans titled "101 California
Avenue Townhouse/Commercial/Office, Palo Alto, CA".by Crosby,
Thornton, Marshall Associates, Architects, dated June 14, 1982, revised
November 23, 1982, and on file with the Department of Planning and
Community Environment.
Size Restrictions on Office Uses in the CN and CS Districts
(1)In the CN district, office uses shall be governed by the following ~egulations:
(A)Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25%
of the lot area, provided:
(i) A lot shall be permitted to have at least a total floor area of 2,500
square feet of office uses, provided the uses meet all other zoning
regulations.
(ii)No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of
5,000. square feet of office uses.
(B)Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with
Chapter 18.76. The maximum size for any conditional use shall be
established by the zoning administrator and specified in the conditional
use permit for such use.
(2)In the CS district, offices a-r-c~s~t .bj-eet-t~uses shall be governed by the
following ~esa4et4onsre_gulations:
(A)No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000
square feet of office uses.
(B)Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to
issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with
Chapter 18.76. The maximum size for any conditional use shall be
established by the zoning administrator and specified in the conditional
use permit for such use.
ZOU Draft
CZN_g;.8._.9.._2.Z,gJS_z.E.e....d!:i~e_A.u.I!’._d_o..c_CN_-: ............~ P, cd!in.c.,,!oc.doc 10
18.16.060 Development Standards
18.16.060 Development Standards
(a)Exclusively Non-Residential Uses
’.l_ii.@il_.e:..~_,.s.i~_~_c_’_il_]__e._s_’_.t.h.edev_e_l _0pment standards for exclusively non-residential uses
.,r ~~
districts, These developments shall be desi.gned and constructed m compliance with
the ,.Co llowin~ require:men~s and the comext-based desim~ criteria o~Jtlined
.]...~.:j_(.J:.0..~0,A?.!"_o_x~.iN]~.d_. thug l_no~:er~estri_cti2._e_._r_e_gulations may be recdmmended by the
e:nvironn~ei~t, pursumIl to Sectlon. 18. ~6.02 ).
Table 3: Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards
Minimum. Site
Specifications
Site Area (if2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (fl)
Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft)
Minimum Yard (ft)
for lot lines abutting
or opposite residential
districts or residential
PC districts
Minimum setbacks
from alleys for
structures other than
public parking
garages (ft)0)
Comer lots, from rear
lot line on the alley
Comer lots, from side
lot line on the alley
None Required
20’(2)
None required
None required
10,(2) 10,(2)10’(2)lO,i2)
None
Not
applicableNot applicable .
Setback lines
imposed by a
¯ special setback
map Pursuant
to Chapter
20.08 of this
code may apply
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06- RedlineAttF.docC->,~ CS,9.27,0,6 .Red!ine.doc.doc 11
18.16.060 Development Stan.dards
I
All lots other than
, comer lots
Maximum Site
Coverage ’
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
Within 150 ft. of an_
abmting_residential
zone
district
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
i~,:Iaximmn. Floor Area
Ralio (FAll) for
Daylight Plane for lot
lines abutting one or
more residential zone
districts-~..-a
Initial Height at side
or rear lot line (ft)
Slope
50%
20’
None Required
25’
and. 2
stories
0.4:1
50’
35’
¯ _(5)
37’(4)
35’
2.0:1
_(6)_(6)
_(6)_(6)
50’
35’
0.4:1
U) No parking or loading space, whether required or optiona!, shall be located in the
first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard.
(~ Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as
a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or
fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior
lot line.
(?) No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage.
(4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses, and
equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but
shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall
not intrude into the daylight plane.
~s) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 18.16.050.
(6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive
residential zone abutting the site line in question.
(1)
(2)
ZOU Draft
.C~_.C~S_._._9.22_7._Q.(i_-_..R_e.:dli=n_e.,A_tt)?xt.o_~...:,,_.: ...........~ .P.cdl.ine.dn,,z.doc 12
8.16.060 Development Standards
(b)Mixed Uses
Table 4 speci ties the development standards for new residential mixed use
developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in
compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria
outlined in 18.16.090. provided that more restrictive regulations may be
recommended by the architectural review board and approved bv the director of
l~ning and community envirorm!em_!g~ursuant to Section 18.76.020:
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06- RedlineAttF.docCN CS.9.27.06 Rcd!in.e.,,!oc.doc 13
18.16.060 Development Standards
Table-4: Mixed Use Development Standards
Minimum Site Specifications ’ ¯
Site Area (ft))
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (fi)
Minimum Setbacks
R ear Yard abu tting resider~tia 1. zm~e
h~Ierior S~de Yard if abutlin~
¯ re<ide,,tial zone district
S*~:eet Side Yard (.fi:)
~t.laxi mum Site Coverage
,andscal~e~Op ’n Space Coveratle
~sable Open Spa~..
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
None required
50%50%100%50%
35 44)50’37’50’
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant
to Chapter
20.08 of this
code may
apply
14
|
18.16.060 Development Standm’ds
(3)
including but not limited to dry clem]ing plants and auto repair, m’e prohibited
in a mixed use development wifl~ residential uses.
Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site desi~ated with
an Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay.
(4)
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9,27.06 - RedlineAttF.doc .....CE.9.27.0.~ R,ed!ine.’,%~.doc 16
1 g. 16.060 Development Standm’ds
(’3)
includin.g but not limited to dr’( clemfin~ plants an.d auto repair, are prohibited
in a ]nixed use developmem with residential uses.
Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any si:te designated with
an Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay_.
(2)
ZOU Draft
g;2.N_.r__(_~.8.~q_A.7_ 0_(j_.z_R_~.’..d!j:_n_.e,...A._ttJ~.d3?.~..2, .2 ............~ Redli.ne. doe.doc 16
I 18.16.060 Development Standm’ds
_(~9-)-i-[-~app-tic-ab.te-Regtg’at4o~s ",~a’/d G
m-~beq~s.i&~gat-po~i~n-~t~rd~ed-t~ses-in t~e CN-ard-C-C--dist~eSs-m~d,t-he-C-g(g)
Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses a’e aenerallypmhfbited in the
as a Hous:ing Opportunity Site :in the ]~ousi.:n~ Element of the Co:mprehensive
Plan. Such. sites sha!l be developed pursumat to the regulations for fl~e mtflti-
fim~ilyL zone designation (RM-15. RM-30. or RM-4Q) identified fbr the site in the
,{d)Hotel Reo~ulations
Hotels, where they are a pe:rmi{ted use and .generate transient occupancy tax
(TOT), may develop to a maxhntma FAR of 2.0:1.
Ho, els may hmlude residential condomi~um use. subiect to:
use;
devoted to condominimn use; and
~’" "" LIT ’~ ’ ".r ’ ’ "~"" ~ :" " ""~ /5 "C)Amm, m ~ ~ FAR ot 1.0 shaft be )rov~d~d 1o~ ~he hotd, cond~ mmmm.( .............................................................................................-= .........] .................- _: .....: ................................................
bttildin~(s).
(e)CC District Shopping Center Floor Area Ratio Regulations
(1)The maximum floor area for the Town and Country Shopping Village
Shopping Center shall be .35 to 1; and office uses at said shopping center
shall be limited to 15% of the .floor area of the shopping center existing as of
August 1, 1989.
(2)Stanford Shopping Center shall not be permitted to add more than 80,000
square feet of floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping
center existing as of June 14, 1996, 1,332,362 square feet, for a total square
footage not to exceed 1,412,362.
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06 - RedlineAttI:’.doc,,~,c’~’r r,e ~ "~7 Oc" r~,m: .....~’~ doc 17
18.16.060 Development Sta:ndm’ds
(f)Size of Establishments in the CN District
In the CN district, permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area per
individual use or business establishment shown in Table 5. Such uses may be
allowed to exceed the maximum establishment size, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accord with Section 18.76.010. The maximum
establishment size for any conditional use shall be established by the zoning
administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such use.
Table 5: Maximum Size of Establishment
~r -- "" - ............... -.: .. ~."..,.Max~mUmSize(f ) ......T,,ne of EsiaMishm~;nt " .............’-’ ...." ’ i2‘ : "
Personal Services .
Retail services, except grocery stores
Grocery stores
Eating and drinking services
Neighborhood business services
(g)Nuisances Prohibited
2,500
15,000
20,000
5,000
2,500
(h)
All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as
to preclude nuisance, tiazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or
characteristics, including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes,
odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance,
humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illuminations. Prior to issuance of a building.
permit, or occupancy permit, or at any other time, the building inspector may
require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices have been provided to
ensure and protect the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and
general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition.
Outdoor Sales and Storage
(1) In the CN district, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be
conducted within a building, except for:
(A)Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies
occupying no more than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display
area,
(B)Farmers’ markets that have obtained ac0nditional use permit, and
(C)Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(2)In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall
apply to outdoor sales and storage:
(A)Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial
activities shall be conducted within a building, except for:
(i)Incidental sales and displayofplant materials and garden
supplies occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior
sales and display area,
ZOU Draft
..Q~..~.;..~.,=.9...~_7._. ~.(~_:._R__..e_d_l_.i_n.9.....A_~!~_. _d_Q_C.~ S. 9.2 7.0 6 Red!.i.ne. de, e.doc 18
18.16.060 Development Standm’ds
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and
drinking services,
Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit,
and
(iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be
subject to a conditional use permit.
(C)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under
subparagraph (A)(iv) of this subsection.
In the CS district, outdoor sales and display of merchandise, and outdoor
eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services
shall be permitted subject to the following regulations:
(A)
(B)
(c)
Outdoor sales and di splay shall not occupy a total site area exceeding
the gross building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a
conditional use permit.
Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats,
campers, camp trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar
conveyances shall meet the minimum design standards applicable to off
street parking facilities with- respect to paving, grading, drainage,
access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective features,
lighting, landscaping, and screening.
Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or
fence of between 5 and 8 feet in height.
(i)Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or
more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas
or exterior enclosures for the storage ofrecyclable materials in appropriate
containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and
enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in
accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city
council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
ZOU Draft
[ CINT CS.9.27.06-RedlineAttF.docCN_C$,9.27.,t),6 Red!inex!oc.doc 19
18.16.070 Parking m~d Loadin.~.
(J)Employee Showers
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or
for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6.
Medical, Professional, and General
Business Offices; Financial Services,
Business andTrade Schools, General
Business Services
~:a!~[~d=i.s~:.~i-~i~+~Retail Services, Personal
Services, and Eating and Drinking Services
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000 andup.
0-24,999
25,000-.49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000 and up
No requirement
1
2
4
No requirement
1
2
4
18.16.070 Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional
uses in accord with Chapter 18.83 of this title. All parking and loading facilities on any
site, whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum
requirements, shall comply with the regulations and the design standards established by
Chapter 18.83.
18.16.080 Performance Standards
In addition to the standm’ds :for development prescribed above, all development
~_~ CC, and. CC(2) districts shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in
Chapter 18.64 of the Zonin~ Ordinmace. All. mixed use deve!opment shall also complv
18.I 6.090 Context-Based Design Criteria
(a)Contextual and Compatibility Criteria
~)_~v_.e_l_o2ment in. a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and
compatible with adiacent development, and shall promote the estal)lishment of
pedestrian oriented design.
(1)Context
Context as used ifl this section is imended to indi.cate relationsh_i_p~
between the site’s development to adjacent street t~yy?es,
surroundin.~ land uses. and on-site or nearby n.atural feattrres, such
20
8.16.100 Grandfathered Uses
as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and
features m’e strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies.
(B)The word "comext" should not be construed as a desire to replicate
existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate tra:nsitions
to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to
architectural style or design, though in some instm~ces
relationships may be reinforced by ma architectural response.
Compatibility
(A)Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of
new buildings is consisten ,a.qth the pattern of ac.hievinu a
pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares
general characteristics and establishes design likages with the
overall pattern of buildings so that the visuM unity of the street is
maintained.
(B)Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means,
including but not limited to:
(i)the siting, scale, massing, and materials;
(ii}the rhvthlnic pattern of the street established by the general
width of the buildings and the spacing between them:
(iii) the pattern of roof lines and proiections;
(iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays
and doorways;
(v)the location and treatment of entrvways;
(vi)the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features;
(vii)fl~e siting and treatment of parking; and
(viii)the treatment of landscaping.
(b)Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
In addition to fl~e findings tbr Architectural Review contained in Section
18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinmme~ the tbllowing additional findings are
applicable in the CN, CS, CC m~d CC(21 districts, as fflrther illustrated on the
accompanying diagrams:
ISee Context-Based Design Criteria document: to be incorporated into final
ordinanceI
18.16.100 Grandfathered Uses
(a)CN District Office Uses
In the CN district, all ~ .....t, ........:+~.~a¯ ,-~ ......~ v ...........,, office uses existing as of August 1, 1989,
which were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subiect
to a conditional use permit and which, as of such date, exceed 5,000 square feet in
ZOU Draft
CN CS.9.27.06-RedlineAttF.docCN CS.9.27.06 Rcdlfim~q~e.doc 21
size or 25% of lot area, may remain as legal nonconforming uses and shall not
require a conditional use permit or be subject to termination pursuant to Current
Code Chapter 18.94, provided, however, that in the case of a conflict between the
provisions of this section and the provisions of Current Code Chapter 18.94, this
section shall control. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace
site improvements in accordance with cun’ent applicable site development
regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall
not result in increased floor area devoted to such office satesuses.
(b)CS District Office Uses
In the CS district, medical, professional or general business or administrative office
uses existing on August 1, 1989 and which, as of such date, were lawful
conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional
use permit may remain as legal nonconforming uses and shall not require a
conditional use permit or be subject to termination pursuant to Current Code
Chapter 18.94, provided, however, that in the case of a conflict between the
provisions of this section and the provisions of Current Code Chapter 18.94, this
section shall control. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace
site improvements in accordance with current applicable site development
regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall
not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses.
22
18.18.010 Purposes
DOWNTOWN
Attachment G
Chapter 18.18
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
18.18.010
18.18.020
18.18.030
18.18.040
18.18.050
18.18.060
18.18.070
18.18.080
18.18.090
18.18.100
18.18.110
18.18.120
Purposes
Applicable Regulations
Definitions
Repeal of Regulations
Land Uses
Development Standards
Floor Area Bonuses
Transfer of Development Rights
Parking and Loading
Performance Standards
Context-Based Design Criteria
Grandfathered Uses and Facilities
18.18.010 Purposes
(a)Downtown Commercial District [CD]
The CD downtown commercial district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning
district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of
commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well
as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The CD
commercial downtown district is specifically created to promote the following
objectives in the downtown area of Palo Alto:
(1)control the rate and size of commercial development;
(2)preserve and promote ground-floor retail uses;
(3)enhance pedestrian activity;
(4)create harmonious transitions from the commercial areas to the-adj acent
residential areas; and
(5)where applied in conjunction with Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, preserve historic buildings.
18.18.020 Applicable Regulations
(a)Applicable Chapters
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and
d by c,1 .........1 ~ ,~ ,~ ! ~ o-~ other relevant Chapters of theprocedures establishe
Zonin~ Code .h-~,÷t~i~m~-shall apply to the CD commercial downtown district,
including subdistricts designated as CD-C (community), CD-S (service) and CD-N
(neighborhood) and site development areas within the CD district, as shown on
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc
18.18.030 Definitions
"abutti~ag residential zones." where used in tlfis Chapter, includes the R1, ~,
RMD, RM-15, RM-30; RM-40, ~or residential Planned Communi.ty (PC)
districts, mdess otherwise specifically ~,o q ;~ ~;- ~n~,~,
(b)Applicable Combining Districts
The combining districts applicable to the CD district shall include, but shall not be
limited to, the following districts:
(1)The pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations, as specified in o-f
Chapter 18.47~ shall apply to the area of the CD district designated "P"
combining district as shown on
City’s Zoning Map.
(2) The ground floor (GF) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter1.~,;,,no hall apply to the
area of the CD district designated "GF" combining district as shown on Map
,~,~ ,~,;,~,~- ~,,;o -~,~.,~-ho City’s Zoning Map.
18.18.030 Definitions
(a)
(b)
(c)
For the purposes of calculating floor area ratio for nonresidential uses under this
chapter, "gross floor area" includes not only the area defined in Chapter 18.04, but
also all covered at-grade or above-grade parking for nonresidential uses, no matter
how slightly above grade such parking is.
As used in this chapter, "historic rehabilitation" means returning a property to a
state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient
contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property
which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. "li.~[isto~:ic
rehabilitation." shM1 remedy all the known, rehabilitation needs of the building, and
sh.M1 not be confined to routine repair m~d maintenance as determi.ned bv the
d~_e_c._to!koLt:~l’_4p_n_in_g and colnmunit2yi envirolm~ent.
As used in this chapter, "certification" means certification, by the director of
planning and community environment, of floor area eligible for transfer to another
site as described in Seciion 18.18.080.
(d)
(e)
As used in this Chapter, "receiver site" means a site which receives floor area
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.18.070.
As used in this chapter, "sender site" means a site which has received a certification
by the director of planning and community environment of floor area eligible for
transfer to another site pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(0 "Transferable development right" or "TDR" means the floor area eligible for
transfer to a receiver site as described in Draft Updated Code Section 18.18.080 of
this code.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc
18.18.040 Repeal of Regulations
I
18.18.040 Repeal of Regulations
de artment of planning and
community environment shall monitor the number of square feet approved for
nonresidential development in the CD district and the number of square feet approved for
nonresidential development pursuant to a planned community (PC) zone if the site of the
PC zone was within the CD district on the effective date of this chapter. When 350,000
square feet of nonresidential development have received final design review approval
pursuant to Chapter -t~4818.76 or have received building permits, if no design approval
is required, this chapter shall be repealed and a moratorium shall be imposed. This
moratorium shall prohibit the city’s acceptance or processing of any application for
planning approval or a building permit for new nonresidential square footage in the CD
district. This moratorium shall remain in effect for one year while the city undertakes a
study of what regulations would be appropriate in the CD district. The moratorium may
be extended by the council until such study is completed and appropriate regulations are
implemented.
18.18.050 Land Uses
The uses of land allowed bv this chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified
in the following table. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not allowed, except
where otherwise noted. ~Vhere the last column on the following tables ("Subiect to
Regulations in") includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section
also apply to the u.se; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well.
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for the CD district are shown in Table 1"
Table 1: CD Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses
Accessory facilities and activities
customarily associated with or essential to
permitted uses, and operated incidental to.
the principal use.
Drive-in or Take-out Services associated
with permitted uses~)
Tire, battery, and automotive service
facilities, when operated incidental toa
permitted retail service or shopping center
having a gross floor area of more than
30,000 square feet.
Business and Trade Schools
q2hurches and Religious Institutions
Colleges and Universities
P
CUP
P
P
P
CUP CUP
P
P
18.88
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc
18.18.050 Land Uses
Private Educational Facilities
Private Clubs, Lodges, or
Fraternal Organizations
Recycling Centers
Warehousing and Distribution
CUP CUP
CUP ¯
CUP
+dministrative Office Services
Medical, Professional, and General
I~usiness Offices on any floor other than
the ground floor of a building
Utili~ Facilities essential to pro~sion of
. utili~ se~ices but excluding cons~uction
or storage yards, maintenance Ncilities, or
co~oration yards.
Commercial Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Services
]/lultiple-Family
Home Occupations
Residential Care Homes
~rating and Drinking Services, except
ive-in or take-out services
~hetail Services, excluding liquor stores
opping Centers
Liquor Stores
Animal Care, excluding boarding and
kennels
Ambulance Services
Automobile Service Stations .
Automotive Services
Convalescent Facilities
P
CUP
pm
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
cUP
pm
.p
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
ta
pm
P
P
P
P
CUP
P
18.1. 8.060(f)
18.18.060(f)
18.18.060(b)
18.88
18.18.060(g)
18.18.060(g)
18.18.060(g)
18.88
P
CUP
CUP
CUP
P CUP
18.82
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc
18.18.060 Development Standards
Day Care Centers
Small Family Day Care Homes
Large Family Day Care Homes
Small Adult Day Care Homes
Large Adult Day Care Homes
Financial Services, except drive-up
services
General Business Services
~~ootels ,,vitheu !’Stclnen
~idin~,~!d-tehens to, no.t-more
qen,ma~ted-~ ..........s ~t---5=- ix)g-5
Mortuaries
l~ersonal Services
Reverse Vending Machines
Parking as a principal use
Passenger Transportation Terminals
Indoor Farmers’ Markets
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
cuP
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CUP
CUP
cuP
CUP
P
P
P
P
CUP
P
cUP
P
P
CUP
CUP
18.18.060(d)
18.18.060(g)
18.88
Temporary Parking Facilities, provided
that such facilities shall remain no more
than five years.
t_~-)-Residential is only permitted as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions .of
~ection 18.18.060(b), or on sites designated as ]{lousing Opportunity Sites in the Housin~ Element of
t_13_e_Co .m_wehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.18.060(c).
ct"Drive-up facilities, excluding car washes, provide frill access to pedestrians and bicyclists. A
1laaximum of two such services shall be.permitted within 1,000 feet and each use shall not be less thma
_~50 ft from one another
P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required
18.18.060 Development Standards
(a)Exclusively Non-Residential Use
Table 3 specifies the development stmadards for new exclusively non-residential
uses and alterations to non-residential uses or structures in the CD district, including
the CD-C, CD-S, and CD-N subdistricts. These developments shall be designed and
constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based
design criteria outlined in 18.18.110, provided that more restrictive regulations may
be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of
planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020:
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc
18.18.060 Development Standards
Table 3: E~Non-Residential Standards
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard (fi)
Street Side Yard (fl)
Minimum street setback for sites
sharing a common block face with any
I abutting residential zone district
[Minimum yard (fl) for si~!~K.lines
abutting or opposite residential zone
districts
Maximum Site Coverage
Maximnm Height (fl)
Standard
Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential
zone district
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
~um Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
Maximum Size Of New Non-Residential
Construction or Expansion Projects.
~aylight Plane for stte-lotlines abutting
one or more residential zone districts.
Initial H eight_ ’_at.:~._i.~t ~._~K.!._ a_ .r.: I_9..LI.j~!~
Slope
None required I
None required
None required
None required
(4)
10,(])10,o)
None Required
50
(3)
1.0:1(s)
2.0:1
50
(3)
0.4:1
10’0)
20,0)
(4)_0)
10’0!
50%
25
_(3)
0.4:
N/A
25,000 square feet of gross floor area or
15,000 square feet above the existing
floor area, whichever is greater, provided
the floor area limits set forth elsewhere
in this chapter are not exceeded
10
1:2
10
1:2 .
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant to
Chapter 20,08 of
this code may
apply
18.18.060(e)
18.18.070
18.18.060(d)
_(z)
(2)
The yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding area required for site
access.
(t) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the ~ .:" -/ . ’. residential zone abutting
the site line in question.
The maximum height within 150 feet of any abutting residential zone district shall not exceed the
imit of the mo~t res~qctiveabutting residential district~.
The minimum street setback .shall be equal to the residentially zoned setback for 150 feet from the
or multiple family development,
FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic
not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the
or CD-N subdistricts.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc 6
18.18.060 Development Standards
(b)
apply
Mixed Use
Table 4 specifies the development standm’ds for new residenlial mixed use
developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in
compliance with the tSllowing requirements and the context-based design criteria
outlines in 18.18.110, provided that more restrictive regulations may be
recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of
planning and community environment, pursumat to Section 18.76.020:
Table 4: Mixed Use Development Standards
Minimum Setbacks
IFront Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (fl)
Interior Side Yard (ft)
No requirement [ 10’
10’ for residential portion:, no
requirement for commercial portion
10’ if 10’ if
No
requirement
abutting
residential
abutting
residential
zone zone
Street Side Yard (ft) No 5’5’requirement
Permitted Setback Encroachments Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways,
and similar elements may extend up to 6’
into the setback. Cornices, eaves,
fireplaces, and similar architectural
features (excluding flat or continuous
walls or enclosures of interior space)
may extend up to 4’ into the front and
rear setbacks and up to 3’ into anterior
side setbacks
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc 7
Setback lines
imposed by a
special setback
map pursuant to
Chapter 20. 08
of this code may
apply
18.18.060 Development Standards
Jsable Open Space
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
]Within 150 ft. of an abutting residential
zone
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one
or more residential zoning districts or a
residential PC district
Residential Density, (net) (2)
MaximumResidential Floor Area Ratio
IFAR)
Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (3)
l’arking Requirement
(
50%requirement
35%
200 sq fl per unit for 5 or fewer units
150 sq ft per unit for 6 units Or lnore
50’ 50’ 35’
40’ (4)40’ (4?35’ (4)
Daylight plane height and slope identical
to those of the most restrictive residential
zone abutting the lot line
40
1.0:1(3)
1.0:1(3)
2.0:1(3)
30
0.6:1
0.4:1
1.0:1(3)
30.
0.5:1
0.4:1
18.18.070
Chapter 18.83
0.9:1 (3)
Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination ofwlvate and common open spaces; (2)
does not need to be located on the ground; (3) minimum private open space dimension 6’; and (4)
minimum common open spac9 dimension 12’
Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of
the site devoted to commercial use. There shall be no deduction for that portion of the site area in
nonresidential use.
FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic
rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in
the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict.
For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC)
district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet:
(1)
(2)
Residential and nonresidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and
design review in accord with Current Code Chapter 18.82, except that mixed
use projects with four or fewer units shall only require review and approval
by the m’chitectural ~’eview board
Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in
excess of the exenapt qu.antities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code,
including but not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited
in a mixed use development with residential uses.
(I)
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc
18.18.060 Development Standards
(c)Exclusively Residential Uses
Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CD district and
subdistricts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a
Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plma.
Such sites shall be developed pursuant to the regulations for the multi-family zone
designation (RM-15, RM-30, or RM-40) identified for the site inthe Housing
Element.
Hotel Regulations
(1) Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax
(TOT), may develop to a maximum FAR of2~0:1.
(2)Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to:
(A) No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium
usei
(B)No more than 25% of the total number of lodging units shall be
devoted to condominium use; and
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc
18.18.060 Development Standards
A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium
building(s).
(e)Exempt Floor Area
When a building is being expanded, square footage which, in the judgement of the
chief building o~1, does not increase the usable floor area, and is either
necessary to conform the building to Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations, regarding handicapped access, or is necessary to implement the
historic rehabilitation of the building, shall not be counted as floor area.
Restrictions on Office Uses
(1)
(2)
(g)
In all CD subdistricts, no medical, professional, or general business office
shall be located on the ground floor, except such offices which:
(A)Have been in continuously in existence in that space since March 19,
2001, and, as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the
process 0fbeing amortized pursuant to Current Code Chapter 18.95;
(B)Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services,
eating and drinking services, personal services, or automotive service
on March 19, 2001 or thereafter;
(c)
(D)
(E)
In the
office
Occupy a space .that was vacant on March 19, 2001;
Are located in new or remodeled ground floor areas built on or after
March 19, 2001 if the ground flOOl~ area devoted to housing, retail
services, eating and drinking services, personal services, and
automobile services does not decrease; or
Are on a site located in an area subject to a.Specific Plan or
Coordinated Area Plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor
medical, professional, or general business offices.
CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, the following requirements shall apply to
(A)No new gross square footage of a medical, professional, general
business, or administrative office use shall be allowed, once the gross
square footage of such office uses, or any combination of such uses, on
a site has reached 5,000 square feet.
(B)No conversion of gross square footage from any other use to a medical,
professional, general business, or administrative office use shall be
allowed once the gross square footage of such office uses, or any
combination of such uses, on a site has reached 5,000 square feet.
Restrictions on Size of Commercial Establishments in CD-N Subdistrict
In the CD-N subdistrict, permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area
per individual use or business establishment shown in Table 4. Such uses may be
allowed to exceed the maximum establishment size, subject to the issuance of a
.ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc 10
18.18.060 Development Standards
(h)
conditional use permit in accordance with Current Code Chapter 18.90. The
maximum establishment size for any conditional use shall be established by the
zoning administrator and specified in the conditional use permit for such use.
Table 4: Maximum Size of Establishment
Maximum Size (ft2)
Personal Services
Retail services, except grocery stores
Grocery stores
Eating and drinking services
2,500
15,000
20,000
5,000
Outdoor Sales and Storage.
The following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage in the CD
district:
(1)CD-C Subdistrict
In the CD-C subdistrict, the following regulations apply:
(A)Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial
activities shall be conducted within a building, except for:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden
supplies occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior
sales and display area,
Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and
drinking services,
Farmers’ markets which have obtained a conditional use permit,
and
(2)
(iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit.
(B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be
subject to a conditional use permit.
(C)Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except recycling centers which
have obtained a conditional use permit.
CD-S Subdistrict
In the CD-S subdistrict, outdoor sales and display of merchandise, and
outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking
services shall be permitted subject to the following regulations:
(A)
(B)
Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding
the gross building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a
conditional use permit.
Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats,
campers, camp trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar
conveyances shall meet the minimum design standards applicable to
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc 11
18.18.060 Development Standards
(c)
off-street parking facilities .with respect to paving, grading, drainage,
access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective features,
lighting, landscaping, and screening.
Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or
fence of between 5 and 8 feet in height.
(3)CD-N Subdistrict
In the CD-N subdistrict, all permitted office and commercial activities shall
be conducted within a building, except for:
(A)Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies
occupying not more than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display
area, and
(B) Farmers’ markets that have obtained conditional use permits.
(i)Employee Showers
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or
for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 5.
Table 5: Employee Showers Required
Medical, Professional, and. General
Business Offices, Financial Services,
Business and Trade Schools, and General
Business Services
Retail Services, Personal Services, and
Eating and Drinking Services
0-9,999
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999
50,000 and up
0-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000 and up
No requirement
1.
2
4
No requirement
1
2
4
(j)Nuisances Prohibited
All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as
to preclude nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or
characteristics, including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes,
odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance,
humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illuminations. Prior to issuance of a building
permit, or occupancy permit, or at any other time, the building inspector may
require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices have been provided to
ensure and protect the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and
general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc 12
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
(k)Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or
more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas
or exterior enclosures for the storage ofrecyclable materials in appropriate
containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and
enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in
accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city
council pursuant to Section 16.48.070.
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
(a)Available Floor Area Bonuses
(1)Minor Bonus for buildings not eligible for historic or seismic bonus
A building that is neither in Historic Category 1 or 2 nor in Seismic Category
I, II, or III shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 200 square feet
without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions
in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for
buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of
2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts.
(2)Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic
rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to
increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existingbuilding,
whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR,
subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall
not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C
subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:l in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts.
(3) Historic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic
rehabilitation, but is not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to
increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building,
whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR,
subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall
not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of3.0:1 in the CD-C
subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as
provided in subsection (5).
(4)Combined Historic-and Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic
rehabilitation, and is also in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing
seismic rehabilitation, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 5,000
square feet or 50% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without
having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in
subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc,doc 13
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
(5)
that.exceed a FAR of 3.0:l in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:l in the
CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as provided in subsection (5).
Historic Bonus for Over-Sized buildings
A building in Historic Category 1 or 2 that is undergoing historic
rehabilitation and that currently exceeds a FAR of 3.0:l if located in the CD-
C subdistrict or 2.0:1 if located in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts shall
nevertheless be allowed to obtain a floor area bonus of 50% of the maximum
allowable floor area for the site of the building, based upon a FAR of 3.0:1 if
in the CD-C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0:l in the CD-S and CD-N
subdistricts, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b) and the following
limitation:
(A)The floor area bonus shall not be used on the site of the Historic
Category 1 or 2 building, but instead may be transferred to another
property or properties under the provisions of Section 18.18.080.
(b)Restrictions on Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses in subsection (a) shall be subject to the following
restrictions:
(1)All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for the purposes
of the 350,000 square foot limit on development specified in Section
18.18.040.
(2)All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for the purposes
of the project size limit specified in Section 18.18.060 (a).
(3)In no event shall a building expand beyond a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD=C
subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict.
(4)The bonus shall be allowed on a site only once.
(5)For sites in Seismic Category I, II, or ilI, seismic rehabilitation shall conform.
to the analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of this code.
(6)
(7)
(8)
For sites in Historic Category 1 or 2, historic rehabilitation shall conform to
the Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36 CFR §67,7).
For sites in both Seismic Category I, II, or III and Historic Category 1 or 2,
no bonus shall be granted unless the project includes both seismic and
historic rehabilitation conforming to the standards in subsections (5) and (6).
For sites in both Seismic Category I, II, or III and Historic Category 1 or 2, a
bonus granted under this Section that will be used on-site is subject to the
following requirements:
(A)The city council must approve on-site use of such a FAR bonus. Such
approval is discretionary, and may be granted only upon making both
of the following findings:
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc 14
18.18.070 Floor Area Bonuses
(B)
O)The exterior modifications for the entire project comply with the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36 CFR
§67,7); and
(ii)The on-site use of the FAR bonus would not otherwise be
inconsistent with the historic character of the interior and exterior
of the building and site.
The applicant for on-site use of a cumulative floor area bonus shall
have the burden of demonstrating the facts necessary to support the
findings required for council approval.
(c)Transfer of Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the floor area bonus in
subsection (a)(1), may be transferred to a non-historic receiver site as described in
Section 18.18.080. Such transfer shall not be subject to the discretionary council
approval set forth in subsection (b)(8).
(d)Procedure for Granting of Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in
subsection (a)(1), shall be granted.in accordance with the following requirements:
(1)An application for such floor area bonus(es) must be filed with the director of
planning and community environment in compliance with Section
18.49.060(c), stating the amount of such bonus(es) applied for, the bases
therefor under this section, and the extent to which such bonus(es) are
proposed to be used on-site and/or for transfer. An application for floor area
bonus for rehabilitation of a Category 1 or 2 historic building shall include a
historic structure report, prepared by a qualifiedexpert, retained by the city,
at the applicant’s expense, in accordance with the standards and guidelines of
the California State Office of Historic Preservation. It shallalso include a
plan for rehabilitiation; if any part of the existing building is proposed to be
removed or replaced, the historic rehabilitation project plans submitted for
review shall clearly show and identify any and all material proposed for
removal or replacement.
(2)The city may retain an expert in historic rehabilitation or preservation, at the
,applicant’s expense, to provide the city with an independent evaluation of the
project’s conformity with the Secretary of the Interiorrs "Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation Historic Buildings."
The historic resources board shall review the historic structure report, the
hi storic rehabilitati on proj ect plans, and, if required, the expert independent
evaluation of the proiect, m~d make a recommendation to the director of
plannin~ and commmaity environment on flae project’s conformity with the
Secretars~ of the Interior’s "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation Historic Buildin.~s.’"
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc 15
18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights
(4)upon completion of such an application, written determination of the sender
site’s el:eligibility for bonus(es) has-beenshall be issued by the director of
planning and community environment or the director’s designee, based upon
the following:
(a)In the case of a floor area bonus for seismic rehabilitation, the chief
building official has made a determination that the project complies
with or exceeds the analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of
this code;
(B)In the case of the floor area bonus for historic rehabilitation of a
building in Historic Category 1 or 2, the director, taking into
consideration the recomrnendations of the historic resources board, has
found that the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s
"Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings" (36 CFR §67,7); and
(c)In the case of a bonus for both seismic and historic rehabilitation that is
proposed to be use on-site, the city council has made the findings set
forth in subsection (b)(8) of this section.
(e)certification of FAR Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in
subsection (a)(1), may be used on the site of the proposed seismic and/or historic
rehabilitation project and a building permit issued therefor only upon satisfaction of
all the requirements in subsection (d) above. Upon determining that the project has
been completed as approved, the director or director’s designee shall issue a written
certification which shall state the total floor area bonus utilized at the site, and the
amount (if any) of remaining floor area bonus which is eligible for transfer to
another site pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter: The certification shall be
recorded in the office of the.county recorder and a copy shall be provided to the
applicant.
As a condition precedent to being credited with ahistoric rehabilitation floor area
bonus whether for use on-site or for transfer, the owner of the site shall enter into an
unsubordinated protective covenant running with the land in favor of the city (or, if
the city is the owner, in favor of a qualified and disinterested third party), in a form
satisfactory to the city attorney, to assure that the property will be rehabilitated and
maintained in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s "Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings," together with the accompanying interpretive
"Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings," as they may be amended
from time to time.
18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights
(a)Purpose
The purpose of this section is to implement the Comprehensive Plan by
encouraging seismic rehabilitation of buildings in Seismic Categories I, II, and III,
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc,doc 16
18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights
and encouraging historic rehabilitation of buildings or sites in Historic Category 1
and 2, and by establishing standards and procedures for the transfer of specified
development rights from such sites to other eligible sites. Except as provided in
subsection (e)(1), this section is applicable only to properties located in the CD
district, and is the exclusive procedure for transfer of development fights for
properties so zoned.
(b)Establishment of Forms
(c)
(d)
(e)
The city may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements,
fees and such other requirements and guidelines as will aid in the efficient
implementation of this chapter.
Eligibility for Transfer of Development Rights
Transferable development rights may be transferred to an eligible receiver site
upon:
(1) certification by the city pursuant to Code Section 18.18.070 of the floor area
from the sender site which is eligible for transfer, and
(2) compliance with the transfer procedures set forth in subsection (h).
Availability of Receiver Sites.
The city does not guarantee that at all times in the future there will be sufficient
eligible receiver sites to receive such transferable development rights.
Eligible Receiver Sites
A site is eligible to be a receiver site only if it meets all of the following criteria:
(1)It is locatedin the CD commercial downtown district, or is located in a
planned community (PC) district if the property was formerly located in the
CD commercial downtown district and the ordinance rezoning the property to
planned community (PC) approves the use of transferable development rights
on the site.
(2)It is neither an historic site, nor a site containing a historic structure, as those
terms are defined in Section 16.49.020(e) of Chapter 16.49 of this code; and
(3)The site is either:
(A)
(B)
located at least 150 feet from any property zoned for residential use, not
including property in planned community zones or in commercial zones
within the downtown boundaries where mixed use projects are
permitted; or
separated from residentially zoned property by a City street with a width
of at least 50 feet, and separated from residentially zoned property by
an intervening property zoned CD-C, CD-S, or CD-N, which
intervening property has a width of not less than 50 feet.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc 17
18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights
(f)Limitations On Usage of Transferable Development Rights
No otherwise eligible receiver site shall be allowed to utilize transferable
development rights Under this chapter to the extent Such transfer would:
(1)Be outside the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result
in a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1 above what exists or would
otherwise be permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is
greater, or result in total additional floor area ofmore than 10,000 square
feet.
(2)Be within the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result
in a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1 above what exists, or would
otherwise be permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever.is
greater, or result in total additional floor area ofmore than 10,000 square
feet.
(3)Cause the development limitation or project size limitation set forth in Code
Section 18.18.040 to be exceeded.
(4)Cause the site to exceed 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0 to 1 FAR
in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts.
(g)Parking Requirements
(h)
The first 5,000 square feet of floor area transferred to a receiver site, whether
located in the CD District or in the.PC District, shall be exempt from the otherwise-
applicable on-site parking requirements: Any additional square footage allowed to
be transferred to a receiver site pursuant to this chapter shall be subj ect to the
parking regulations applicable to the district in which the receiver site is located.
Transfer Procedure
Transferable development rights may be transferred from a sender site (or sites) to
a receiver site only in accordance with all of the following requirements:
(1)An application pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of this code for major ARB review
of the project proposed for the receiver site must be filed. The application
shall include:
(A)A statement that the applicant intends to use transferable development
rights for the project;
(B)Identification of the sender site(s) and the amount of TDRs proposed to
be transferred; and
(2)
(c)Evidence that the applicant owns the transferable development rights or
a signed statement from any other owner(s) of the TDRs that the
specified amount of floor area is available for the proposed project and
will be assigned for its use.
The application shall not be deemed complete .unless and until the city
determines that the TDRs proposed to be used for the project are available for
that purpose.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc 18
18.18.90 Parking and Loading
(3)
(4)
In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section, the
architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section
16.48.120 of this code; however, the proj ect may not be required to be
modified for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in
order to satisfy the criteria for approval under Chapter 16.48 or any specific
requirement of the municipal code.
Following ARB approval of the project on the receiver site, and prior to
issuance of building permits, the director of planning and community
environment or the director’s designee shall issue written confirmation of the
transfer, which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the amount
of TDRs which have been transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in
the office of the county recorder prior to the issuance of building permits and
shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s) of the TDRs
where such owner(s) are other than the applicant.
(i)Purchase or Conveyance of TDRs - Documentation
(2)
Transferable development rights may be sold or otherwise conveyed by their
owner(s) to another party. However, no such sale or conveyance shall be
effective unless evidenced by a recorded document, signed by the transferor
and transferee and in a form designed to run with the land and satisfactory to
the city attorney. The document shall clearly identify the sender site and the
amount of floor area transferred and shall also be filed with the department of
planning and community environment.
Where transfer of TDRs is made directly to a receiver site, the recorded
confirmation of transfer described in subsection (h)(4) shall satisfy the
requirements of this section.
18.18.90 Parking and Loading
The provisions of Chapter 18.83 shall apply within the CD district, except the provisions
of Chapter 18.83 regarding on-site and off-site parking for non-residential uses within an
assessment district wherein properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G financing
pursuant to Title 13. With respect to such uses, the following requirements shall apply in
the CD district in lieu of the requirements in Chapter 18.83:
(a)On-Site Parking Requirement
Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or
any use of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G
financing pursuant to Title 13, shall provide one parking space for each two
hundred fifty gross square feet of floor area, except as may be exempt from such
requirement by the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. The purpose of this
subsection is to regulate the number of parking spaces required. Requirements for
the size and other design criteria for. parking spaces shall continue to be governed
by the provisions of Chapter 18.83.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc 19
18.18.90 Parking and Loading
(b)Exceptions to on-Site Parking Requirement
The requirement for on-site parking provided in subsection (a) of this section shall
not apply in the following circumstances:
(1)The following square footage shall be exempt from the on-site parking
requirement of subsection (a):
(A)Square footage for handicapped access which does not increase the
usable floor area, as determined by Code Section 18.18.060(e);
(B)An increase in square footage in conjunction with seismic or historic
rehabilitation, pursuant to Code Section 18.18.070;
(C) An increase in square footage for buildings not in Seismic Category I,~
II, or II or Historic Category 1 or 2 pursuant to Code Section
18.18.070(a)(1);
(2)
(D)Square footage for at or above grade parking, though such square
footage is included in the FAR calculations in Section 18.18.060(a).
A conversion to commercial use of a historic building in Categories 1 and 2
shall be exempt from the on-site parking requirement in subsection (a),
provided that the building is fifty feet or less in height and has most recently
been in residential use. Such conversion, in order to be exempt, shall be done
in conjunction with exterior historic rehabilitation approved by the director of
planning and community environment upon the recommendation of the
architectural review board in consultation with the historic resources board.
Such conversion must not eliminate any existing on-site parking.
(4)
Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the requirements of subsection (a) of
this section at the time when development Occurs as provided hm:ein: Such
development shall be exempt to the extent of parking spaces for every one
thousand square feet of site area, provided that such parcels were at some
time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter
13.16 or were subject to other ad vaiorem assessments for parking.
No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the
development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for
nonresidential use equal to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site
shown on the engineer’s report for fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond
Plan G financing for parking acquisition or improvements in that certain area
of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking
assessment district entitled, "Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-
Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County
of Santa Clara, State of California," dated October 30, 1978, and on file with
the city clerk. However, square footage which was developed for
nonresidential purposes or which has been used for nonresidential purposes
but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the time of the
engineer’s report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for
this exemption. No exemption from parking requirements shall be available
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc 2O
18.18.90 Parking and Loading
where a residential use changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to
subsection (2).
(c)Off-Site Parking
Parking required by this chapter may be provided by off-site parking, provided that
such off-site parking is within a reasonable distance of the site using it or, if the site
is within an assessment district, within a reasonable distance of the assessment
district boundary and approved in writing by the director of planning and
community environment. The director shall assure that sufficient covenants and
guarantees are provided to ensure use and maintenance of such parking facilities,
including an enforceable agreement that any development occurring on the site
where parking is provided shall not result in a net reduction of parking spaces
provided, considering both the parking previously provided and the parking
required by the proposed use.
(d)In-lieu Parking Provisions
In connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the
CD commercial downtown district, the city shall allocate a number of spaces for
use as "in-lieu parking" spaces to allow development to occur on sites which would
otherwise be precluded from development due to parking constraints imposed by
monetary contribution to the city to defray the cost of providing such parking.
Contributions for each required parking space shall equal the incremental cost of
providing a net new parking space in an assessment district project plus cost for the
administration of the program, all as determined pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of Title
16 of this code, by the director of planning and conmiunity environment, whose
decision shall be final. Only sites satisfying one or more of the following criteria,
as determined by the director of planning and community environment, shall be
eligible to participate in the in-lieu parking program:
(1)Construction of on-site parking would necessitate destruction or substantial
demolition of a designated historic- structure;
(2)The site area is less than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual
configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required
on-site parking;
(3)The site is greater than 10,000 square feet, but of such an unusual
configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required
on-site parking;
(4)The site is located in an area where city policy precludes curb cuts or
otherwise prevents use of the site for on-site parking; or
(5)The site has other physical constraints, such as a high groundwater table,
which preclude provision of on-site parking without extraordinary expense.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc 21
18.18.100 Performance Standards
(e)Underground Parking
Underground parking deeper than two levels below grade shall be prohibited unless
a soils report or engineering analysis demonstrates that regular pumping of
subsurface water will not be required.
18.18.100 Performance Standards
In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall
comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Ordinance.
All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.28 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria
(a)Contextual and Compatibility Criteria
~)_e..v__eJo_pn~en~ in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and
compatible with adj acent development, and shall promote the establishinent of
pedestrim~, oriented desi~,n._
Context
Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationship_~
between the si:te’s deve4opment to adiacent street
surroundina land uses, and on-site or nearby, natural features, such.
as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these ad{acent uses
features ~re strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies.
.(~)The word "context" should not be construedas a desire to rqplicate
existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropri ate trxnsitions
to those surroundinj4s. "Context" is also not specific to
architectural style or desi~_oug~_lz in some instm~ces
relationships ma,v be reinforced by an architectural response.
(2)Co:mpatibilit¥
(A)Compatibilitv is achieved when the a:pparent scale and mass of
new building.s_ is consisten with the pattern of achieving~a
pedestrian oriented desi~.n, and when new construction shares
general, characteristics and establishes design likages v~dth. ~he
overall pattern of buildings so thai the visual. unity of the street is
maintained.
Compatibility_goals may be accompli.shed through various means,
includin~ but n.ot limited to:
(i)fl~e siting, scale, massing, and materials:
~j.i)the rhythmic pattern of the street established b2~_.t_h~_~general
width of the buildings and the spacing between them.;
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc 22
[See Context-Based Design Criteria document; to be incorporated into final ordinance]
(iii)’ the pat~tern of roof lines and projections:
(iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays
and doorways;
(v)the location and treatment of entr .vwavs;
(vi)the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features;
(vii)fiae siting and treatment of parking; and.
(viii)the treatment of landscaping.
(b)Context-Based Design Considerations andFindin~os
In addition to the findings for Architectural Review cont~dned in Section
18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinm~ce, the following additional findin~
applicable in the CD district and subdistricts, as fi~rther illustrated on the
accompan,ving diagrams:
[See Context-Based Design Criteria document; to be incorporated into final
ordinance]
18.18.120 Grandfathered Uses and Facilities
(a)Grandfathered Uses
(1)The following uses and facilities may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall
not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter
18.94:
(2)
(A)Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or
(B)A use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was
temporarily discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before
August 28, 1986; or
(C)Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and
GF combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior tO
August 28, 1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use.
The grandfathered uses in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel,
improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and
occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or
replacement:
(A)shall not result in increased floor area;
(B)shall not shift the building footprint;
(C)shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope,
or any other increase in the size of the improvement;
(D)shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the
exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070;
or
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06- RedlineAttG.doc.doc 23
18.18.120 Grandfathered Uses and Facilities
(E)in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative
office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square, feet in the CD-S or CD-N
district that are deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1), such
remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased
floor area devoted to such Office uses.
(3)Ifa grandfathered use deemed existing pursuant to subsection (1) ceases and
thereafter remains discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it shall be
considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use.
(4)A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1) which is changed to
or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of
a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a
grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to
accommodate a conforming use.
(b)Grandfathered Facilities
(1)Any noncomplying facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when
built, was a complying facility, may remain as a grandfatheredfacility and
shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.94.
(2)The grandfathered facilities specified in subsection (1) shall be.permitted to
remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for
continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling,
improvement, or replacement:
(A)shall not result in increased floor area;
(B)shall not shift the building foot print;
(C)shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope,
or any other increase in the size of the improvement;
(D)shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, exceptpursuant to the
exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070.
ZOU Draft
CD 09 27 06-RedlineAttG.doc.doc 24
Attachment H
COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) AND
SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CS)
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (ft2)
Site Width (ft)
Site Depth (ft)
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft)
Rear Yard (ft)
Interior Side Yard (ft)
Street Side Yard (ft)
25’
½ total
height of
structure
for 2+, or
l O" first
floor/20’
second
floor if
adjacent to
sf res
½ total
height of
structure
for 2+, or
10 ’first
floor/20’
second
floor if
adjacent to
sf res
16’
None required
0’-10’
(depending
on street and
sidewalk) to
create an 8-
12’ effective
sidewalk
width
10’ for
residential
portion; no
requirement
for
commercial
portion
10’ if
adjacent to
existing
residential
25’
½ total
height of
structure
for 2+, or
10 ’first
floor/20’
second
floor if
adjacent to
sf res
½ total
height of
structure
for 2+, or
10 ’first
floor/
20 ’second
floor if
adjacent to
sf res
16"
0’-10’
(depending
on street and
sidewalk) to
create an 8-
12’ effective
sidewalk
width
10’ for
residential
portion; no
requirement
for
commercial
portion
10’ if
adjacent to
existing
residential
Mixed Use Comparison Tables
Page 2
Build-To-Lines
Maximum Site Coverage
Landscape Open Space Coverage
UsableOpen Space
Maximum Height (ft)
Standard
Within 150 ft. of a residential zone
Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting
one or more residential districts or
a residential PC district.
Residential Density (net) (3)
Maximum Residential Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Nonresidential Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Minimum Commercial
Parking
No.
requirement
35%
50 sq fl
balcony," or
l OO sq f!
patio/yard
with
minimum
dimension
8’
10’/45
degrees
side and
rear
0.4:1
0.9:1
No
requirement
18.83
standards
apply
50% of/
frontage built
to setback (1)
33% of side
street built to
"setback 0)
50%
35%
200 sq fl per
unit for 5 or
fewer units
(2); 150 sq ft
per unit for ~6
units or more
(2)
35,(6)
35’
Daylight
plane height
and slope
identical to
those of the
most
restrictive
residential
zone abutting
the lot line
15
0.5:1(4)
0.4:1
0,9:1(4)
Minimum
0.15:1 FAR
18.83
standards
apply
No
requiremen
t
40%
50 sqft
balcony; or
100 sq fi
patio/yard
with
minimum
dimension
8’
10’/45
degrees
side and
rear
0,6,’1
0.4.’1
1.0.’1
No
requiremen
t
18.83
standards
apply
50% of
frontage built
to setback (0
33% of side
street built to
setback (0 "
50%
30%
200 sq ft per
unit for 5 or
fewer units (~);
150 sq ft per
unit for 6
units or more
(2)
50’
Daylight
plane height
and ,slope
identical to
those of the
most "
r~strictive
residential
zone abutting
the lot line
30
0.6:1
0.4il
1.0:1
Minimum
0.15:1 FAR
18.83
standards
apply
ZOU Draft
09/20/06
Mixed Use Comparison Tables
Page 3
(1) 25’ driveway access permitted regardless of frontage
(2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open
spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground; (3) minimum private open space
dimension 6’; and (4) minimum common open space dimension 12’.
(3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the
percent of the site devoted to commercial use.
(4)For sites on E1 Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may
increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.4:1 for nonresidential, 0.6:1 for residential).
ZOU Draft
09/20/06
Attachment I
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Clare Campbell, Planner
Curtis Williams, Chief Planning and
Transportation Official
DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Community Environment
DATE:September 13, 2006
SUBJECT:Zoning Ordinance Update - Study SessionRegarding Commercial Zoning
Districts, Mixed Use Development Standards, and Performance. Criteria
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment
on proposed revisions to the Commercial Zoning Districts, Mixed Use Development Standards,
and Performance Criteria for the Zoning Ordinance Update, as outlined in the August 30, 2006
staff report and attachments.
BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2006, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard staff’s presentation and
public comments regarding revisions to the commercial zoning districts, mixed use standards,
and performance criteria. The Commission provided initial comments and questions related to
the revisions and continued the item to September 13th for further discussion.
DISCUSSION
The September 30, 2006 P&TC staff report describes the proposed revisions to the Zo12fing
Ordinance. While staff has not attempted to respond to all questions from the last study session,
the following outlines some initial responses and clarifications to issues raised by the
Commission and the public:
Commercial Districts
1.Commercial use is generally intended to encompass retail, personal services, eating and
drinking establishments, and hotels. The ordinance will make that clarification.
2.Staff does not believe the IR process is appropriate for commercial development adjacent
to residential zones. Daylight planes, setbacks, and ARB review address that interface for
commercial and industrial sites.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
3.The open space requirements would result in more total usable open space for a 5-unit
project (1,000 square feet) than a 6-unit project (900 square feet). Staff proposes no
change as this provision was adopted by the Council for the PTOD zoning and results in a
very minor discrepancy.
4. Daylight plane and setbacks, as well as performance standards, would apply where
adjacent to .residential zones (not uses). There are very few low-density residential uses in
the commercial zones.
5. Program H-29 in the Comprehensive Plan (Housing Element) would provide for
preservation of rental units in new mixed use projects with three or more units. Currently
there is no mechanism to ensure the affordability of the rental units, however.
6. First source hiring for transportation purposes is a complex issue. Staff will be looking at
that and other TDM approaches as part of the PTOD implementation and on a longer
term basis after the ZOU is adopted.
7.Staff does not support eliminating or substantially modifying the CC(2) zone standards.
Addressing that issue would greatly complicate and lengthen the ZOU revisions, and the
City Council limited the scope of the ZOU program in June. Similarly, the PTOD
standards should not be required for the CC(2); that would be a downzoning in some
cases, and there are appropriate instances in the CC(2) zone where no residential
development is appropriate. We believe there are sufficient safeguards (parking, height,
ARB review, etc.) to preclude objectionable uses or design.
8. S taft intends to propose an increase FAR for hotels, and will consider whether to allow
some of the FAR to be used for "condotel" (condominium units within the hotel) or
office purposes.
9. Staff would prefer to provide flexibility to allow mixed use on Auto Dealer (AD) overlay
sites, but is willing to support prohibiting housing altogether on those sites if the
Commission so desires. Staff does not support restricting housing on sites adjacent to AD
zoned sites.
Mixed Use
10.Staff supports the concept of requiring a minimum percentage or FAR-of commercial
development for a mixed use project, but not necessarily to retain the same amount as
currently exists. Such a requirement could be a discouragement to.allowing flexibility for
enhanced commercial usage (such as a restaurant replacing an obsolete furniture store).
11. Mixed use is allowed on Housing Opportunity Sites (but not required). The zoning on
Housing Opportunity Sites must restrict the use to require liousing, either all residential
or within a mixed use project.
12. Staff does not believe that FAR increases (from 0.9 to 1.0) and height increases (from 35
feet to 40 feet) in E1 Camino Real CN zones should be based on increases in density.
These adjustments are minor and are intended to better reflect the E1 Camino streetscape.
13. Compatibility language similar to SOFA will be included in the context-based design
criteria, as it was in the PTOD chapter.
14. Similar rooftop garden language (including gardens of edible plants) will be included in
the context-based design criteria, as it was in the PTOD chapter.
15.Shared parking is not part of the proposed revisions at this point and will be discussed
when the Parking chapter comes forward.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
16.Staff does not believe an "average" unit size for mixed use is necessary or appropriate in
all cases, and does not recommend adopting such an average as that restriction may limit
the potential for residential use to help underwrite the retail component of a mixed use
project.
17. The determination of setbacks that are greater at comers should be a consideration of the
ARB and comer treatment is outlined in the context-based design criteria.
18. Dry cleaners and spray paint shops and other uses that involve amounts of hazardous
materials requiting reporting and monitoring would not be allowed in a mixed use
configuration, and language will be added to that effect.
Performance Standards
19.Late night usage restrictions will be applied to the CC(2) zone, as well as the CN and CS
zones, where the site is adjacent to a residential zone.
20.Performance standards would apply adjacent to all residential zones, including the multi-
family (RM) zones and residential PC zones.
21. The commercial districts considered in these revisions are not generally a significant
source of hazardous materials resulting in incompatibility with residential uses. The
discussion of hazardous materials focuses mostly on the performance standards, as they
would apply to industrial areas of the City.
22. Staff will be working with the Fire Marshal and the Barron Park neighbors regarding
revisions to the hazardous materials section of the Performance criteria, particularly to
provide additional public input for residents adjacent to businesses that propose use or
storage of extremely hazardous materials.
23. Staffwill also revise the noise section to require acoustic specifications and analysis
sufficient to determine that new equipment will not exceed allowable noise thresholds at
residential property lines.
Key Issues
Staff would appreciate Commission input on the following specific issues:
1.Should a CUP be required for office in the CN and CS zones?
2.Should residential use be prohibited where an Auto Dealer (AD)overlay applies?
3.Should a percentage of FAR for hotels be allowed for condominium or office use?
4,Should an average unit size be required for mixed use development in certain
circumstances, such as when a mixed use parking adjustment is requested?
5.Should mixed use be allowed in the CC zone (Stanford Shopping Center and Town and
Country)?
NEXT STEPS
Staff will prepare a draft ordinance encompassing all of the described components for review and
public hearing by the Commission on September 27, 2006. Upon recommendation from the
P&TC, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council for review and adoption. The
Council is tentatively scheduled to hear this item onOctober 16, 2006.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
COURTESY COPIES
City Council
Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Doug Moran, Barron Park Association
Shed Furman, Midtown Residents Association
Chamber of Commerce
Elaine Johnson
Joy Ogawa
Joe Bellomo
Tony Carraseo
Ken Hayes
Jim Baer, Premier Properties
Roxy Rapp
Bob Peterson
PREPARED BY:Clare Campbell, Planner
REVIEWED BY: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT~DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Chief Planning and Transportation Official
City of Palo Alto Page 4
18.94.070
date established by Section 18.94.070 and ap-
plied to the nonconforming use prior to such
reconstruction or replacement. Said termina-
tion date shall apply to all portions of the site
or structure, including those portions recon-
structed or replaced.
(Ord. 4016 § 44, 1991: Ord. 3048 (part),
1978)
18.94.070 Nonconforming use -
Required termination.
(a) In any district, a nonconforming, non-
residential use occupying a site having facili-
ties thereon valued at less than one thousand
dollars, shall be terminated within five years
from the effective date of this section, or
within five years from the date such use be-
comes nonconforming, whichever d~te is later,
and within such time the improvements .shall
either be removed, or converted or modified to
accommodate a conforming use.
(b) In ar~y district, a nonconforming, non-
residential use of a site not subject to subsec-
tion (a) of this section shall be terminated in
accord with the following provisions and
schedules:
(1). When occupying or using facilities de-
signed and built for residential use, the non-
conforming use shall be terminated within ten
y.ears from July 20, 1978, or within ten years
from the datesuch use becomes nonconform-
ing, whichever date is later, and within such
time the improvements shall either be re-
moved, or converted or modified to accom-
modate a conforming use.
(2) When .occupying or using facilities de-
Signed or built for nonresidential use, the non-
conforming use shall be terminated, and .the
facilities shall be converted or modified to ac-
commodate a conforming use, or shall be re-
moved at or before the time lirnit prescribed in
subdivision (3) of this. subsection; provided,
however, that no such termination, removal, or
conversion shall be required within fifteen
years from July 30, 1978, or within fifteen
years from the date such use became noncon-
forming, Whichever date is later; provided,
however, that uses which were made non-
Attachment J
conforming as a result of the 1974 Fire Zone 1
Study, by Ordinance No. 2777, adopted March
25, 1974, shall terminate on November 23,
1990; and provided, further, that any use made
nonconforming by said Ordinance No. 2777,
the primary purpose of which is to prepare and
deliver food to senior citizens, shut-ins and
others with. limited mobility may remain and
shall not besubject to termination pursuant to
this section. Such uses shall be permitted to
remodel, improve or replace site improve-
ments in accordance with applicable site de~
velopment regulations, provided that. any such
¯ remodeling, improvement or replacement shall
not result in any increased floor ai-ea.
Notwithstanding the dates of termination of
uses required by this subsection (b)(2), there-
quired termination dates of the following uses
shall be as hereinafter set forth:
(A) The nonconfor.ming use(s) of the prop-
erty at 440-460 Page Mill Road for nonprofit
orthomolecular and molecular medical re-
search functions shall terminate on or before
July 20, 1998.
(B) The nonconforming use of ~he property
at 464 Colorado Avenue for a dance studio
and associated parking shall terminate on or
before July 20; 2003.
(C) The nonconforming use of the property
at 440 .Pepper Street for an art studio, special-
izing exclusively in the medium of monotype
printmaking and associated instrtictional uses
shall terminate on or before July 20, 2018.
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to
create a vested right for the nonconforming
uses to remain after July 20, 2003.
(D) The nonconforming use of the property
at 4277 Miranda for a gero-psychiatric skilled
nursing facility shall terminate on or before
January 20, 1994.
(E) The nonconforming use(s) of the prop-
erty at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage
AvenuelOlive Avenue’ for commercial, ware-
house, and storage uses shall terminate on or
before July 16, 2019. Continuance of the non-
conforming uses after July 16, 1999, shall be
subject to the following limitations: (1) retail
uses shall not exceed 60,000 square feet, and
18-203 (supp. No. 5 - 2/5/2004)
18.94.070
(2) truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor
activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00
.a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. weekends. Nothing in the ordinance
codified in this section shall be construed to
create a vested right for the nonconforming
uses to remain after July 16, 1999. Without
limitation with respect to any other authority,
the architectural review board shall be per-
mitted to review, modify and approve the
treatmeiit .of the landscaping parking layout
for the Park Boulevard entrance with regard to
truck access issues.
(F) The noncon~o-rming use of the property
-at 2011 E1 Camino Real for tire sales and in-
stallation shall terminate on or before April
26, 2009.
Such .uses shall be permitted to remodel,
improve or replace site improvements in ac-
cordance with applicable site development
regulations, provided that any such remodel-
ing, improvement or replacement shall not re~
sult in any increased floor area or increase in
lntensit.y of the use, nor any loss of parking.
(3) The following schedule shall .govern
the period of time for termination of noncon-
forming uses specified in subdivision (2) of
this subsection:
Type of Construction
Defined by Building
Code
Type ~ - Totally
noncbmbustible
¯ .Type II - Fire resistive
Type III-
Noncombustible" exterior,
Age of Structure
Computed From Date
of Construction
¯35 years.
35 years
30 years
combustible interior ,
Type IV - Heavy timber 30 years
Type II-Nonrated 25 years "
T,/ve V - Wood frame 20 years
(4) Nothing contained in this subsection
shall extend or otherwise modify any termina-
tion date provided by any previously existing
ordinance.for any.use which became noncon-
forming under such ordinance prior to the ef-
fective date of this section. Such termination
dates for such previously existing noncon-
forming uses are incorporated in. this section
and shall remain in effect.
(c) The director of planning and commu-
nity environment shall determine those prop-
erties the use Of which were lawfully existing
uses permitted or conditionally permitted, in
the districts in which they were located imme-
diately prior to July 20, 1978, and which uses
were rendered nonconforming by reason of
the adoption of this title on July 20, 1978, and
those properties which, prior to July 20, 1978,
were located in an R-1 district which was im-
posed by reason of annexation of the property
to the City without benefit of prezoning, the
uses of .which were lawfully’ existing uses
permitted or conditionally permitted operating
subject to a conditional use permit prior to the
date of annexauon. Written notice of such
nonconformance shall be mailed to the owner
of record of each such property and to the oc-
cupant of the property. Within two years of
the date of mailing of such notice, any owner
of such property, lessee o£ such property .with
the written consent of owners, or purchaser of
such property when acting pursuant to a con-
tract of sale in writing duly executed and ac-
kn0wledged by both the buyer and the owner
of record, may apply to have such property
excepted from the termination provisions of
this section. Said application may be made to
the director.of planning and community envi-
ronment in suchform as may be prescribed by
the director of planning .and community envi-
ronment. Said application shall include, but
not be limited to, a statement of the location
and size of the property, the nature of its use
on July 20, 1978,. a statement of reasons es-
tablishing that the use is compatible with and
will not be detrimental to the uses .designated
in the Comprehensive Plan for the surround-
ing area and properties, a map of the subject
property indicating the location of all parcels
of real property within a distance Of 91.4 me-
ters (three hundred feet) from the exterior
boundary of the subject property, a list as
shown in the last equalized assessment roll, of
the name and address of the owner of record
of each such parcel, and such other informa-
tion as may be required by the director of
planning and community environment.
(S~pp. r~o. 5 - 2/5/20o4) 18-204
16.20.110 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE Attachment K
erected in PC districts shall be governed by the
rules applicable to residential districts as set forth
in this subsection.
(7) Signs on landscaped freeways. Not-
withstanding anything elsewhere contained in this
chapter, no sign shall be erected on any properly
adjacent to a section of landscaped freeway, ex-
pressway or any other landscaped limited access
street or highway in such a .way as to be viewed
by persons traveling on such landscaped freeway,
expressway or any other landscaped limited
access street or highway except when such sign is
used exclusively:
(A) To advertise the sale or lease of the
property upon which the sign is situated; or
(B) To designate the name of the owner
or occupant of the premises upon which the sign
is situated, or to identify such premises.
(Ord 3559 § 1 (part), 1984) "
16.20.110 Fuel price signs.
(a) Every person or business organization
offering for sale or selling any gasoline or other
motor vehicle fuel to the public from any place of
business shall erect a sign which indicates the
actual price per gallon, including all taxes at
which such gasoline or other motor vehicle fuel is
currently being offered for sale or sold. Such
sign shall be clearly visible from any street or
highway adjacent to such place of business. If
more than one grade of gasoline or other motor
vehicle fuel is offered for sale or sold, the price of
at least two grades of such gamline or fuel shall
be indicated on such sign.
(b) The sign required by this section shall
conform to the requirements of Article 8 (com-
mencing with Section 20880), Chapter 7, Divi-
sion 8-of the Business and Professions Code and
the other requirements of this chapter, but is ex-
empt from the reqhirements of Chapter 16.48
(Architectural Review) and Chapter 18.82 (Site
and Design Review) of this Code. The permit
required by Section 16.20.020 shall be issued
without fee.
(c) If compliance with this section would
cause the total area of lawfully erected signs to
exceed the area allowed by other provisions of
this chapter, one freestanding sign not over five
feet in height and three feet by four feet in dimen=
sion may be erected, but only in order to comply
with this section. Such sign may have .two faces
if both faces are back-to-back in approximately
parallel planes.
(Ord. 3559 §1 (part), 1984)
16.20.120 Freestanding signs.
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter,
every freestanding ’sign shall comply with the
requirements of this section.
(a) Freestanding signs over five feel Free-
standing signs over five feet in height shall be
permitted only on nonresidential properties in the
GM zones and on E1 Camino Real in the CN and
CS zones and for service stations, .restaurants and
shopping centers elsewhere.
(1) Area and height. The maximum area
and height of such signs is set forth in Table 21 .
(2) Location. Every sign shall be. wholly
on the owner’s property
(3) Number. Subject to the provisions of
Section 16.20.170, there may lx one such sign
for each frontage and one additional sign for any
portion of frontage in excess of two hundred fifty
feet. The size of any additional sign shall be
determined from Table 21 by counting as frontage
that portion thereof which is in excess of two
hundred fifty feet. In the case of shopping centers
and.other multiple occupancies having a common
frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be that
of the shopp’mg center or commonly used parcel
and not the frontages of the individual businesses
or occupancies.
(4) Construction. In addition to the require-
ments of Section 16.20.190, every such sign
shall be constructed wholly of metal,
incombustible plastic or other approved fire-
resistant material.
1 Table 2, referred to herein, can be found at the end
of this chaplex.
1640
16.20.270 PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
Table 2
Allowable Sign Area
NOTE:
THESE ARE MAXIMUM DESIGN DIMENSIONS,
AND MAY BE REDUCED IN THE
DESIGN ~LEVIEW PROCESS
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 16,48
Freestanding signs over 5".hig.h
7O (Max.
Frontage of lot ir linear feel:
Applicable to non-residential properties in the GM zone
and El Camino Real in the CN and CS Zone~: Also app|icable
to restaurants, service statlons and shopping centers
in other zones
For requirements affec~ine freestanding sign~ generally, see
Section 16.20.160.
For computation of sign area generally, see Section 16.20.010(11).
1648
BUILDING REGULATIONS 16.20.270
Table 2
Allowable Sign Heigh:NOTE:
THESE APsE MAXIMUM DESIGN DIMENSIONS,
AND MAY BE REDUCED IN THE
DESIGN RZVIEW PROCESS
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 16,48
Freestanding signs over 5" high
I (I I
,,, -2s
1 !
!
Frontage of lot in linear feet
Applicable to non-residential properties in the GM zones
and El Camino Real in the CH and CS zones. Also for service
stations, restaurants, and shopping centers in other zones.
1649
Attachment L
What is Mixed Use?
Overview
The Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan ~pecifies:
o Mixed Use catdgory including Live/Work, Retail/Office,
Residential!Retail and Residential/Office development;
o Purpose is to increase the types of spaces available for living and
working, to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas,
and to endourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings
designed to provide a high q.uality pedestrian-oriented street
environment;
t~ Mixed use may include permitted activities mixed within the same
building (vertical) or within separate buildings on the same site or
on nearby site§ (horizontal);
Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same
building where they earn their livilihood usually in professional or
light industrial activities;
"Verlice! mixed use" typically consists of ground floor
commercial space with residential and/or
office uses directty above¯
ta Retail/Office, Residential/Retail, and Residential/Office provide
variations to Mixed Use with Retail typically onthe ground floor
and Residential on upper floors;
Design standards will be developed to e~;ure that development is
.compatible and contributes to the character of the street and
neighborhood;
~ Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although Residential/R~tail
and Residential/Office development hlong transit corridors or near Menlo Sguaro in Menlo Park is an example of"horizontal mixed use," where residential uses aremulti-modal centers will range up to 2.0 FAR (and up to 3.0 FAR located adjacent to commercial uses.
possible in "areas resistant to revitalization"). The FAR above 1.15 rather than directly above,
will be used for residential purposes (L-12);
o Encourage mixed-use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and
neighborhood vitality (HousingPolicy H-4);
~Encourage the development of housing on parking lots by adopting incentives that will lead to housing production
while maintaining the required parking (Housing Policy H-10).
Intent
Mixed use development is a key component to a land use strategy that improves housing options and affordability,
reduces traffic congestion, makes more efficient use of existing infrastructure, and creates more livable communities.
Communities with a well integrated mix of uses function differently, and more efficiently, than communities with large
amounts of segregated single-use development. People have the choice of carrying out everyday tasks close to home or
work, with options to walk or bike rather than drive.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
Mixed use projects also allow a more efficient use of resources.
Complementary uses can share parking facilities where demand periods
are at different times of day, and can benefit from amenities such as open
space that serves users of several uses. Mixed use projects offer the
potential to create dynamic, interesting places, and ultimately be a part of
a more sustainable city as residences, services, and workplaces are within
close proximity to each other.
Furthermore, mixed Use development allows opportunities for
incorporating uses that may be difficult to accommodate in existin
neighborhoods (particularly lower density residential neighborhoods).
The needto provide additional housing and alternative use
opportunities (such as live/work) is a community goal, but can be
difficult to achieve in practice; new mixed use development in less
intense commercial areas offers an approach to accommodate these
uses while protecting the existing residential neighborhoods.
Considerations
Mixed use projects are inherently more complex than single-use projects
because of the different space needs of different uses such as access, open
¯ space, privacy, and parking. There are also numerous considerations
related to the mix of uses, including the proportion of uses, the physical
relationship between uses, and the compatibility of uses to each other,
Additional considerations
u Vertical mixed use vs. horizontal mixed use
o Minimum commercial space requirements for viability
o Parking standards and policies
o Appropriate FAR, density and height increases for mixed use
.components and how they are applied, e.g., to the entire site or just
the mixed use portion.
u Emphasis on residential as a primary component of mixed use
Mixing USeS together is not effective if the uses are not
well integrated or complementary (upper photo).
Consideration needs to be given to the qualities that are
necessa~t for the success of each use, such as
orientation to the street and character of the spaces, as
well as cresting a positive relationship between uses.
COMMERCIAL USES
On larger mixed use projects, commercial uses often
represent only a portion o| the site.
Whether mixed uses should be allowed (as an option) or required in certain districts or on certain sites,
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
Preliminary Policy Options
Three options are outlined below to reflect different degrees of implementation of these concepts:
Comprehensive Plan Option: Basic Implementation (Recommended)
Mixed use projects should be well integrated, whether vertically or horizontally, to create a synergy between the uses and
the neighboring area, and a significant residential component is generally preferred. Mixed use projects should include:
Street-oriented ground floor commercial uses, generally with residential uses above, but allowing for office/retail
and live/work or other combinations in select locations;
Maximum setbacks (build-to lines) to bring the building facade close to the street and the pedestrian;
Minimum commercial space floor area to ensure viability;
Minimum commercial floor-to-ceiling height to ensure viability of the commercial space;
Provisions for integration with the surrounding sites and within the site via pathways, open spaces, and
landscaping;
~Allow for shared parking credit where parking characteristics of the uses are complementary;
Q Allow mixed-use zoning as an option within certain districts, in conjunction with or as an area-wide or site-
specific overlay (e.g., transit oriented).
o Increases in FAR, density, and height should be tied primarily to increased ~esidential use and affordable housing,
and to a lesser extent, to the provision of pedestrian-oriented retail.
Comprehensive Plan Option: Minimal Implementation
Mixed use projects may have any of the four use combinations specified in the Comprehensive plan (Live/Work.
Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office), requiring integration of uses with pathway and open space
provisions, but little if any shared parking credit and little incentive for residential or retail components. Application of
mixed use-criteria would remain optional to the property owner.
Comprehensive Plan Option: OPtimum Implementation
Similar to Recommended Option, but withresidential mixed use required (rather than optional) in certain areas;
minimum residential densities required to gain increased FAR, density or height; and further reduction in parking
requirements, based on more ambitious shared parking assumptions.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
SAMPLE MIXED USE PROTOTYPE
6,500" sf (65’ x 100~) site., CN mixed use residential/commercial ¯surface a6d tuck-under parking
This prototype shows a potential mixed use
prototype for a relatlvdy small (6,500 sq fi) parcel
in a CN commercial zone. It features two
residential units above a small ground floor
commercial space.
FAR, lot coverage, parking ratios, and residential
.density all march existing.C\ and RM-15 (which
apply to CN mixed use) standards. However, in
order to bring the prgtotype closer to
Comprehensive Plan objectives, the prototype
makes the following changes to the CN/RM-15
standards:
1.Reduce the frqnt setback/bring the building up
to the street. This brings the ground floor
commercial space to a better position, up to the
sidewalk, and allows the building to better
relate to the street and contribute to a more
continuous aCrontage. It also brings the building
further away from uses.to the rear, such as
existing residential uses.
2.Eliminate side setbacks and daylight planes:
retain tear setback and daylight pla~¢. The
elimination of side setbacks and daylight planes
is consistent with the pattern of other
commercial buildings in the neighborhood
commercial district, It allows the building to
have better prol~0rti0ns and more usable
commercial and residential space, and fit m
better with the character of the commercial land
use zone. The revised setbacks allow both the
commercial and residential spaces to be larger,
making the commercial space more viable and
the residential uniti more livable.
3. Usable open space. The nature of usable open
space is different in mixed use buildings than in
exclusively residential projects, Mixed use
buildings tend to have plazas and private
balconies and landscaped decks. ln Sm£1er
projects, the proportion of usable 0pen’space is
¯ relafiv.ety less than in larger projects, but should
be well-located and sized. In this prototype, the
residential units have both private balconies and
~idjacent ’shared roof deck.
\\
\
\
Van HeterWIIliarns Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
Attachment M
INTRODUCTION TO URBAN DESIGN PROTOTYPES
City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Update
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
December 18, 2002
INTRODUCTION.TO URBAN DESIGN PROTOTYPES
City of Pale Alto Zoning Ordlr~ance Update
This report contains a series of urban ’design prototypes showing a range of sites and building types that -
may be evaluated in the upda.te of the Palo Alto Zonin~ Ordinance.
ThEre are a total of seven prototypes in this report:
¯Prototype 1 - CN commercial/residential mixed use
¯Prototypes 2 and_ 5_ - Village Residential
¯Proto.type 4 - RM-30 multlfamily
¯~..LO_L0..~yp_e~ -Downtown c0mmercial/residential mixed use
¯prototypes 6 and 7 - Neighborhood center commerchal/residential ~nixed use
Each prototype includes two scenarios, The first aims to conform to Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies while strictly following existing zoning regulations. These scenarios are labeled with an "A"
(1A, 2A, 3A, etc.). The second scenario makes
changes to the existing regulations to better.
achieve the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. These scenarios are labeled
with a "B" (IB, 2B, fiB, etc.); Each prototype is
illustrated with a site plan .and an axonometric
drawing, together with ext descriptions that
discuss how the zoning regulations impact the
designs.
The relevant data for each prototype is
summarized in a table. In the middle of each
table is a summary of existing zoning regulations
for reference. This side-by-side comparison
allows one to see how making changes to some of
the.regulations can impact buildi~ig programs,
and I~ives guidance to which standards might be
considered for revision and which should remain
unchanged.
The seven prototypes in this report are meant to
show the range of site and building types that
may be evaluated in the future, and are not
intended to reflect all possibilities. For each
prototype, a number of variations would be
possible based on variations in construction type,
parking arrangement, and program and design
objectives. These variations should be identified
and. prioritized in the next phase of this study.
Each protot~.pe Includes two scenarios: the first (the "A"
scenario) follows existing zoning regulations. The
second (the"B" scenario") makes changes to zonlhg
regulations to better reflect Comprehensive Plan goals.
The description sheets for each prototype pair are
accompanied by a data sheet that summarizes the key
data, with the exlsdng regulations shown In the middle
of the sheet for reference.
Van Me~erWllllams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc,
COHPREHEN$1VE PLAN: NEW LAND USES
~omprehenslve Plan Policy L-13 calls for an evaluation of "alternatiVe types of housing that increase density and
provide more diverse housing oploortunlties. "
Village Residential
¯ Described as duplexes, to’wnhouses, courtyard housing, second units, and. small lot single family homes.
. Calls for amending zoning regulations to permit residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet where smaller
lots would be compatible with the neighborhood.
¯ Calls for evaluating the option of putting multiple small homhs on-a lot instead of one large home.
Mi~ed Use
Calls for the creation of four new mixed use zoning types:
-"Live/Work" combination of’livlng area and offce, retail, or light industrial in the same space;
-"Rerail/0ffce";
-"Resldentiai/Retail";
-"Residen tlal/Off ce"
Calls for evaluation .of effectiveness of existing incentives that encourage mixed use and residential
development on commercially zoned land, and determine additional incentives to h’e provided.
Encourage the development ofhouslng on parking lots by adopting incentives that will lead to housing "
p~oduction while maintaining required parking.
Translt-Oriented Residential
¯ .While type ofunlt or building is not described, calls for consideration of minimum density standards.
¯ Design guidelines should be developed that ensure that such housing is .compatible with the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue centers where it may be permitted.
¯ Housing Program H-1 calls for increased housing density (20-25 unitslacre) immediately surrounding
commercial areas and neighborhood centers served by public transportation,
Multifamily (gdneral, but woul.d apply to any of the above)
Multifamily buildings, entries, and outdoor spaces should be designed so that each unit has a clear relationship
to a public street, ¯
Housing Program H-2 calls for consideration of minimum housing densities for multifamily zones.
Housing Program H-~3 calls for evaluatlon of~oning incentives such as reduced parking or open space
requirements, density bonuses, or reduced lot coverage standards to encourage the development of diverse
housing types including smaller, more affordable units suitable for familieswith children. "
Neighborhood Commercial
Zoning requirements revised to better address land use transitions,[ Existing zoning and permit regulatlons revised as n~eded to minimize constraints to adap.tive reuse,
particularly in retail areas.
¯ Zoning and other regulations revised as needed’ to encourage the revitalization of aging retail areas.
¯ Zoning Ordinance revised to require parkingbehind buildings rather than in front of them.
Parking .
¯ Housing Program H-6 calls for modifying parking requirements to allow higher densities and reduced housing
cc~sts in areas appropriate for reduced parking requirements.
¯ Parking requlr~ments should be qvaluated for specific uses. Design criteria should be developed based on
standard somewhere between average and peek conditions.
Van MeterWIIIlams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
IA: cN/cs HIXED uSE Existing Regulations Prototype
6,500 sf (65’ x IO0’).Slte ¯ CN mixed use residential/commerclai " sureace parking
Scenario 1.A consists of a mixed-use building with
one or two residential units over.a small
commercial space, with surface parking behind,
The main determining factors are the allowable
lot coverage, providing space for the parking and
driveway, and the daylight triangles on the sides.
With the parking using up nearly half of the site,
and the bui.lding setback 25 feet for the required
arterial setback, there is llttle room left for the
commercial space. At just 380 square feet, it is
not viable for most uses.
apartments, Alternatively, they could be
combine..d to form a single 900 squa.re foot one- ¯
or.two:bedroom unit. The size of the units is
limited by the allowable site coverage, reduced
further by the side Setbacks find daylight planes.
It does not make much difference whether the site
is adjacent to existing residential: the sideyard
daylight j~lands would be relatively similar in
either case, and the building is far enough to the
front of the site to not be impacted by the rear
daylight plane.
The residential units are also very small. At 450
square feet each, they could only be studio
Van MeterWilllams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
I B: ¯CN/CS HIXED USE Comprehensive Plan Prototype
6,500 sf (65’ x 100’) site ¯CN mixed use residentla!/commerclal ° suHace and tuck-under parking
Scenario 1B maihtaln~ the same’bUilding program
as Scefiario IA: .two r~sidential units above ground
floor cqmmercial s.pace. FAR, lot coverage,
parking rhtios, and residential density are all
consistent with existing CN and RM-15
standards.
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives, Scenario 1 .B makes the following
changes to the CN/RM-15 standards:
1.Rrduce the front setback/bring the building up
~o the str.ee~. This brings the ground floor
commercial space to a better, position,up to the
sidewalk, ~nd allows the building to better
relate to the street and contribute to.a more
continuous frontage. It also brings the building
fu’rther array from uses.to the rear, such as
existing residential uses.
2.E!imlnate side setbacks and daylightplanes:
is consistent with the pattern of other buildings
in the neighborh cmd commercial district. It
allows the building, to have better proportions"
and more usable commercial and residential
space. Both the commercial and residential
spaces can he larger, making the commercial
space more viable and the residential uh-its more
livable.
3.Reduction in amount ~f usable open space.
Usable open space for the residential units is.
provided t.hrough a common roof deck adjacent
to the units and with. private balconies f.o~ each
unit. This distribution allows the open space tb
have better proximity to the residential units,
and to be more in proportion to the" number of
residential units on the site.
All other CN.and RM-15 sta.ndards remain
unchanged.
retain rear setbacE and i~a.vli_uht plane.~ The
elimination of side setbacks and daylight planes
Van Heter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
¯2A:’.Vi LLAG E RESi DENTIAL Existing Regulations Prototype
! 7,000 sf. (I 00’ x 170’) site o Multifamily Zoning District., attached garage parking
This is the’flrst of b,vo prototypes for a 17,000 sq
ff site with ~is.ting residential uses to the side and
rear..Because the are no existing zoning’standards
for Village Residential, the RM~15 zoning
stan.dards have been adopted for the program.
Scenario 2A includes five 2-bedroom units, both
detached and attached.- Each ufiit includes a two-
car garage, and there are two guest parking spaces
at the rear of the site. Conceivably this plan
could be divided into lots.
In this scenario, the forms of the buildings are
greatly impacted by the sideyard setbacks and
daylight planes t~quired in the RM-15 zoning for
projects adjacent to existing residential uses.
Second stories are. set back 20 feet, crea~ing space
that is only wide ~nougli fo/two relatively small
bedrooms side by side. The" attached two-car
. garages allov~ the second stories to extend ove~: the
garage and be as large as possible, but because the
garage space is counted towards the FAR, the FAR
ii maximized with only five units, ra.ther than the
six units that would otherwise be allowed for a site
of this size in an RM-15 district.
Us’able open space includes yards to the rear of
each unit, as well as a common green space at the
tear of the site. The need to provide two on-slte
guest parking spaces reduces the size of the
common green space somewhat.
Van HeterWllllams Pollack
Urbsworks; Inc,
2B: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL .ComPrehensive Plan Prototype
17,000 sf (100’ x 170’) site ¯ ’ MiJItlfamily Zoning District * attached garage;hnd surface parking
Scenario 2B maintains a similar program and
building pattern as Scenario 2A, with five
detached units, each with an attached garage.
One of the units includes an attachdd 400. sq ft
in-law unit over the garage, bringing the number
of uniti up to six. This is accompllshed by
providing all but one unit one-car garages, rather
than two-car, and providing the second spaces in
small ~urface spaces adjacent to the unit.
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives, Scenario 2.B makes the following
changes to theRM-15 standards:
1. Morph the RM-15 setback ~tandards with those
of the RM-1 district. Since village residential is
meant to take on qualities that are compatible
wi~h existing single: family ~elghborhoods.
This allows larger, more usable floorplans,
particularly on the secbiad stories. The setbacks
".and daylight planes shown in this scenario are
identical to those of the" R-1 regulations.
Eliminating the 0n-site guest parking -.
requirerrient. The shared driveway and
clustered development maximizes street frontage
for on-street guest parking. This allows all the
units to have two bedrooms, with two spaces
per unit (one for the accessory unit).
Alternatively, the parking could be reduced to
createa larger common green space.
All other RM-15 standards remain unchanged.
Van MeterWtllia ms Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
3A: VI LLAG E R ESID ENTIAL Existing Regula.tions Prototype
17,000 sf (100’ X 170’) site ¯ Nultffamily Zoning District ¯ attached garageand Surface parking
Scenario 3A aims to create a cottage cluster
orietited arounda central green common. The
most significant difference, between this scenario
and Scenario 2A is that much of the paddng is
pro.v.ided in’a common surface lot, rather than in
iridividual attached garages for each unit. This
allows an additional unit to be accommodated on
the site within the allowable FAR, and allows the
common green space to be more sizable and
centrally located.
Th?ee of the units include two (or possibly three)
bedrooms, and three units have one bedroom with
a small loft~ Two of the units have attached two-
car garages, and the remaining parking (including
guest parkihg) is grotiped in the common lot.
The one bedroom units each haye 1.5 spaces per
unit.
Like Scenario.2A, the forms of the bf~ildings are.
greatly impacted by the sideyard setbacks and"
daylight planes required in the RM-15 zoning for
proiects adjacent to existing residential uses.
Second stories are set back 20 feet, constraining
second story space.. .
Van MeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc,
3B: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL’ Comprehensive,Plan Prototype
17,000 sf(100’ x 170’) site ,. Multifamlly Zoning District .o attached garage and surface parking
Scenario 5B maintains ~ similar program and site
(~lan as Scenario 3A, .wi~h sixdetached and
attached units, and a combination- of attached
garages and common surface parking,
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives, Scenario 3.B makes the follo~cing
.changes to theRM-15 standards:
1. Morph the RM-15 setback standards with those
of the RM-1 district. Since village residential is
meant to take on qualities that are compatible
with existing singl~ family, neighborhoods.
Like Scenario 3A, this allows larger, more usable
floorplans,particularly on the second stories. In
this ca~e, it allows each unit to have two
bedrooms, and some units to p.ogsibly have
three bedrooms. The setbacks .and day!ight
planes shown in this scenario are identical .to ¯
those of the R- 1 regulations, ’
2.Eliminate the on-site gues~ parking
~. The shared driveway and
clustered development maximizes street frontage
for on-street guest parking. This allows all the
units to have at least two bedrooms, with two
spaces per unit. Alternatively, the parking could
be reduced to create a larger common green
space.
All other RM-15 standards remain unchanged.
Van MeterWItliams Pollack
Urbswo~ks, inc.
4A: .RM-3 0 PI U LTIFAPI ILY Existing Regui,ations Prototype
17,000 sf (100’x 170’) site ¯ RM-30 Zoning Dlstrlc~ ¯ seml-~.el~ressed parking
This prototype uses the same 17,000 sq ft site as
the Village REsidential scenarios (Scenarios 2 and
3), except with/he RM-3.0 standards. Nine units
are allowed under RM,30, as opposed to the 6
allowed in the RM-15-based Village Residential
site. This prototype is based on semi-depressed
underground parking, with "two levels Of
residential units’above. Because the podium is
serni-depressed~ the garage space is counted
towards the’0.75 FAR that is allowed with semi-’
depressed, attached or tuck-under parking. The
restilt is a small apartment or condominium.
building with eight one-bedroom units,
Counting the parking toWards the FAR is the
greatest Constraint in "this icenario. The FAR is
max.imiged at 0.75; but only a portion of the site
is built upon. This results in a reduction in either
the number or sizes of the units, and creates a
disprop~rdo.nally large amount of open space.
While ample, well-designed and well-located open
space is fiecessary and desirable, in this case the
amount is very large compared to the number and
sizes of the residential units.
Van Me~erWllllams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
413:RM-30 I~IULTIFAPIILY " Comprehensive Plan Prototype
17,000 sf (10ft x 170’) ~ite ¯ RM-30 Zoning District ¯ semi-depressed parking
In this scenario, eight townhouses are built over a
s~mi-depressed pa.rking podium. This is a
building’prototype commonly found in other
nearby .communities.
To bring the prototype closer to ComprehensivePinn objectives and allow this building prototype,
Scenario 4.B makes the following changes to the
RM-~O standards:
1. Do not count the semi-depressed garage area
towards the FAR. A semi-depressed parking
¯ podiums is a practical and less costly alternative
to underground parking, and does not represent
the same overall mass and bulk as a full
building level. When properly detailed ~vith
stoops, stairways, walls, and landscaping, the
expos.ed portion of the podium can either blend
with the landscape architecture of the site,
and/or’form an architectural base for the
building. By hOt’counting.the podium towards
FAR, the overall usable living space can be
increased, which allows units with better
proport!ons and sizes, and a better utilization of
the site.
2.Reduction in front yard.setback. This may be
something that varies based on the project
context: "in a more urban setting, such as E1
Camino Real, it may make sense to bring the
building up to the sidewalk similar to the
commercial buildings. Althot~gh the arterial
setback was originally conceived m create a
buffer for residential uses along an arteri~, there"
are now many good area examples of residential
buildings built closer to busy streets (such as 10
feet), so the 25-foot setback may be a bit
excessive. In a residential context, match.ing or
approximating the residential setback might be
desirable. In this example, the front yard
setback is reduced to 15 feet to allow the.
building to better relate to the street/
All other RM-30 standards remain unchanged.
Van MeterWIIIlams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc,
5B: DOWNTOWN HIXED USE ComPrehensivePlan Prototype
i2,000 sf (100’x "120’) site ° CD-C mixed use residential/commercial ° unde~gro,undparking
Scenario 5B maintains a similar program as
Scenario 5A, except with additional residential
space.
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives, Scenario 5.B makesxhe following
changes to the CD-C/RM-40 standards:
1.]vlodify &e side daylight planes to correspond
to the adjacent uae~ This scenario eliminates
the’daylight plane adjacent to the commercial
building, but maintains the dayliglit plane
¯ adjacent to the residential building
2.Modify tl~e reauirement to match the frontage
setback with the ad!acent residential use.
"Rather than changing the first 150 feet of side
street frontage (in this case, the entire frontage)
.tO march the adjacent RM-30 site, this scenario
takes an average of ~he two adjacent setbacks for
thefrontage within 50 feet of the RM-15 site.
In this case, the building is set back 10 feet,
(which represents the average 6fzero on one
side and the 20-foot RM-30 setback on the
other side), which crdates a transition between’
the residential RM-30 site and the commercial
street-oriented" character of the CD-C district.
3.Modi .fy tbe. requirement t6 reduce height within "
150 feet of resldential. In this case, the 150
foot distance is reduced to 50 feet, which seems
reasonable considering the context.-This could
be a contingdnt upon desig.n review to ensure
compatibility between the specific buildings.
4.Allow more flexibility, between maximum
commerdal and residential FAR’s. In this case,
there is still a substantial amount of commercial
floor area, but the residential FAR is allowed to
exceed 1.0 as long as the overall building does
not exceed the 2.0 maximum. This allows a
greater number of units and" a better mix of unit
sizes.
All other CD-C/RM-40 standards remain
unchanged.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
5B: DOWNTOWN HIXED USE ¯ Comprehensive-Plan Prototype
2,000 sf (I 00’ x 19-0’1 site ¯ CD-C mixed use residential/comn~erci~l ¯ undePgro,und parking
Scenario 5B maintains a similar program as
Scenario 5A, except with additional residential
~pace.~
To bring the prototype closer to Comprehensive
Plan objectives, Scenario 5.B makes.the following
changes to the CD-C/RM~40 standards:
1. Modi .fy (h.e side daylight planes to correspond
to the adjacent use2 This scenario eliminates
the’ daylight plane adjacent to the commercial
building, but maintains the dayliglit plane
adjacent to the residential building
½.]Vlodify tl~e requirement to match the frontage
setback with the ad!acent residential use.
"Rather than changing the first 150 feet of side
st.reet frontage (in this case, the entire frontage)
.to match the adjacent RM-30 site, this scenario
takes an average of dae two adjacent setbacks for
thefrontage within 50 feet of the RM-15 site.
In this case, the building is set back 10 feet,
(which represents the average 6f zero on one
side and the 20-foot RM-30 setback on the
Other side), which crdates a transition between
the residential RM-50 site and the commercial
street-orlented" character of the CD-C district.
Modify.. ihe. requirement t6 reduce height within
150 feet’of residential. In this case, the 150
foot distance is reduced to 50 feet, which seems
reasonable considering the context.-This could
be a contingdnt upon design review to ensure
compatibility between the specific buildings.
4.Allow more flexibility between maximum
commercial and residential FAR’s. In this case,
there is still a substantial amount of commercial
floor area, but the residential FAR is allowed to
exceed 1.0 as long as the overall building does
not ~xceed the 2.0 maximum. This allows a
greater number of units and" a better mix of unit
sizes,
All other CD-C/RM-40 standards remain
unchanged.
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
6A: NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Existing Regulations Prototype
HIXED USE,’RESIDENTIAL EMPHASIS
78.75Osf (.4.1 acre) site ° CN mixed use resi~lential/commercial - surface, tuck-under and
underbround parking
This prototype together w.ith Scenario 7 considers
the re-use of an approximately zi acre
neighborhood commercial site. This scenario
provides the greatest amount of residential .
development allowed by the .50 FAR, with a
mixed use c0mmercial/reSidential building at the
frdnt of the ~ite. Although some bf the site is
vertical mixed use, overall the site is
predominantly horizontal mixed use. This
prototype has been modeled on similar projects in
the area~ and is meant to reflect what might be
expected in the existing development climate.
The most significant constraint on this prototype
is the RM215 two-story height limit. It would be
unusual, if not unhe~ird of, to find a larger-scale
mixed use project such as this With only two
stories. Even. the tuck-under rowhouses that
. comprise much of this scenario would more likely
have two and a half or three stories. Most
significandy, the two-story height limit creates a
constraint that makes it impossible to reach the
maximum allow.ed FAR. Because the maximum
site coverage is 35%, but only two stories are
allowed, ’the maximi~m FAR that could actually be
realized is 0.70, rather tha~ the 0.90 that the
regulations specify.
In this scenario, the maximum residential FAR of
0.5 together with the site coverage limit creates a
ceiling with part of the development program. It
may be desirable to add even more residential
development to this prototype, but more would
not be allowed under existing regulations.
Additional commercial development would be
allowed, however, but it is uncertain whether
there would be demand for additional commercial
space; considering the relatively large amount of
underu’tilized retail space that already exists in
many parts of the ’city~-
Significant for larger sites, this scenario also
creates blocks of development that are i~tended to
reinforce the existing blockpattern and scale of.
the surrounding neighborhood. Connections to "
existing streets are made where possible.
Van MetorWIIIlams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
6B: NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
MIXED USE, RESIDENTIAL EMPHASIS
Comprehensive Plan Prototype
.. 178.750 sf (4. I acre.) site ¯
underground parking
CN mixed’use resldentlal/commerclal ° surface, tuck-under and
Scenario 6t3 maintains a similar site plan
organization as 6A, but with a greater number and
variety of residential units. The scenario makes
the fbllowing changes to the CN/RM-I 5
~tandards:
].Allow three_stories oR buildings that include
residential uses. Permitting three stories will
allow more viable mixed use buildings and
greater flexibility in design of medium-c~ensity
residential units such as t0wnl~ouses. It would
also ,llow the FAR to increase closer to the
allowed 0.90 while maintaiiaing a 35% lot
coverage." In some areas (particularly mixed use
buildings with ground floor commercial space),
it might also be desirable to raise the height
limit to 3.5 feet, to allow’a 15 foot height for
the commercial space and have two levels of
residential use above. In any place where height
might be raised, prox.imity to existing residential
uses needs to be carefully considered.
2.Altow fle~ibill .ty between the amount of
commercial vs. residential FAR. In instances
where there is greater demand and desire for
residential space thancommerdal space, it may
. make "sense to allow the residential portion of
the project to exceed 0.50 as long as a
minimum amount of commercial space (to be
determined) were provided.
3. Create block size and connectivity standards.
While not addressed directly in the existing
zoning, prototypes for lhrge sites such a’s this
should include standards that define maximum
block size, so that large infill developments
reinforce the existing block pattern that is
prevails through most of the city. Connections
to existing streets should be required wherever
possible.
Van Netor Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
7A: NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Existing Regulatidns Prototype
MIXED USE,.OMMERCIAL EMPHASIS "
178.750 -~f (4..I acre) site * CN mixed use ~esidential/~ommerclal ° surface; tuck-under and
underground parking
This ,prototype maximizes the allowed commercial"
FAR, both through ground floor retail commercial
and second-floor office in the front buildings.
Buildings at the middle of the site have one level
of residential over ground floor retail, The plan is
mostly vertical mixed use, with the exception of a
row of towfihouses which "a~e meant to relate to
existing residential uses that may be adjacent.
Nearly-all of the parking is assumed to be
underground, and 35% of the .site is devoted to
usable open space.
Significant constraints ate the two-story limit
imposed by the CN/RM-15 requirements, and
the amount of usable open space required. The
prototype has a proportionally low percentage of
the development program devoted to residential
use, yet still maintains the 35% usable open space
across the site. This causes nearly all parking to
need to be placed underground, which may not
be viable considering that the buildings .are just
two stories,and provides more open. space than
what would really make sense given ihe number
of resi~tdnfial units, The large amount of
commercial space may also not be viable, but this
example shows how much the site could
theoretically have, and the implications of having
vertical mixed use across most of a large site.
Like Scenario 6A, the two-story height limit
creates a constraint that makes it impossible to
reach the maximum allowed FAR. Because the-
maximum site coverage is 35%, but only two "
stories are allowed, the maximum FAR that could
actually he realized is 0.70, rather than the 0.90
that the regulations specify.
Van MeterWilllams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
7B: NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Comprehe.ns|ve Plan Proto.type
MIXED USEr COMMERCIAL EMPHASIS
178.750 sf (4..I acre) site ¯CN mixed use residential/commercial ¯ suHace~ tuck-under and
underground parking
Scenario 7B maintains a similar site plan uses needs to b~ carefully considered.
organi~’atioh as 7A, but with a greater number and 2,.All.ow flexibili .ty between the am6unt of
varietyof residential units. The scenario makes ¢ooamercial vs~ residential FAR. In instances
the fdllowing changes to the CN/RM-15
standards:
1.Allow three stories on buildings that include
residential uses. Permitting three stori~ will
allow more viable mixed use buildings and
greater flexibility in design of medium-density
residential units such as townhouses. It would
als0 allow the FAR to increase closer tb the
allowed 0.90 while maintaining a 35% lot
coverage. In some areas (particularly mixed use
where there is greater demand and desire for
residential spacethan commercial space, it may
m~e sense to allow the residential portion of
the project to exceed 0.50 as long as a
minimum amouht of commercial space were
provided.
3. Reducing required usable open space to the
¯ proportion of the development devoted toresidentlal use. For example, as project where
half of the development was residential space
could have a usable open space requirement of
buildings with ground floor commercial space),35% / 2 * 17.5%.
it might also be desirable to raise the height 3. Create block size and con_nectivi~ standai’ds.
.limit to 35 feet,’to allow a 15foot he.ight for
the commercial space and have two levels of
residential u~e above. In any place where height
might be raised, proximity to existing residential
While not addressed directly in the existing
zoriingi prototypes for large sites such as this
should include standards that define maximum
block size, so that large infill developments
reinforce the existing block pattern that is
prevails through most 6f the city. Connections
to existing streets should be req, uired wherever
possible.
Van HeterWllllams Pollack
Urbsworks. Inc.
Palo Alto Online: In th~ mix
Attachment J
Honm P~O ¢l~lrlmls
Spring Real Estate 2006
Publication Date: Friday, April 28, 2006
Search the
Palo Alto WeeklyiCurront and past Issuos)
Alto Online
Advanced S6ard~
In. the mix
New form of development sweeps area
by Lauren McSherry
When Matt G61dstein was planning to move to Palo Air0, hewasn’t
considering any one type of housing in particular..
The Stanford medical strident eventually moved into an apartment in a
mixed-use building on Homer Avenue due to its proximity to campus.
His apartment sits above The Parlor, a decorative fuknishings store. It is
half a block from Whole Foods Market.
"My p.laee is ideal," he said. "The location is very conducive to my
lifestyle."
It’s an easy walk for Goldstein to grocery shop, browse local bookstores or
dine at a downtbwn restaurant. He even enjoys living above a small
business.
"The women who own it are absolutely wonderful," he said. "They’re not
open crazy hours. They’re pretty quiet for the most part."
Goldstein exemplifies the kind of tenant developers are hoping to attract to
a number of mixed-use projects planned locally near downtown areas.
Working professionals and seniors are two other groups attracted by the
convenience of living in 10w-maintenance, mixed-use projects.
Mixed use- when office space, shops, entertainment, schools and parks are
built in close proximity to one another - is a relatively new form of
development, being touted as the antidote to suburban sprawl by local City
planners, real-estate developers and architects.
The balm to traffic congestion, a lost sense of commu’nity and
environmental degradation, they say, is mixed use.
"We think there are a lot of advantages to it," Palo Alto Planning
Commissioner Pat Butt said. "It creates vitality around the clock.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news_features/real_estate/spring2OO6/mixed.shtml 5/23/2006
Palo Alto Online: Inthe mix .-
,:
Page 2 of 5
Mixed-use development has been gradually gaining momentum not only in
Palo Alto, but.in cities along the Peninsula, including Menlo Park and
MountainView. One of the most well-known examples is Santana Row in
San Jose.
"’It’s a mantra now in planning," said architectTony Carrasco, whose firm
is based in Palo Alto. "It’s all over."
’The concept is actually a throwback to pre-World War lI c6mmunity
planning when mixed use defined most American downtowns.
On th~ Main streets of old, shop keepers usually lived above their
businesses, and errands were completed on foot, not by car.
After the war, however, suburban development swept the nation, the
dependenceonautomobiles increased and the concept of mixed used fell
by the wayside.
O)erthe past two decades, an architectural movement called New -
Urbanism rekindled mixed use, tying it to environmentalism.
Now, New Urbanism is making national headlines .as some planners
promote it as the solution for rebuilding devastated New .Orleans;
Perhaps it should come as no surprise lhat the New Urbanist vocabulary is
.being assimilated into common vernacular. (One of the strongest advocates
for the developmerit form, the Congress for the New Urbanism, is ba~ed in
San Francisco.)
Words associated with mixed use- such as "pedestrian friendly,""transit
oriented," "smart growth" and "place making" - are commonly used in
local public gatherings, from City council meetings to neighborhood
association gatherings.
InPalo Alto, Carrasco is just one of the many individuals working to
transform derelict stretches of El Camino Real and revive office parks
sitting vacant since the dot-corn bust with mixed-use projects.
His firm is even located in a mixed-use building. One of his employees
lives in an attached residential unit, e.liminating the need to commute.
Carrasco is cun’ently designing a "horizontal" mixed-use project that will
expand the. JJ&F Market, at the coiner, of E1 Camino and College Avenue.
The project includes apartments, office space and a small park on the 1.25-
acre property.
Two other similar projects could be making their way through the city’s
review process. Developers who are working on revamping two aging
shopping centers in Palo Alto - Alma Plaza and Edgewood Plaza - have
http://www.paloaltoonline.corrdnews_features/real_estate/spring2006/mixed.shtml 5/23/2006
Palo Altb Online: In the mix Page 3 of 5
said mixed-use projects wil! likely replace the existing strips of retail.
A second foi?in of mixed use, called "vertical" mixed use, is also popping
up throughout downtown Palo Alto as well as on El Camino.
Vertical mixed use refers to stacking retail, office space and housing units
on top of one another in a single building:
Anew bia]ldlng between ElCamino Way and El Camino Real is one
ekample of smaller scale, vertical mixed use; A. Starbucks and SUBWAY
restaurant operate from the ground floor while office space and apartments
comprise the rest of the three-story building.
Another recently completed project is 800 High St. where Saint Michael’s
Alley, a restaurant located on Emersoia Street, will occupy part of the
ground floor,
Yet aiaother project going .through the city’s review piocess involves
restoring the African Methodist Episcopal Zion .Church, believed to be one
of the oldest African-American churches on the West Coast.
Tile projedt includes a three-story building facing Homer Avenue
containing office space on the ground and second floors and four
condominium units on the third floor. The developer has also agreed to
rehabilitate anoth, er historic structure, the French Laundry, built in 1931.
In addition city planners are working to encourage mixed use through
updated zoning, Burr said. One area of focus is California Avenue, which
already contains some mixed-use buildings and where public transportation
is accessible, namely Caltrain.
"(Mixed use) can work in ways that accommodate our requirements to
provide additional housing, but in the right location," Burt said, "so we’re
notputting pressure on single-family neighborhoods."
Likewise, several mixed use developments have been built away from
single-family neighborhoods in Moufitain View.
That city has adopted a policy encouraging mixed use near transit and in
2004 changed zoning to promote residential-over-retail development in the
historic core of the downtown, between California Street and Evelyn
Avenue on. Castro Street, Senior Planner Lynnie Melena said.
One mixed-use project is The Crossings, con£tructed just off California
Street at the end of Showers Drive.
The development, which is across the street from a Caltrain station,
contains 350 residential units.
!~ttp://www.paloaltoonIine.com/news_features/real_estate/spring2006/mixed.shtml 5/23/2006
Palo Alto Online: In the mix Page 4 of 5
The project has only 5~,000 square feet of retail, but is within walking
distance of Sah Antonio Shopping Center, Target, Safeway grocery store
and several other shops.
"You might-say it’s mixed use naturally," Melena said. "It really wasn’t
marketable to add retail to The Crossings because there was so much retail
around it already."
Meanwhile in Menlo Pat’k, developer Jeff Warmoth of Sand Hill Property
Company hopes to revive an economically vapid stretch of El Camino,
vacated recently by several car dealerships.
Warmoth’s is one of two mixed-use projects that could change the face of
the aesthetically challenged multi-lane strip.
"The car dealership is not coming back. We all know that," he said of the
3 A-acre property formerly occupied by a Cadillac dealer. "It’s as if the
neighborhood has been abandoned in some way."
He added that stand-alone commercial businesses are finding it more
difficult to succeed on El Camino because they don’t have the "critical
mass" to attract customers.
In total’, 134 residential units and 70,000 square feet of retail space could
be btfilt at 1300 El Camino. There will be no "fields of ears," Warmoth
said. Residents and retail customers will park in a garage beneath the
buildings.
Plans show a courtyard with landscaping, benches and fountains at the
center of the property.
A caf]~, boutique, chain clothing store or sporting goods store are some the
business types W~moth would like to attract. (The Menlo Park City
Council studied the project in early April, expressing concerns about its
size and impact on traffic and schools, but took no action:)
As for the local trend, Warmoth agrees one exists, but "the Peninsula is
l~ehind the times." San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley and San Francisco have
been th~ sites of mixed-use development for years, he said.
Ifi, Palo Alto, some mixed-use developments, in particular 800 High StY,
have garnered criticism from residents for being too imposing and stressing
city services.
Don Weden, a retired long-range planner for Santa Clara County,
maintains the movement toward high-density, mixed use does not foretell
the end of single-residential neighborhoods.
"No one is talking about turning Palo Alto into a San Francisco," he said.
In fact, he said, smart planning’can preserve those neighborhoods when
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news_features/real_estate/spring2OO6/mixed.shtml 5/2312006
Palo Alto Online: In the mix Page 5 of 5
b_igl~-density, mixed-use is "/~uilt where it fits" - in ar~as close to public
transportation, job centers and retail.
He stressed that’mixed-use has big-picture implications: It can reduce
global warming and improve quality of life.
"The challenge is how do we change the equation so communities
p~oactiv~ly plan for where they want growth to occur," Weden said.
"Unless you decide where you want it to happen, it’s going to happen in
places of least resistance."
Staff Writer Lauren McSherry can be e-mailed at
lmcsherry@paweekly.com.
o n I I n e AII ltlold~l~.~l’Vafl.
http ://www.paloaltoonline.com/news_features/rea!_estate/spring2OO6/mixed.shtml 5/23/2006
Attachment N
VAN METER
WILLIAMS
POLLACK,
September 20, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To:Curtis S. Williams, AICP
Chief Planning and Transportation Official
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave., 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org
cc. ZOU Update Team
Re: Percentage of Required Retail
At the request of the Planning Commission we reevaluated the issue of minimum
percentage of retail FAR which is appropriate for the mixed use zoning designation.
I have re-looked at the mixed use development scenarios for the retail and housing.
We have also considered the relative impact of a higher minimum FAR for retail on
larger site proposals as well as those with special conditions such as parking districts.
The following is a brief summary and discussion of this evaluation:
On small sites of 10K to 30K s.f.; the parking ratios for retail in the zoning ordinance for
a typical retail development with surface parking would only yield a .2 to .25 FAR at
best. An all-retail development will not support sub-grade parking. Thus, a greater than
.25 FAR for retail uses could not be realized and an FAR of .15 to .20 would be more
likely. If redeveloped as a mixed use site with surface parking, the differential in retail
FAR (between mixed use and a maximum retail development) would be at most .10
FAR, not the entire .25 FAR. The regulations would not preclude the developer
providing additional retail if they desired or if the site configuration worked with the
various parking strategies.
If there is existing retail onthe site, the existing retail uses may be non-conforming
(relative to meeting today’s parking standards), and yield some added FAR without
providing the required parking. There is then no incentive on these sites to reinvest in
the property unless one can obtain a use of greater value, to support more expensive
parking solutions.
On the larger parcels, requiring a higher percentage of retail. FAR may be an even
greater problem, making development less attractive. This is because for the large sites
the amount of feasible retail space is more often dictated by the frontage along a
commercial corridor, which may be less thanthe required minimum retail FAR required.
Thus a deep parcel would, be required to provide retail based on the overall site size
(e,g,, 25 FAR or more)i but could only accommodate retail in the front portion of the
site.
If the City decides to require a greater proportion of retail, I would anticipate one of three
scenarios:
1. The site will remain as is, dueto a lack of feasibility of the retail component of mixed
use.
2. A developer would build an all retail project at .15 to .25 FAR, providing a slightly
greater FAR of retail, but at the loss of a substantial amount of housing.
3. On large sites, a small amount of residential may be squeezed into a retail
development, which would create a poor residential environment, but would be
profitable to the developer as any unit would sell or rent in Palo Alto.
None of these 3 development scenarios would be more positive than a mixed use
scenario with a reasonable amount of retail.
Zoning for retail does not make it happen, and my concern is that the City will box itself
into a policy decision that will inhibit reinvestment along its commercial corridors, which
are in need of revitalization.
If within a special district such as a parking district Cal Ave. or downtown, a .25 FAR is
appropriate as the district parking offsets the cost and space requirements of the on site
retail parking and encourages ground floor retail as well as housing above. A .25 FAR
will insure appropriate levels of ground floor retail in those districts.
Rick Williams
Partner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
September 27, 2006
DRAFT EXCERPT
Attachment D
NEW B USINESS
Public Hearings:
Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of an Ordinance Deleting
Chapters 18.41 (Neighborhood Commercial), 18.43 (Community Commercial), 18.44
(Community Commercial Combining District), 18.45 (Service Commercial), and 18.49
(Commercial Downtown), of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and
Adding Chapters 18.16 (Neighborhood, Service, and Community Commercial) and 18.18
(Commercial Downtown) Providing for Allowable Uses and Development Standards in
Commercial Zones, including Mixed Use Criteria, and Amending Sections 18.94.070 and
16.20.120 to Delete Amortization Requirements and to Allow Additional Signage for
3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue (Fry’s Electronics);
Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, thank you Chair Holman and Commissionersl We are here tonight to
present the ordinance changes on the commercial zoning districts which include mixed use
provisions, revisions to the mixed use provisions, and thirdly in addition to those two we have
two amendments one to the zoning ordinance and one is to sign regulations that relate one
directly to the Fry’s property and the signage one indirectly to the Fry’s property. So I will
present all of those.
The way we would like to conduct this if you are willing tonight is for me to give a presentation
on the entire package to you, for you to entertain public hearing on the entire breadth of subject
before you tonight, and then Commissioner Tuma will need to step aside from the dais while you
discuss the Community Commercial Zone specifically and he can state his conflict with that in a
minute. Then once you have arrived on a motion for that zoning then we will bring him back
and we can talk about all of the rest of the zoning districts.
We have gone through some of this with you before so I won’t belabor some of these points.
The Comprehensive Plan does discuss looking at zoning requirements for commercial districts to
try to encourage revitalization and address land use transitions with adjacent single family
residential and to create mixed use zones or incentives to encourage more mixed use in Palo
Alto. The ARB and the Planning and Transportation Commission have looked at the issues of
mixed use and commercial previously, most recently at your study sessions on August 30 and
September 13, 2006. We reported to you at that time as well that on August 7 the City Council
provided direction to S taft to make some changes that related to the commercial zones or to
commercial uses in residential zones. Those particular items included a desire to limit residential
in the commercial zones to mixed use only, secondly, to rezone three sites that are currently
zoned multi-family to commercial, and thirdly to work with Fry’s to explore zoning changes that
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
might retain Fry’s either at its current location or elsewhere in Palo Alto. The latter two of those
with the exception we do have the two issues related to Frv’s but that is not a zoning change
for the property at all, so those last two. items are not really on your agenda tonight. The
rezoning of the three sites will come to you at some later point in the fall. Fry’s will take some
time to work with them to see what seems to be appropriate there.
We have had several meetings with various groups both business development groups as well as
with neighborhood representatives, most recently met with about ten folks from the Ventura and
Barron Park areas about the Fry’s issue last Thursday. The commercial zones as you can see on
the map comprise a fairly small percentage of the overall area of Palo Alto but obviously contain
a significant element in that they provide most of the retail sales space for the city. We are
looking at all of the commercial zones, the CN, CS, CC, and CC(2) the California Avenue
Community Commercial. Those are all part of one chapter, 18.16 and then the Downtown
Commercial is the proposed chapter 18.18. The ground floor, the retail, and the pedestrian
overlays that we have on some of those properties currently will remain. There are no changes
proposed to those and those restrictions will remain in place.
Just to summarize the key revisions to the commercial zoning as we mentioned consolidating the
zones into two chapters. The basic uses and standards are not changed in terms of the basic floor
area ratios, heights, and setbacks and such. The parking standards are not proposed to be
changed. The overlays still apply as I just mentioned. The Midtown and Charleston Center CN
limitations are not changed either:
The key changes in the commercial districts are that residential uses instead of being allowed
outright in those zones would be limited to a mixed use component only and we will talk in a
minute about what that mixed use would allow. Secondly, we have proposed that hotels in the
zones actually it should exclude the CN zone because it doesn’t allow hotels - the floor area
ratio would be allowed up to 2.0 for hotels. We have also provided a maximum of 25 percent of
the floor area could be used for residential condominiums, which is something that has assisted
hotel operators financially to build hotels. Recently it has become a trend in the hotel business.
We are requiring a conditional use permit for late night commercial uses in the CN and CS zones
where they are adjacent to residential uses. We have proposed a reduced front setback along E1
Camino Real to allow buildings that are up to or near the sidewalk and including generally a
widened sidewalk for better pedestrian use.. The transition zone that we had talked to you at one
point about limiting that to 50 feet where right now it is 150 feet. We would maintain the 150-
foot transition within which certain setbacks and daylight planes and height limitations apply but
only to the extent that it is abutting a residential district that is not separated by another
commercial or industrial zoned lot. That essentially summarizes the substantive changes to the
commercial zoning districts.
As far as the mixed use criteria go the primary changer there is that rather than, as we have
discussed a couple of times with you before, rather than using the multi-family district overlay to
basically sit on top of the commercial use and define what can be done with mixed use
development we have proposed tables in each of these chapters that outline the relevant
standards. Most of those standards are very similar to some of the criteria in those multi-family
zones in terms of the density limitations and the height limitations and those kinds of things,
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
FAR as well. There are in particular as far as setbacks and daylight planes and such we would
continue to apply those as we have in the past when immediately adjacent to a residential district.
When it is not adjacent to a residential district we would not require those daylight planes. They
would be the same as the commercial in any district that frequently does not require those
setbacks and daylight planes. Again, reducing the front setback along E1 Camino Real as part of
the New Urbanist approach to development and reflecting a number of recent projects that have
been approved by the ARB with Design Enhancement Exceptions. The landscape and open
space percentages we have maintained. Right now we have a category of open space and usable
space that has a percentage of the site but it doesn’t relate specifically to the residential units.
We have suggested combining that and retaining a landscape open space percentage for the site
which is approximately what the multi-family percentages were but somewhat less in some of
the more intense commercial areas and then adding on top of that a usable open space
requirement per unit that needs to be demonstrated that it has some proximity and usability by
the residential units on the site. One additional change is that on E1 Camino Real for the
neighborhood commercial parcels that currently allow a 0.9 floor area ratio maximum and a 35-
foot height limit we have suggested that on E1 Camino Real only that that be allowed to go to 1.0
and 40 feet to match the CS zoning that is E1 Camino. We believe that relates better to the E1
Camino streetscape.
We have also made a few other suggestions related to mixed use in the California Avenue,
CC(2), area. We have suggested reducing the maximum floor area ratio from 3.0 to 2.0. The
3.0, as we discussed last time with you, is not achievable. It is currently written in away that
you could go above 2.0 if you had more than 60 percent of the site as residential but given the
numbers you are allowed for residential you could never get there. So we feel it is more realistic
to just put the 2.0 number in there and that would be the maximum in that zone.
We have also suggested that Site and Design Review, which is now currently required for true all
mixed use projects, not be required for less than or equal to four residential units. We have tried
to define a minimum amount of commercial space that would be required. This is generally
ground floor that we are talking about, that would be required in order to conduct a mixed use so
we are assured that we are getting some substantial amount of generally retail space. Though in
some instances it could be office, hotel, or other uses where those are permitted on the ground
floor, but that we are getting a substantial amount of that when the residential component is
added for mixed use so that it is not a token amount that then justifies the mixed use.
We have also provided a couple of criterion for mixed use that came out of your study sessions.
One is that storage or use of hazardous materials in amounts above the amounts that are
exempted, in other words amounts that require the various permits from the Fire Department,
would not be allowed as part of the nonresidential part of the mixed use. Secondly, that we not
allow mixed use development at this time on the auto dealer overlay sites so that we do retain
them and allow them the opportunity to stay as they are. We, I think, previously suggested that
we were comfortable with applying mixed use there and I think we generally are but just to be
kind of on the safe side we are okay with leaving that mixed use designation off of the AD
overlays.
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
We have also, as we did in the Pedestrian and Transit Zone, provided a context based design
criteria. I won’t spend much time on that but many of these are very similar to, in some cases
identical to, the criteria that were developed for PTOD. Looking at directing applicants on how
to treat street and building fagades, massing and setbacks, transitions to lower density residential
areas, open space, parking and some suggestions for sustainable and green building design
techniques that should be appropriate for these projects. These are criteria that the ARB in
particular would be able to use to require this type of design consistent with these criteria.
I will speak for just a minute about the Fry’s related amendments. There are two suggested
amendments. One would revise the sign code to allow offsite signage for specific large sites that
have retail use and that do not have frontage on arterial roadways. Based on essentially the
length of those sites you would then look at the table that we have inthe sign ordinance to
determine if they were located on that arterial roadway what the signage size would be. In the
case of Fry’s specifically and the tables that we have currently the graphs would allow a
maximum of probably about 65 feet of sign area, which is a little more than probably double the
size of what is there now and a maximum height of 25 feet which is the maximum the sign code
does allow2 The second amendment would be to delete the 2019 amortization date for Fry’s
which is the date by which Fry’s is currently under the code and required to phase out the
nonresidential use and become a conforming RM-30 multi-family use on that site. The language
of the code still remains identifying that as a nonconforming site and still limiting it to the
existing retail amount, the 60,000 square foot maximum and some conditions about truck
deliveries on the site, that all remains. What it doesn’t do is hold up the 2019 date as sort of the
timeframe for this deadline. As you know we are about to embark on a Comprehensive Plan
Update and the Fry’s area is one of the areas that we are going to look at an area plan for. So we
certainly think that through that process as well as the Council’s recent direction that there will
be some effort to address Fry’s well in advance of the 2019 date and that it isn’t particularly
relevant at this point. At the same time provides a positive gesture to Fry’s that we are looking
to try to work with them to see if there is something that fits their needs.
We have provided a few thoughts for alternatives that you brought up at prior meetings that you
may want to discuss as well. The first is that there is a provision in the CS zone unlike all of the
other zones to allow office space on the ground floor on E1 Camino unless there was housing
existing on that site already. Most all of the other zones essentially do not allow office use on
the first floor unless there is already office use there or it is vacant or there are a few other
exceptions but the CS zone does have a provision allowing office on the first floor. It is limited
to 5,000 square feet so it is still a relative small amount. You can request a conditional use
permit however to exceed that amount. Staff believes that it is appropriate to retain that option.
We do have particularly a lot doctors and dentists looking for space right now and this would be
very helpful for them to be able to locate some possibility for small offices so we believe that
flexibility is useful in this one zone and would suggest retaining it. So that is a key issue we
want to bring to your attention. Secondly, there was some discussion about having an average or
maximum average unit size for the residential portion of a mixed use project and 1,250 square
feet is what was thrown out. I think that is what the SOFA area has. We are not recommending
that. We believe as we discussed last time that it is important to have the flexibility and you
have a couple letters from local architects or builders before you that particularly with the
parking regulations that we have right now it is very difficult to get any more units on a site
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
especially these smaller sites and if they are limited in size as well then they don’t become
feasible and the mixed use is more difficult to obtain and it is more difficult to essentially use the
residential to justify the retail portion of it. So we think that it is appropriate. I also had a call
today from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and they have some concerns about that because
they would like to see some family housing that might be precluded by having those unit size
limitations or having those unit sizes be larger than 1,2500 square feet. Then thirdly, I do want
to point out that we have the Fry’s items before you as well tonight. We are ready to move
forward with those. We impressed upon you before the importance of moving the commercial
districts forward we think it is important to get the Fry’s going too but they are not necessarily
linked. If there is some further issue you feel the need to discuss on Fry’s then they could be
segregated and could come back later on the Fry’s issues to answer further questions.
Our next steps are to take the ordinance to the City Council on October 16 with the commercial
districts and mixed use and the Fry’s amendments. We would have tentatively scheduled
October 25 to be back to you with the performance standards that we pulled from the package
the last time we were before you and we expect to have a couple of meetings with community
groups between now and then to discuss particularly noise and hazardous materials issues. Then
those commercial rezonings that I mentioned will be coming before you in the fall.
I did also want to make a couple of suggested changes to the ordinance. Oneis in the mixed use
sections we have talked about having this minimum amount of ground floor commercial. We
defined commercial as including generally retail, personal services, and where ground floor
office is allowed. It could be ground floor office but otherwise not office. We didn’t put hotels
in there but we would like to add hotels. It is not necessarily likely but we shouldn’t preclude
hotels ground floor uses as part of a mixed use either. So we would suggest adding hotels to
that. i think that is a footnote to the mixed use table in the 18.16. Secondly, there is a section in
the Downtown commercial that deals with transfer development rights and floor area bonuses for
seismic and historic rehabilitation. There was a provision that was adopted in 2004 as an
amendment to allow those provisions to be used for public properties as well. That amendment
is not captured in here but we want to be sure that we do include that. So we will add that
language verbatim from existing code into the ordinance and we suggest that as well. I thinkthat
is it. So our suggestion at this point is to take public comment and then take up this CC zone
specifically while Commissioner Tuma sits that discussion out.
Chair Holman: Okay. We could either take public comment next or see if there are any
clarifying questions for Staff for these general discussion items.
Mr. C. Williams: I think our attorney would prefer not to do that while Commissioner Tuma is
up on the dais.
Chair Holman: Okay. So we will take public comment next. I have three cards, four cards. Jim
Thalmann and you will have five minutes to speak. If you could give me some sense of how
many speakers we have that would be really helpful. So if you could turn in your cards that
would be great. I am seeing six speakers so why don’t we do three minutes per speaker, which is
why it is helpful to know how many speakers we have. Mr. Thalmann.
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Jim Thalmann, Palo Alto: Hi. I think that all the work you folks have been doing on this is
really remarkable. I wanted to point out a few business impacts on my local house that really
weren’t reflected too much in here. I think it would impact a lot of other people as well:
The business impacts on nearby residences are real important. One of the big ones I’ve seen is
the nearby alleys. If there is an alley that is running between the business and the home, if there
is client traffic going down there I would view that alley as actually part of the business. Noise,
car stereos, having the car running over sewer gratings and water covers making clank-clank
sounds. In my case that is happening 24 hours a day 20 feet from my bedroom window. I will
go and talk to the City Attorney about it and even though the wording is very similar to the
proposed wording in your document in 18.16.040B they say they can’t enforce it because it is too
vague. I am wondering really the differences there.
Anyway, when these are setup I don’t see any guidelines in here to give the ARB or anyone else
some guidance on how traffic flow is to be considered. Parking is considered and that is an
important issue as well but those cars have to go somewhere. If those cars are winding up going
by businesses and creating nuisances at eleven o’clock or twelve o’clock at night or even nine or
ten at night, which wouldn’t require a conditional use permit that remains an issue as well. Like
I said, the traffic has been causing car stereo noise, vibration and the sewer water cover clanking.
We have a nearby business in the CN zone that is a dry cleaner plant. The dry cleaner is
operating pretty early in the morning and I think that is a big issue as well. Anyway, traffic
control would be my big preference for the alley if you guys could look into that that would be
great. Also, if you could consider amortizing these changes in to businesses that are really
severely nonconforming now that would really be great as well. Thank you very much. Bye.
Chair ttolman: Thank you. The next speaker is Lynn Chiapella to be followed by Sheri Furman.
Ms. Lgnn Chiapella, Palo Alto: I have some of the same problems he has in that 1 live very close
as well and those alleys with the truck deliveries at night particularly when they are backing up
with the backup alarms at one-thirty or three in the morning. I think Lee was on the ARB when
we asked for the Starbuck’s to be given specific hours and not have those early morning
deliveries. The ARB said just a handshake was fine they said they would never do such a thing.
It was only weeks before they were backing up, brought in large trucks that could not get in the
driveway or had a hard time navigating the driveway so it required back and forth, and back and
forth. A handshake can’t be enforced so when you call there is really nothing that can be done
about these things even though you can hear this from about 400 feet away.
So there are three things I would like to find out about. One is I thank Curtis very much for
bringing up the late night use and activities because I think that is what most residents are
affected by drastically. My question is the enforcement. We have had almost no enforcement of
the specific problems such as the noise oftrncks at night. I don’t know that there is anything in
here that is enforceable. I don’t see this specifically say that. So my question would be does this
cover truck deliveries between ten and six? Does this cover restaurants that allow patrons in at
ten and don’t finish up until midnight? Does this cover the parking lot cleaning and the sidewalk
cleaning that takes place overnight? What about the rug cleaners that come in at midnight?
Does this section cover those kinds of activities so that the police can actually come out and I
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
don’t .have to get up and go around and say excuse me, but it is one in the morning you are really
not supposed to be out here. So I would like to know if that could be taken care of.
The landscaping would be restored along the residential areas even if it is just vines to make
those fences and chain links look nicer. The last would be to take a look at dental offices, which
have turned into cubbies where a 2,000 square foot office could have as many as 19 people
inside worldng and no parking at all for them. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Sheri Furman to be followed by Gary Graumann.
Ms. Sheri Furman, Palo Alto: I am speaking tonight just as myself. First of all I would like to
commend the Planning Department and Mr. Graumann in particular for the excellent work they
have done on this update.
The August 7 Council direction limiting residential uses to mixed use only in commercial was I
think a very important decision to recognize the need to balance commercial and housing needs.
It is a real opportunity for a win/win situation in the mixed use. So most of my comments
tonight are regarding mixed use in CN zones as that is what I am most familiar with.
Regarding limiting residential use to mixed use in commercial zones except for sites in the
Housing Inventory I find this a bit problematic because these sites were identified nearly a
decade ago before we got into this kind of imbalance and two, the sites represent potential not
required housing. It is what we have to file for places that we could - well you know all this.
Allowing mixed use cin these sites I don’t believe would invalidate their use for housing but
simply change the nature of the housing. So I would kind of like to see that restriction removed
from the mixed use direction.
I would also like to see clarified or maybe it is obvious that single and two-family homes are not
permitted in a mixed use development and that mixed use refers to a single property not adjacent
ones. We have talked before about mixed use could be on adjacent properties and I don’t feel
quite comfortable with that so I would like to make sure that we are talking about one single
property.
Then regarding this maximum average unit size I actually would like to see a number here to
ensure that the residential component is more in the affordable housing range. I think that would
help insure that we don’t have one huge penthouse over something.
Then I have another question regarding the setbacks and coverage for the mixed use standards. I
am not sure how these apply if the residential is above retail such as yard setbacks and all. What
I think we really want to insure is that in commercial zones commercial is theoperative word.
Although we need housing it should be trump retail uses in particular.
Finally, this is a little bit off-topic but it sort of relates to what you are talking to tonight. I would
like to see you and the City evaluate rezoning Edgewood and Alma Plaza to Neighborhood
Commercial for consistency with the other CN zones so we can apply these same standards to
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
those areas. These sites should be preserved as retail sites and allow mixed use housing not
single-family housing. Soat some point I would like that to be a consideration. Thank you.
Chair Holman: I believe there is a question for you Ms. Furman.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you Ms. Furman. I have a question for you with respect to your
comment regarding Alma Plaza and Edgewood Plaza. Are you suggesting that those conform to
the regulations for Midtown and Charleston Center or are you suggesting ..... ?
Ms. Furman: No, not necessarily. The problem right now is they are PC zoned. So they operate
under a whole different set of rules even though the Comp Plan regards them as neighborhood
centers. I am saying I would like to see them rezoned from Planned Community to CN so that
this kind of mixed use that we are looking at here can be applied to those centers. The ground
floor retail and stuff in Charleston and Midtown are kind of unique to those I wouldn’t
necessarily mind. I think housing could be there but I would like to see it in this mixed use type
of thing.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Gary Graumann to be followed by Peter Lockhart.
Mr. Gar~, Graumann, Menlo Park: Good evening. I am here on behalf of Fry’ s Electronics. I
just wanted to express to you that they are very aware of what is going on and very supportive of
what is going on with Staff as far as the changes that you are trying to implement herewith the
signage and the use restriction. I just wanted to say hello and that they are very supportive of
what is happening here in Palo Alto and would like to continue that relationship in the future.
Thank you.
Chair Holman: A question for you Mr. Graumann.
Commissioner Burt: Good evening. I just wondered since you are here and we haven’t had the
opportunity to hear from Fry’s or yourself previously can you share a little bit with us on what
Fry’s interests are at the their present location and within Palo Alto? Is there anything that you
can give us as an indication that might help guide our decision-making?
Mr. Graumann: I think this location here in Palo Alto was their third store in their chain. I was
as involved in the transaction from the get-go. I would say Fry’s likes being in Palo Alto. They
enjoy the Palo Alto customer, the types of employers in and around the area are important to
them, and they want to continue to stay in Palo Alto. These measures here would be helpful to
help drive more business for Fry’s. The environment has changed over the years. We obviously
have competition in East Palo Alto and now in the Mountain View-Palo Alto corridor that they
are very concerned with. So you do see them advertising everyday, you do hear them on the
radio. So all those things are positive things in trying to create activity there at the site and
helping to maintain and grow the business.
Commissioner Burt: You may be aware but we had previously considereda proposal to allow
mixed use development at the current Fry’s site and that was pulled back out of concern that it
might have an unintended consequence where there might be an incentive for the property owner
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
to redevelop that parcel in a way that we thought might support the long term retention of Fry’s
and in fact that redevelopment might cause Fry’s to leave that site. Did Fry’s have any thoughts
on thepotential impact of that alternative proposal to zone it as a mixed use or include it in our
PTOD district?
Mr. Graumann: Well at the time of those conversations I wasn’t part of those conversations so I
can’t address that in all fairness. If I was I could but I don’t have any information with respect to
that.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Holman: I believe there are two more questions for you, one from Commissioner Garber
and then one from Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Garber: I apologize you may have mentioned it when you were first introducing
yourself but what is your relationship to Fry’s.
Mr. Graumann: I represent Fry’s in the real estate transactions.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: My question is has Fry’s considered any other alternative places for their
business in Palo Alto? It sounds like Fry’s does enjoy business here in Palo Alto and would like
to stay. I am just curious as to whether or not there has been an investigation on Fry’s part of
any other site here in town.
Mr. Graumann: We are always continuing to look at potential sites for the long term. Their
vision is very long term so it is indicative of other locations that they have throughout the
western states is stay in a location as long term as possible. Now if we are forced to have to look
they will look. We have working eyes and ears open as far as what potential opportunities are
out there but there are not a lot.
Commissioner Sandas: I guess my question is prefaced on a notion that I heard from a Fry’s
employee speaking at our last meeting I believe it was who indicated that the shopping public
has difficulty finding Fry’s. I know we are trying to address that through better signage but if
that is a long term problem it just makes me wonder about the long term potential for Fry’s to
stay in the site that they are in and not move somewhere else.
Mr, Graumann: That will all come down to what are the opportunities that present themselves in
the future. When we did the deal initially there weren’t many sites in Palo Alto to look at it was
a very creative opportunity at the time that happened to match Fry’s and the landlord at the
moment. That was a number of years ago and not much has changed since then as far as
availability of property.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Peter Loclchart is our next speaker to be followed by Denny
Petrosian and then currently our last speaker will be Bob Moss.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Peter Lockhart, Palo Alto: I started out my first comment but I am very confused and now I
am even more confused but it was enlightening to see a person from Fry’s. Quite surprising.
There hadn’t been much dialogue or as much as I would have liked regarding DWJ or E1 Camino
Center at Fry’s, etc. I am going to just read my comments and perhaps I could be more
enlightened as time goes on. I would like to be and maybe some of these will change but
conditionally I will just go ahead and read what I had presented for the City Council.
Everything is meshed together, the finances, the City, the vision, the Planning Department, the
budget, etc. and I am speaking to many subjects but I think they are very intertwined. I am very
confused. Many businesses have come and gone on and around Olive Avenue. A few remain
though some were forced from the properties through rezoning. Properties have been rezoned
M2S, R-l, R-30, GM, etc. now I see a proposal to implement a de facto rezone allowing uses
similar to when the new [maxim art] came and pushed out the nursery that was along the creek.
am not sure. I have been here since 1958 basically I have quite a perspective.
Regarding amendment sections 18.94.070 etc. please answer the following questions. Why is
this being proposed? Who are the parties involved? What is the intended purpose? What is the
intended outcome? How is this plan to be funded? When is the timetable for this intended
results? What will the City do to assure that the intended results are realized? What will the
City do if the timetable is not met? What will the City do if the intended results are not realized?
Having lived in Palo Alto since 1958 it is difficult to find words to express the extent city leaders
have squandered resources and opportunities that could have allowed Palo Alto to be far more
functional, beautiful, and solvent. Shortsighted policies have been completely devoid of
creativity or vision. I see the City Council making decisions based on a perceived budget crisis
while failing to realize its budget is the envy of many municipalities. City leaders have so much
money at their control they fail to realize the value of long-term fiscally responsible decisions.
The recent history of seeking a utopian Palo Alto has had quite the opposite effect and is causing
the pillars to fall down around us. Even as our leaders now scramble for spare change bucket
loads of money are being wasted. The City Council seems to be oblivious to its morality crisis.
There have been 30 years of promises to its citizens to convert the [maxim art]...I believe we
have five minutes tonight?
Chair Holman: We have three tonight, I’m sorry.
Mr. Lockhart: Someone said five earlier tonight.
Chair Holman: When we saw how many speakers there were we limited it to three.
Mr. Lockhart: Okay, well I will just have to turn this in.
Chair Holman: If you could just take a sentence and wrap up that would work.
Mr. Lockhart: Well basically what I am saying is everything is pretty interrelated like budgets,
etc. in my opening statement and to me the de facto rezoning just increases our being up in
Page 10
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 limbo. What is going to happen to my street and how is that affecting me? I think it is very
2 significant.
3
4 Chair Holman: I believe Commissioner Burt has a question for you.
5
Commissioner Burt: You referred to a plan and how it would be implement, could you clarify
what you were referring to?
Mr. Lockhart: I am not sure which plan I referred to. I had a regional vision here I presented 15
years ago on this site. I see short term fixes destroying the long term plans and I am just
wondering if this is another short-term fix. When HP was becoming HP rebuilding their units
and WSJ was in a state of limbo and the railroad easement was available there were ten plus 20
for over 30 acres available to rezone with an area-wide study to make that whole neighborhood
really sparlde. It could have been the gem of the city and I have seen one patch after the other
after the other. I have seen opportunities squandered.
Commissioner Burt: I thought I understood you asking what it would cost to implement the plan
that the City has, maybe I misunderstood you.
Mr. R Loclchart: I must have meant that because I can’t find it. Is there a way I can meet with
Board Members another time when we have more time to talk or is Curtis my main and only
link?
Chair Holman: I think at this point it would be Curtis Williams, as the next step for this will be
going to City Council. We need to finish our deliberations this evening.
Mr. Locldaart: I have lots and lots of questions and I appreciate your time.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Denny Petrosian to be followed by Bob Moss.
Ms. Denny Petr0sian, Palo Alto: Considering the importance of this issue I think 14 additional
minutes of public time would not have been out of order and I think that the Fry’s issue is not the
same as the Zoning Ordinance Update. It should have been separately agendized and noticed.
This is really a hardship for us to comment on all this stuff. You know the rule of law was meant
to keep us from the whimsy of a monarch in particular King George III of England whose
madness lead to our Declaration of Independence in 1776. Now you as our representatives of the
law are planning to throw out the Zoning Ordinance and all of the land use law that has
accumulated to date. Throwing out the amortization is a little shocking and we do have time to
wait for the land use update, the study area plan. This is essentially a rezoning. You are going to
take out the 2019 deadline and let something stay there forever if they want to. Let new uses
come in and stay forever if they want to. If you decide gee, we want housing on this site if you
don’t have any amortization or any limitation on these uses how are you going to get housing in
there? This was carefully analyzed in 1984. This was not a whimsical decision to rezone this
property residential. It was carefully looked at. Now that you are moving farther and farther
away from any kind of planning principles it is just getting messier and messier and more a can
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
of worms. There are no guidelines or discussion of the loss of housing. No guidelines on how it
should go and you have your Palo Alto Housing Corporation letter of July 17 saying that this
conversion of residential land to nonresidential should occur during land use discussions in the
Comprehensive Plan Update not by a squiggle of a marker pen that would establish a framework
for rezoning of a major residential site without wide community discussion. So Fry’s could
leave and then what? You don’t have any control over that and you are not asking the right
question. You are not asking how can we maximize revenue to the City? You are saying how
can we keep Fry’s? Well, that is not the right question. More residents, more housing will give
you a stable economic base and more shopping. I am very frustrated that the yellow light is on
right now. You also have to think about what the Human Relations Commission was asking you
to do which is to think of how we are connected to the globe in our decisions. The planet is
going to be saved one land use decision at a time in addition to other ways. That means housing
in Palo Alto, means less paving over of farmland in San Joaquin Valley, less carbon dioxide in
those commutes. We have to have more housing in the urban core, you know it, I know it, we all
know it so let’s bite the bullet. Please defer getting rid of the amortization period. Please defer
that to the area-wide study. That is where it is appropriate. That is professional planning. Now
you are opening up the barn door anything that wants to come into that property and essentially
precluding housing for as long as any commercial use wants to stay there. The multi-family
overlay in an area like the Mayflower, I believe it is on the back of the Mayflower Motel
property, is important in some areas to buffer commercial uses and either residential behind or in
this case the playground, the open space that was the Ventura School. So defer the multi-family
overlay I would urge you until that can be studied a.little bit more.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Bob Moss will be our last speaker. Excuse me Ms.
Petrosian there is a question for you from Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Actually, the question is not for Ms. Petrosian it is actually for Curtis.
Curtis, if you wouldn’t mind explaining out loud why we are discussing Fry’s in the Nay that we
are discussing it I think that would be very helpful for the group here tonight.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes. First of all there is not a rezoning proposal for the Fry’s site before you.
What is before you is the deletion of the amortization date. The site remains a nonconforming
use, it remains subject to all the limitations of the nonconforming use on the site, and as was
mentioned the Comprehensive Plan Update will give us a chance to look at what the longer term
most beneficial use is. Maybe it is housing, maybe it is a combination of mixed use or
something but we will get a chance to do that through that process. This was initiated from
direction from the Council to the Manager to look at ways to at least small ways initially to let
Fry’s know that we are interested in talking to them about continuing to keep them in Palo Alto
which may end up being here or may end up being elsewhere, we don’t know at this point. The
result of this action tonight is not to rezone the site.
Commissioner Sandas: Would you mind also just giving a little bit of history because the Fry’s
site was initially in the PTOD and how did it get removed from the PTOD for the record.
Mr. C. Williams: Sure. Yes the Planning and Transportation Commission had included it in
their recommendations to the Council to include this in the Pedestrian Transit Oriented District
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Overlay which would have allowed mixed use-which could have accommodated some increase
in the nonresidential on the site as well housing use. The Council’s action then subsequently
removed the Fry’s area and surrounding parcels from the PTOD boundary and my reading of that
as I think Commissioner Burt said earlier in the meeting is that there was concern that
particularly because the PTOD allows also for a completely residential project that there was
some potential for this to be converted or perhaps some incentive to be converted to a
predominantly if not entirely residential project which might expedite somehow the removal of
Fry’s from this site. So the Council felt it was more appropriate to look specifically at the Fry’s
site and the things that we could do to try to retain that and take some more time and evaluate the
various zoning options.
Commissioner Sandas: Hence our discussion tonight.
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Sandas: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Our last speaker this evening is Bob Moss.
Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Holman and Commissioners. First I also
want to thank the Staff for a very excellent job revising the zoning and complying with the
requests of the City Council and the community about the retention of retail, which is quite
important to the fiscal viability of the city. I do have a couple of comments on it. First I would
like to thank the Staff for increasing the transition setback to 150 feet adjacent to residential
which is one of the requests I made when this came up befor.e. In regard to ground floor office
space in the CS zone while I agree that ground floor office space is useful I think it should be
limited. We are trying to emphasize especially along E1 Camino retail and I would like to
suggest that we allow no more than 2,500 square feet of office space without a conditional use
permit. With a conditional use permit additional space could be used for office but the intent
should be to try to keep retail uses primarily and if office use is desired then if they want to build
a two story or three story building to have office on the second floor like they have in the
building where the Starbuck’s is down by E1 Camino and E1 Camino Way that would work fine.
In terms of the average size of the residential unit I don’t see anything wrong with 1,250 square
feet. The first house we lived in in Palo Alto was an Eichler, three bedrooms, 1,000 square feet.
So it is possible to have a three-bedroom unit in 1,250 square feet or less. It is not necessary to
have, as was done with one project in Downtown, the penthouse unit of almost 4,000 square feet
for a single residential unit. That is a bit ghastly. So I think we can limit the ground floor retail
quite nicely.
I am quite pleased that the people at Fry’s are gratified with what we are trying to do to keep
them happy and in town. Let me give you a little perspective on the residential zone in Fry’s.
When that zone was put in there was a comprehensive look at every retail and commercial and
industrial zone in the city to see which areas could be rezoned for housing. Conscious decisions
were made not to rezone a number of areas, which since have been rezoned and developed for
housing. At the time Fry’s was assigned housing we thought that was about as much housing as
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
we could get in retail zones and that was a maximum of 330 units. The sites which have already
been approved, or are under construction, or are in the pipeline in areas which were explicitly
excluded 20 years ago from housing will total close to 1,000 units or three times the amount of
housing that we had anticipated for Fry’s. Rezoning Fry’s from residential to commercial does
not lose us net housing.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. At this time Commissioner Tuma I think you have a
statement to make.
Commissioner Tuma: As I understand it now we are going to go into a discussion on the CC
zone and as a result of my wife being employed at Stanford so I will excuse myself from these
discussions.
Chair Holman: Thank you. We will give you just a moment to leave the room and then Curtis
will have more presentation to make.
Mr. C. Williams: Thank you, again. This is not really new information but it is a little more
specific as to the CC zone. What we are focusing on now is the Community Commercial zone,
which encompasses essentially two areas of the city Stanford Shopping Center and the Town &
Country Village Center. We are not talking here about the CC(2) combining zone, which is on
California Avenue and in which Mr. Tuma will be able to participate in that discussion.
Again, basic uses and standards are not changed in the CC zone, residential is limited to mixed
use only, FAR for hotels is increased to 2.0. When I say increased to 2.0 there is not a specific
hotel FAR right now in the ordinances and nonresidential FAR that is .35 for the Town &
Country shopping center and it is defined by a total amount of square footage at the Stanford
Shopping Center. Frankly, anything that happens at the Stanford Shopping Center is going to be
done through a Development Agreement and these regulations are not really going to specifically
apply to that. So you will be seeing whatever happens there in terms of any future expansions
through another mechanism. Potentially it could apply to the Town & Country Village center
and again they have an existing .35 for the total area. So not specific for a hotel on one site.
Site and Design Review not required for mixed use that has less than four units. Here again on
sites like this you are not likely to have - those are going to be mainly small sites like we have
seen on E1 Camino come up before. We have suggested minimum commercial FAR of 0.25:1
before mixed use is allowed. Again, if you see it on Stanford Shopping Center that will be
through another mechanism. Our guess is that the Town & Country probably is close to that .25
already so there is a potential that they could come in with a proposal for mixed use. Assuming
there were more than four units it would require a Site and Design Review, which means it goes
through ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission, and the City Council.
We had suggested, in fact it is in the ordinance right now, that we have a conditional use permit
for mixed use in the CC zone, however, toni ght we would like to retract that suggestion because
number one, again, Stanford is going to go through a different process, and number two, that the
Site and Design Review process already applies in all of the ARB, Commission and Council will
see any proposal that comes through as it is which is more than would see the CUP unless it were
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
appealed. Also, we had included under CC reducing the front setback to in fact no just reducing
the allowable but requiring it essentially to move up towards the street. That is not necessarily
appropriate for Stanford Shopping Center and Town & Country. So right now there.is currently
in the CC zone no requirement for setbacks but it doesn’t require you to be up on the street, it
doesn’t require you to be 25 feet back either. It is flexible and you come through the ARB and
whatever other process you have and it is determined what is appropriate. So we would also
suggest deleting that frontage requirement for the CC properties. So that is just summarizing and
in many cases reiterating what we presented before as far as what the substantive changes are to
the CC zone. So now we would be glad to take any questions.
Chair Holman: Commissioners, do you have questions for Staff?. Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: You talked about a minimum commercial FAR of .25:1. Under the
hypothetical circumstance that Town & Country Village were raised to the ground and replaced
with a mixed use facility in its entirety would the commercial use on that site be potentially less
than there is now?
Mr. C. Williams: If it is a mixed use I don’t know that we know exactly what is there now as far
as whether it is .2 or .25 or .35, which is the maximum right now. Right now under the
regulations we allow a certain portion of that can be office too. So let me.find that here. Okay,
for CC .....
Commissioner Keller: In the absence of an answer to this question let me ask a related question.
Would Staff object .....
Mr. C. Williams: I’ve got it. So the maximum floor area for Town & Country shopping center
shall be .35:1, office uses shall be limited to 15 percent of the floor area of the shopping center
existing as of August 1, 1989. So there are some office uses there and then the overall can’t
exceed .35 but I don’t know whether it is or not. My guess is if you are saying the threshold
before you even consider mixed use is .25 that is probably very close I think to what is out there
now in terms of retail or commercial.
Commissioner Keller: But we are not sure whether ....
Mr. C. Williams: And the CC zone does require the ground floor be retail.
Commissioner Keller:
Mr. C. Williams: No.
Commissioner Keller:
Okay. But we are not sure exactly how much retail there is there now.
So would Staff consider it a problem if the specification for this zone
were to say that the amount of retail would be a minimum of the amount there as of the date of
this ordinance or preexisting the redevelopment or .25 whichever was greater?
Mr. C. Williams: I think that is fine.
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I am assuming we can ask questions across the board not just ....
Chair Holman: Let’s focus the questions on CC at this time.
Commissioner Garber: I will pass for the moment.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt I saw your hand next, I believe.
Commissioner Butt: Curtis, we have under the CC zone which, as I understand it, for practical
purposes we are discussing Town & Country. With the hotel FAR given that that’s one large
parcel how do you have an FAR that is separate for the hotel?
Mr. C. Williams: I think that would only come into play if the property were subdivided in a
way the CC zoning could stay on there and if the property were subdivided so that there was a
separate parcel that the hotel would be on and that parcel could be .20 and with that subdivision
we would also have to clarify but that the .35 whether it includes just the parcel that is left or if it
encompasses all of it. I think we would have to do that if that came about but that is the only
instance where the hotel would really do that. We couldn’t really say 2.0 plus the .35.
Commissioner Burt: I was wondering how in practical terms we had taken this hotel incentive
that we had established within the PTOD and had somehow tried to apply it to one of the sites
that is considered a potential hotel site at the back of Town & Country. It has been discussed
over the years. So if the way it is proposed in the Staff Report would only apply if we
subdivided then maybe we need to look at another way to allow for achievement or the
opportunity for this potential hotel. While I wouldn’t suggest off the top of my head an exact
proposal the concept I would think might be appropriate would be to essentially exempt the hotel
FAR from the commercial or mixed use FAR on the site up to some maximum allowable
amount. So you might want to think about that while we are discussing those issues but
conceptually does that seem to you to be along the lines of what we are trying to achieve?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I think it is and it theoretically means potentially the entire site is built to
something more than .35 FAR but that is what we are saying is that is okay to the extent we have
defined how much more that is and that is for a hotel purpose, yes.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: When we did the Zoning Ordinance Update for the LM and GM zones we
actually had looked at the LM zone that was east of Bayshore and we looked at the LM zones
that were west of Bayshore. We actually came up with different standards for the LM zone that
was east. In fact it was a little more restrictive because of its adjacency to the Baylands. Do we
have the ability to do something very similar to that were we could say that the CC zone that is
west of E1 Camino, which would basically be Stanford Shopping Center and the CC zone that is
east of E1 Camino could have different standards?
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2"7
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. C. Williams: We could do that. I think that is better done bythe way the existing code does
it and the way that is proposed here which is essentially we have one section paragraph that says
what the allowable floor area and it is only related to floor area but what the allowable floor area
is for the Stanford Shopping Center based on a number and what the floor area for the Town &
Country is based on an FAR ratio. If there is some tweaking of those that would accomplish that
I think that is appropriate or if there are some other standards I think we could write it in a way
that we do that. I would discourage trying to develop two different zones per se because you are
really talking about one site in one and one site in another. For the LM what you are really
talking about was really already established in our Zoning Ordinance and we had the LM3 that
existed before and that only applied out there. So that really wasn’t a leap to just call it
something different in the new ordinance.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay.
Chair Holman: Yes, you had a question?
Commissioner Keller: Yes, following up on Commissioner Burt’s question would it make sense
to allow residential uses in a CC zone only as part of the condo that went along with the hotel as
opposed to other kinds of residential?
Mr. C. Williams: Well, you could do that. I don’t think Staff would propose being that
restrictive. I don’t know that we anticipate that there is necessarily a residential mixed us
proposal forthcoming but I can foresee that that might be a desirable thing at some point. And
like I said it has to go through ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission and Council
through the Site and Design Review process in any event. So I think there is plenty of discretion
to look at something like that if it came through. It may be that something like that could occur
and could be beneficial from a retail standpoint. We don’t know that it is precluding a hotel. For
a hotel you could have the incentive like we have talked about before for doing a hotel instead
and we are not giving additional FAR for the overall site for the Other uses.
Commissioner Keller: It seems to me that we would like to incentivize hotel use as something
that we would like to add to the city. There is a big piece of land in the back of the Town &
Country Village. Having the incentive for housing require that it be a percentage of a TOT
generating use would incentivize the creation of a hotel at the property in contrast to the idea that
just residential housing would be created at that location without the creation of a hotel. So it
seems to me that that might be an interesting thing to consider that on a CC zone the additional
housing created is based on a percentage of the TOT as opposed to the percentage of the entire
site.
Mr. C. Williams: I understand that point it is just that if a hotel doesn’t want to go in there and
there is a possibility that mixed use could bring more retail into the site we have then precluded
that from happening.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber,
Page 17
1 Commissioner Garber: Given that the CC zone the criteria that we are really talking about is
2 truly applicably only to Town & Country and not to Stanford your deletion of the final bullet
3 point the front setbacks along E1 Camino is really to preserve the existing project as is in that if it
4 was changed and if the owner at that time afterwards were to look to modify, change, or
5 otherwise re-permit work there would then be required to conform to the new zoning criteria that
6 would have been put in there?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: Yes. If we leave this language in here and they want to do something there
then thev are going to need to move.
Commissioner Garber: Re-plan.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, move something up to the front of the site.
Commissioner Garber: That being the case let me go back to Commissioner Keller’s example
that in the instance if the site, unlikely as it might be, were to be scraped wouldn’t we want the
site in that circumstance to then conform to the other criteria that we would have for the other
properties that are along E1 Camino?
Mr. C. Williams: Kevin, is this part of the E1 Camino Guidelines or not? I didn’t think so. So I
think one distinction is that the E1 Camino Guidelines are sort of pushing buildings towards the
front and that and this is just north of where those really are focused. The thing that is done here
is we are not requiring a setback either. So there would be an opportunity if the site scraped I
think there would be an opportunity at that point to, and again you have Site and Design Review
through all three bodies to look at the guidelines, the context based design criteria that leads you
in that same direction.
Commissioner Garber: The process allows for other tools to be used to implement that effect.
Mr. C. Williams: I think so.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Curtis, but if Town & Country whoever owns it in some restoration or
remodeling phase wanted to build to the sidewalk would they be allowed to do that?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, assuming it would pass muster with the ARB, you guys and Council.
Chair Holman: Is everyone else through with questions? I have a couple then. Having to do
with, this is a little bit repetitive, the ground floor protections at Stanford and Town & Country in
the Development Standards on page 15 of Attachment F shows the minimum mixed use ground
floor commercial FAR as .25:1 and has a footnote six next to that which says, office uses may be
included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. I think that need a
little bit of clarification at least to me.
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: Where are you? In the redline version. So page 15 of the redline version.
Chair Holman: Yes, page 15, minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR in the CC.
Mr. C. Williams: Right and footnote six then is what you are talking about?
Chair H01man: Yes. We have ground floor protections that are different. We have ground floor
protections that are applied to Charleston and to Midtown and to Downtown so I am trying to get
clarity on what the ground floor protections are that are referred to here.
Mr. C. Williams: So maybe what we should do here is in this say that ground floor commercial
uses include these various things to the extent they are allowed by the ground floor protection
ordinances or something like that. We are not intending here to allow something that those
restrictions don’t already allow.
Chair Holman: I think that is kind of what it savs now.
Mr. C. Williams: It says it for office uses but it doesn’t say it specifically for the other ones if
that is what. What would you like?
Chair Holman: Where I was headed is in the CC zone do we want any office on the ground floor
at Stanford Shopping Center and Town & Country? That is where I was headed. I am not
thinking of an occasion why we would want to allow that and if we allow it we could possibly be
encouraging it in certain economic times.
Mr. C. Williams: Well, it isn’t allowed right now other than replacing an existing office use.
That is the only time that would be allowed in that location as it is.
Chair Holman: Okay.
Mr. C. Williams: That is why I was saying and that is why this says office uses only to the
extent they are permitted in the ground floor regulations. Right now the only time the ground
floor regulations in the CC allow you to have office is when you are replacing existing office
space.
Chair Holman: Okay, I was thinking there was a little bit different ground floor rules for
Midtown and Charleston than ....
Mr. C. Williams: Midtown and Charleston do have some additional language about further
restricting sizes and types of uses. The uses here, office uses, right now I am thinldng back to
that CS provision, I am not sure it applies here but maybe we should. I think the problem in the
CS - in the CS we have it defined so it does not include administrative offices for example. It
says specifically general business, professional and medical offices and does not allow
essentially headquarters office type uses. Then it has the limitation of 5,000 square feet. The
Charleston and Midtown regulations have even a narrower scope than that because they are
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
specifically neighborhood serving. So I don’t think those would necessarily apply here but if
you want to be more specific about the office type of uses so that we are clear on that that maybe
it is not in this section that it is more of the section on 18.16.050 on office use restrictions, which
talk about conversion to office uses.
Chair Holman: In 050 you say? Could you point us to where that is?
Mr. C. Williams: That is probably page nine of that same redline version. So that defined
medical, professional, and business offices. Again, it doesn’t allow administrative only where
those offices have been in existence since 2001, were not nonconforming at that time, weren’t
occupied by housing or retail services, eating and drinldng services, and then an exception for
CS.
Chair Holman: Let me see ifI can shortcut this a little bit. In Stanford Shopping Center and
Town & Country I don’t know of any existing ground floor office. So could we just not prohibit
ground floor office?
Mr. C. Williams: I guess what I am saying is we already have without being specific to saying
CC we are doing it in a broad brush across all the districts with the exceptions listed here. Off
the top of my head I am not familiar with anything that would meet these exemptions there but I
don’t know that there is not a single ground floor office in fact I think there are in Town &
Country. There are travel offices and such that I think are considered general business offices.
So there may be some that are in that gray area.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you for that. I have a similar kind of question with the total mixed
use floor area ratio or FAR in the CC zone. We talked previously about Stanford has two floor
and three floor retail. So how does that relate to the 1:1 FAR for mixed use? In other words,
could this be construed to promote the elimination of some retail square footage?
Mr. C. Williams: Well, again Stanford any mixed use on Stanford is not going to be through the
CC zone regulations. They are already at their cap essentially so it would have to be done
through an amendment to the zoning ordinance and a development agreement. So I think there is
a mechanism to address Stanford. I am looking at this in the same light as what Commissioner
Burt mentioned as far as the hotels and wondering if that is a meaningful number to even have in
here, a 1.0 a mixed use .what does that mean on Town & Country? I don’t think we mean that
the whole site then is 1.0 and how does that relate to the .35 of office. It seems to me that maybe
what we want to do here is in the CC not specify those numbers but go back to the section that
says it is .35 for Town & Country with the following adjustments and have something for hotel
up to half the square footage of the hotel is not counted against the FAR or against that number
or something like that and some kind of provision that allows some level of mixed use. Again,
not looking at it on a FAR basis for the whole site because it is not the same as what we look at
in all the other zones where we have clearly individual parcels that we are looking at.
Chair Holman: I appreciate that because I find this troublesome and I think Commissioner Burt
has a follow up.
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: Curtis, I was glad to hear you say that because I hadn’t dwelled on this
table and when I looked at this I said wait a minute now I am really trying to envision what the
outcome might be for Town & Country under this table. So I am glad that you agree with that.
You mentioned under this hotel concept that perhaps only counting x-percent of the hotel against
FAR I think my inclination, I don’t know about the other Commissioners, would be to not count
the hotel FAR against the whole up to some maximum. Either some maximum total FAR or
some square footage of hotel or whatever but not penalize them. We don’t want them to be
placed in a circumstance where if they chose to put in a hotel they would have to get rid of some
of the retail to do so provided they could properly park the hotel and those things.
Then Commissioner Keller had brought up this other issue about where we should fix the retail
amount and I don’t think you had an exact number of where they are currently on retail FAR. So
I think our concept is we don’t want to see what is today a retail center reduced in its retail size.
My preference would be to fix the minimum FAR at about where they are, maybe give them
some minor flexibility, and then allow them certain incentives to revitalize the center or to put in
a hotel provided other conditions are met on parldng, etc., and all the other approval processes. I
don’t think we want because we have these formulaic FARs of a round number of .25 that we
might create some disincentive for the outcome that we actually want to retain. It works as a
retail center. They are in the process of revitalizing it as a retail center and we just want to keep
in place a set of parameters that would at least keep the things that we value about it and what
they apparently value given the investment that they are currently making in the revitalization
and then provide other incentives should they choose to take us up on them.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I am looking at page 14 of the Mixed Use Development
Standards for Commercial other than Downtown. It says here that the maximum nonresidential
floor area ratio is .4 and the maximum residential floor area ratio is .6. Now I don’t quite
understand why if Town & Country wanted to put some residential why they would subdivide
the property. Why wouldn’t they just raise the entire property and put .6 residential on top and
.25 commercial on the bottom and why they couldn’t just do that?
Mr. C. Williams: You are just saying basically put retail on the first floor and put residential
above all that at 2.6 for the whole site?
Commissioner Keller: Up to 1.0 on the whole site assuming they open a hotel. That is possible
under this ordinance.
Mr. C. Williams: No it is not. It is not all residential. Is that what you are saying? It could be
residential at 1.0?
Commissioner Keller: No, I am saying it could be residential at .6 and nonresidential at
somewhere between .25 and .4 and I am not sure whether or not that is what we want.
Mr. C. Williams: That is what we are changing. I think we are suggesting changing it.
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Arthur, I might be able to help on that. IfI understood Curtis correctly a
few minutes ago he was recognizing that this table is perhaps not appropriate for Town &
Country in the CC and that Staff I think is going to come back momentarily with
recommendations on addressing that concern that you have raised that it would basically
eliminate these other formulas. Is that correct, Curtis? Does that in concept address your
concern, Arthur?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, in concept it addresses my concern other than I thought I heard
something saying something that they expected the property to be subdivided if there is a
residential use. I am not sure why it would be the interest of the property owner to do the
subdivision.
Chair Holman: I am not sure did we hear that?
Mr. C. Williams: I said that for the hotel possibility that that might be. Yes, theoretically it
could happen with a residential also and that may or may not be in theirinterest. That is the only
place where this table would then make more sense if they had a separate parcel to do the
residential on. What we are saying is that given the overall broad framework of floor area that is
allowed on Town & Country these number, this kind of table, doesn’t work for that and we ought
to just go back into the allowable square footage for Town & Country and talk about how much
that can be increased for a hotel and how much it can be increased for a residential component.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Keller: I just want to ask are we expecting the developer of the property to do a
subdivision? Or wouldn’t it be in their interest to not subdivide so they could just use the FAR
overall however they wished?
Mr. C. Williams: I don’t think we are expecting the developer to do a subdivision. That is not
an assumption we are malting. The numbers in here apply to the whole thing at this point right
now whether they subdivide it or not.
Commissioner Keller: So then I assume we should have numbers that are assuming no
subdivision.
Mr. C. Williams: That is what we are proposing.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: Just to follow up on Commissioner Keller’s thought here, if the owner of
the property were to subdivide or to propose to subdivide the property it would then have to go
through a separate evaluation of that subdivision to determine how and depending how it is done
it is going to be affected by the zoning in a variety of different ways which would have to be
determined upon that proposal being submitted. Is that correct?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes. Then any plans for it again would have to go through all three bodies.
Chair Holman: Seeing no other questions are we ready for discussion of the CC zone proposal?
Mr. C. Williams: Could we maybe take a stab at .suggesting a language change?
Chair Holman: Of course.
Mr. C. Williams: The first thing would be that in those mixed use standards that we would
delete the residential density floor area numbers, the minimum mixed use ground floor
commercial numbers, all of that in that column under CC. We would eliminate and just refer
there to the Subsection E after the tables which is on page 17 of the redline version. If you are
looking at the clean version it is on page 15, Subsection E. So in either of those locations it reads
the same there weren’t any changes made. So under number one there where it says maximum
floor area for the Town & Country Shopping Village shopping center shall be .35:1, office uses
shall be limited to 15 percent of the floor area of the shopping center existing at of August 1,
1989, I think we would add first except that and one would be that hotels that may be permitted
are excluded from that FAR limitation but such that the overall site FAR does not exceed, and I
am thinking maybe .45 which is in a quick calculation here on that site probably 50,000 square
feet.
Commissioner Garber: Do you happen to know the footprint of the existing Town & Country?
Mr. C. Williams: The footprint of it?
Commissioner Garber: Just a guess.
Mr. C. Williams: The building coverage? If it is .25 and I think we figured the site was 10 or 11
acres so that would be two and a half acres or 100 and something thousand square feet.
Chair Holman: So I know you are having to do this on the fly, is that 50,000 a number that the
Commission is comfortable with? It seems maybe high. Commissioner Keller.
Mr. C. Williams: The other alternative is to have us take this back and work with our Economic
Development person and try to define a number that more precisely matches what a hotel square
footage might be and adjust that if that doesn’t seem to accurately reflect it.
Chair Holman: IfI could there is a character to the shopping center and 50,000 square feet for
this location seems like it is a lot. Like for instance, what size is the Sheraton?
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: Well, that is what I would want to find out. So maybe we need to estimate
what a three story or four story at the most hotel in that area might amount to square footage-
wise and sort of plug that into this number and adjust the .45 as necessary.
Chair Holman: My personal thought would be a three story but I would ask the other
Commissioners to pipe in on that and Commissioner Garber you had a comment?
Commissioner Garber: I have something to say. I certainly don’t feel like I am a hotel expert to
be able to know one, where the breakpoint is that it becomes a reasonable business proposition as
well as having looked at the site and what the constraints are that would limit that equation,
therefore, I would suggest that there is probably someone on Staff or in your consultancy group
that can probably better advise us as to what the right number is.
Mr. C. Williams: Whitney thinks 50,000 is not that big but we can check that with the other
Staff and with Rick. Rick unfortunately had a conflict and couldn’t be here tonight. He would
probably have that answer for you in a minute.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert has a question but if you don’t mind Commissioner Burt
is jumping out of his chair down there.
Commissioner Burt: Just because it was a follow up to put closure on this thing. I just don’t
think we can decide on the fly tonight an appropriate size for that. I think what we ought to do in
endorse a concept and then between now and when it goes to Council Staff would refine that
concept and make a presentation to Council and they are going to be the ultimate decision-maker
anyway. I am hearing conceptual support but I don’t think any of us have enough clarity as to
attempt to pencil out a particular size tonight on the fly.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am pretty much in agreement with Commissioner Garber and
Commissioner Burt. I don’t think that we have the ability to sort of put a lid i~n this tonight in
terms of the hotel element there. What I am thinking of and this is just thinking out loud here, is
that we have several other hotels along E1 Camino Real in that area and one of the most
important things is that we probably would want a density and compatibility along those lines
with the ground floor element and perhaps a residential element. So I think it is a very complex
equation that we are looking at here and there is just no shortcut to it.
Mr. C. Williams: We agree.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I think that I feel comfortable in leaving the total FAR including the hotel
use to be a plug number if you will that is plugged in when you present it to Council. I am still
interested in some language along the lines of that the residential use does not exceed the amount
of hotel use. I think that would provide additional incentive to providing hotel. I think that we
have had a lot of housing built recently in the last few years probably a little faster than we
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
would have expected on more sites than we would have expected. So one of my philosophical
items is encouraging housing to pay its own way and housing that comes along with hotels is
certainly one way for it to pay its own way.
Mr. C. Williams: So would we then be able to essentially say because the second exception here
was going to be for mixed use that mixed use you could exceed the .35 overall nonresidential cap
but the residential Should not exceed whatever that same number is that the hotel is? Is that what
you are saying? It is sort of apples and oranges when you are talking residential versus hotel.
The square footages are not what you measure value by so I am not sure that would work.
Commissioner Keller: Are you suggesting .45 or something like it including hotel plus
residential? I would assume that there would be some overall cap that would include residential
and hotel and within that overall cap that the residential should not exceed the amount of hotel is
what I would prefer.
Mr. C. Williams: I was looking more at an either/or situation. We could certainly do it that way
as well. Either one could be to a certain level or both 0fthem together could be to a somewhat
higher level but I am a little concerned about something that suggests packing residential, hotel
and a lot of retail all on that one site.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am not in support of that at all. I think what it does is really manipulates
things. In fact until we reach the goals of the general Comprehensive Plan I don’t see any reason
to restrict housing in any way.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Curtis, don’t we have elsewhere in the report a formula along E1 Camino
and the hotel FAR going up allowing I think it is 25 percent condo units within the hotel?
Mr. C. Williams: Right that is what we have put basically is that of the 2.0 FAR up to 25 percent
of that may be devoted to condo units.
Commissioner Burt: Well, it just seems to me that that formula might be an appropriate one to
have here rather than this. Everywhere that we have allowed the hotel we might have that same
formula apply. So that might be a way to have a consistency and to not create a circumstance of
having more residential in this center than we would desire but allowing some and having it be
an additional incentive for the hotel. It may never get built because the property owner would
have to decide it and all we are doing is setting up certain allowable places in the city where it
might occur.
Mr. C. Williams: Are we saying that ifa hotel were not built that the residential would be
limited to 25 percent of what a hotel could build? Is that what you are saying?
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: No. I was envisioning what I think ifI understand the balance of the report
is that actually I think I am going to have to wait until we get into that body. Let me ask you
this then and you clarify. In the absence of a hotel and given the changes that you are planning
on making in this deleting these FARs from the table for the CC zone what amount of residential
would be allowed to be built at Town & Country?
Mr. C. Williams: Well, again I think that we would probably treat it the same way that the
residential is above the .35 to a maximum and a .45 again just a quick calculation if it is either
residential or hotel and to just do residential is probably 50,000 square feet, which probably
means if we use 1,250 or 1,500 square feet a couple of hundred units.
Commissioner Burt: Well; my concern then would be that the market has been clear for a long
while that residential is a considerably higher value than hotel and we create a circumstance
where the developer has the alternative of going residential or hotel we are never going to get a
hotel there.
Mr. C. Williams: That was my question to Mr. Keller. Do we want to try to do something that
does say sort of either/or in a way that is favorable to the hotel and allows the residential but only
on a fairly limited basis?
Commissioner Burt: My concept would be that 25 percent of the allowable hotel space could go
to residential provided that the hotel were there.
Mr. C. Williams: Okay, I see.
Chair Holman: IfI might it is nine o’clock and we have yet to finish up the CC and we have the
other commercial zones to do and out of respect for the public we also have two more items-
coming up. So I would like to explore with Staff what the options are. You look like you are
ready to speak.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, we could take this and essentially come up with as we discussed with a
number for the hotel, a maximum FAR for this site for that basically that would reflect that
increment of having a hotel on the site above the .35 that currently exists and we could do the
same thing with the residential basically being .25 or 25 percent of that square footage. So I
think we would still suggest that option be there for the residential but it would be a fairly
restrictive amount that way. So we would make those changes and then the other change here is
that we would have a minimum floor area of the existing as of the effective date of this ordinance
basically and would you just want that to apply to the residential component? I would think
probably so and not the hotel. Well, we want the retail so we would basically rather than having
just the .35:1 we would also include the minimum of what is existing retail now be protected and
any rebuilding provide at least that amount of retail.
Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: If I could just make a suggestion because you
have to have a motion and a second and passage before Commissioner Tuma can come back. If
you wanted to make a motion that reflected your general direction with the understanding that
that is how Curtis is going to take that direction that would be appropriate.
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: I have two Commissioners who have comments but I would like to pose the
question would then that go directly to Council or is there some possibility that we could have a
special meeting next Wednesday to review and finalize anything? Would that still give Staff
enough time to get to Council?
Mr. C. Williams: Well, my anticipation was it would go straight to Council. Now we have an
October 11 meeting with you and we could report back to you what we have done and if you
have additional input you wanted us to forward to the Council for next week we could do that, I
would prefer -- we need to have the CMR out next week.
Mr. Larkin: Spealdng for my secretary who isn’t here who types these things I think that would
be extremely difficult.
Chair Holman: Okay, then if I could offer up one other comment or suggestion here. We also
earlier talked about the frout setbacks and how that really wasn’t applicable to Town & Country
and E1 Camino. So what would Staff’s proposal be on that?
Mr. C. Williams: Our proposal would be to essentially say no requirement on the frout setback
the way the existing code does for just the nonresidential development.
Chair Holman: Then one other comment, and I have this throughout you’ll hear; is the
maximum height is within 150 feet of an abutting residential zone. With Town & Country there
is a railroad track that intercedes and so I would suggest that that not be abutting but just within -
in other words, delete the word ’abutting.’
Mr. C. Williams: That is what we had a problem with: If there is a railroad track in between I
think it is pretty likely that is going to be more than 150 feet but if it is not our concern is start
having those factors kick in at that point. It is very restrictive when it is not ilnmediately next to
a residential zone. You have a separation there you have a whole railroad separation. Now the
maybe the height part of it works.
Chair Holman: The height is what I am referring to and even if there is a railroad track that
intercedes we have seen when it comes to like the project at 195 Page Mill we have seen how
much of the public has come out even with a street and a railroad in between. It is a little bit
different situation but I would like to see that ’abutting’ word taken out. I think there still could
be a significant impacts especially if it was a hotel where there are going to be lights on probably
24 hours a day.
Mr. C. Williams: Well we can do that if we can narrow that concern to the railroad issue I think
that is fine. Our main concern was that we have places where we have commercial properties
between residential zones and the site and they are less than 150 feet away and that it wasn’t
appropriate there to restrict the commercial property because there is an intervening property that
is transition anyway. If it is a case of the railroad being a specific concern then we can narrow
that here to that issue. I think that is fine.
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: I hope other Commissioners wilt agree with that. Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I have one minor tweak to suggest. Curtis, I appreciate that you adopted in
principle this no net loss of retail concept but we might want to include a little bit of latitude for
the property developer. I can envision circumstances where they might want a tenant in there
that a higher user of parking and they might give up a minor amount of actual built area and the
impact being the same amount or greater retail revenue, the same or more traffic but on
conceivably slightly less retail space. So we might want whether it is 95 percent or something
that gives them just some operational latitude without in principle altering the essential amount
of retail that is there.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I had a similar thought as Commissioner Burt but coming from a different
direction. We had a discussion the last time we looked at this about hotels being able to have
either condominiums or office as a certain percentage as well and that would take care of that
without sacrificing the commercial.
Commissioner Burt: Can you explain how it takes care of it?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well, we are allowed to have a certain amount of commercial space but
then in addition to that if a hotel were to be built there and they were allowed to have a certain
percentage of it be either condominium which would be housing or office space within that
facility then what it does is it allows them to either go commercial or residential without
impacting the commercial, the retail, sorry.
Commissioner Burt: What if they in their redesign of the center including a hotel or whatever
wanted to come and say the way this all works we need five percent less retail area. It is going to
be more vibrant retail or whatever. I am not sure your proposal would address that and I think
there is a reasonable amount of latitude that we should allow the developer. While I am very
pleased that we are going to adopt the principle of not a net loss in retail at the same time I think
a little bit of latitude is appropriate to allow them to be creative on how to make best use of that
site without altering the essential character and the fundamental amount of retail.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well, my point is then if that is the case, take the office space out of the
commercial and put it into the hotel and don’t impact the retail space.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: If I am understanding the discussion right now we have retail and
commercial space currently existent the discussion has been about how to bring hotel plus
residential in the form of a condominium into the site. Those have been imagined as two
separate types of use. The suggestion, Commissioner Lippert that you have is that the two uses
not be segregated retail and commercial but they be retail and then commercial, residential and
hotel. Is that what I am hearing?
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess the misnomer here is that we are talking about commercial and
within commercial you have office space and you have retail space. There is a certain amount of
office space that currently exists. All that I am saying is that don’t impact the retail, don’t take
away any of the retail if anything is going to be impacted allow the office space to go into say the
hotel space per what we discussed at the last meeting.
Commissioner Garber: Forgive me, my concern with that is that if we were to make that
recommendation and when it is implemented that means that the owner once again if they have
to resubmit for permits would end up having whatever space they were looking to renovate or
add onto, etc. would have to take out the commercial that is currently there. Wouldthat be true?
I’.m sorry, office, I keep calling it commercial but I really mean office. Is that what would
happen?
Vice-Chair Lippert: What I am saying is that Commissioner Burt had made a suggestion here
which was simply that we wanted to preserve the net amount of what we call commercial space
and allowing the developer or property owner some flexibility there. If it feels about right and it
is about there allow them to have it. What I am saying is allow them to basically do a, and I hate
using this word, TDR, a transfer of development right and say we want to preserve the ground
floor retail element that is what is important here to us, let’s take what you have in the way of
commercial and allow you to transfer that let’s say into the hotel element but up to a certain
percentage of the hotel.
Chair Holman: Curtis.
Mr. C. Williams: I appreciate what you are trying to do: I think we are getting too complicated
with it in the transfer thing. We are talking about one site in the city here basically and I think it
is just while it may be a good idea I think that we have enough here to provide some incentive
for hotel that we can work with and by the same token try to limit the residential component of
any potential mixed use and would suggest that we head that way with also the deletion of the
front setback requirement and the deletion of the CUP requirement for mixed use and then
deleting those items in the mixed use table that have the FARs and densities and such on them.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
MOTION
Commissioner Keller: I am going to try to offer a motion. My motion is to accept the Staff
recommendation for the CC zone with the following amendments: firstly you mentioned two
amendments, could you repeat those please?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, deleting the front setback requirement making that read ’no requirement
on front setback,’ deleting the requirement that mixed use requires a CUP in the CC zone, and
then actually there was a third one, which was deleting from the mixed use table the FAR and
density percentages.
Page 29
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The other amendments are to be added to this as part of the
2 motion are one, retail use must be a minimum of the greater of .25 FAR or the amount of the
3 most recent use that is retail at the time of the enactment of this ordinance. The second
4 amendment is that residential use be in accordance with the hotel regulations in column D in
5 particular D-2 on page 15 of the non-redline. So it refers to D, A and B but not the FAR. In
6 other words, D-2, A and B in particular are the things that I am bringing in. Does that make
sense? So page 15, D-2, A and B are the residential use that is allowed. Number three that the
remove ’abutting’ from the maximum height as twice suggested by the Chair. Finally, number
four, to limit the height of the hotel use or any use at this site to at most three stories.
Chair Holman: I am looking for a second.
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: I will second that. I might have a friendly amendment.
Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Burt seconds the motion. Commissioner Keller would
you wish to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I have tried to incorporate the various ideas that people have had. I
think one of the things with respect to Commissioner Burt’s comments earlier is that the Town &
Country Village already allows 15 percent of its floor area to be office use and there are some
office uses. For example, the State Senator Joe Simidian’s office I think is an office use not a
retail use. So there are some uses there and to the extent that additional buildings are built it is
possible to put some office use there as long as it doesn’t exceed 15 percent of the amount that
was available at the time of this August 1, 1989.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, would you care to speak to your second?
Commissioner Burt: I have a question I wanted to ask Staff to clarify on the motion. As it was
stated it was 100 percent of current retail. We have unoccupied spaces are they still designated
as retail based upon their prior use?
Mr. C. Williams: I think the way it is worded if they have become vacant and it says
’continuously in existence’ then they can remain as non-retail but if they have not then they have
to become retail.
Commissioner Burt: So my question has to do with out of the unoccupied spaces there are
actually some like the travel agency and others, a pharmacy and things, they have been
unoccupied for over a year. What would be the impact of this motion on whether the ones that
were retail would still have to stay retail going forward?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes. They would have to do that anyway under the ground floor regulations if
they are retail now.
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Burt: Well, my memory wasn’t that under the ground floor regulation there were
circumstances if they were unoccupied for extended periods that they could flip.
Mr. C. Williams: No, if they were unoccupied they would have to be retail.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, great.
Mr. C. Williams: If they were never occupied at the time of 2001 they were vacant and they
have stayed vacant then they could be used as offices. Anything else in that interim period that
has changed and gone out of office use or some other use other than retail would now have to be
retail.
Commissioner Burt: I will defer that for your evaluation between now and when it goes to
Council. I don’t recall when the pharmacy closed but ithas been awhile.
Mr. C: Williams: A pharmacy is retail.
Commissioner Burr: But it has been unoccupied for several years, it might go to 2001, so it
could flip.
Mr. C. Williams: I see what you are saying.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. So I will defer that to you and if it ends up being a relevant point we
will just expect that you will bring that Council to reflect that concern.
My friendly amendment would be that Staff identify rather than exactly 100 percent of current
retail retained that the overwhelming majority of the retail be retained. I don’t know if that
should be 95 percent or what but I still would like to give the developer or the property
owner/developer some minor latitude to deal with circumstances. If we adopt this we have
achieved the essence of our objective, which is to keep the retail that is there, but we also want to
give them some latitude to create vitality as they see fit within that broad principle.
Commissioner Keller: I will accept the amendment of ’or 95 percent of the space that was retail
in its most recent use.’
Chair Holman: If I might that might need a little bit of clarity because as I wrote the motion
down it was retain the minimum of the greater of the .25 FAR or the amount of retail in place at
the enactment of the ordinance. So I am not quite sure.
Commissioner Keller: I think what I said is or the most recent use at the time of the enactment
of the ordinance, therefore, vacant space under my intent is that vacant space is considered retail
if its most recent use was retail.
Chair Holman: Okay, thanks for the clarification then. Commissioner Garber.
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: I have two concerns. I am not sure if they need to take the form of a
friendly amendment. First Staff had some concerns relative to the issue of abutment and you had
made suggestion that perhaps abutment is not the issue here but having the adjacency to a
railroad track. Is there some clarification that you might suggest in there?
Mr. C. Williams: Well, actually I think for this since particularly weare talking about essentially
one site I don’t think we probably need to make that distinction.
Commissioner Garber: Okay.
Mr. C. Williams: If it weare talking about height and we don’t have to get into daylight planes
and such and we are just talking about height then I think most of this is interior to the property
and that that we are talking about is something newthat we will have an opportunity to provide
that transition.
Commissioner Garber: So item number two has to do with the specification of three floors. I
think it is more precise simply to say the 35 feet that has already been suggested. Can I offer that
as a friendly amendment? It is really a modification but if it needs to take the form of an
amendment I will submit it as such.
Mr. C. Williams: Madam Chair, I have a concern about that. First of all that obviates the need
to do the 150 feet because that is what it comes down to at 150 feet is a 35-foot height limitation.
Secondly, we have a 50-foot height limitation currently in the CC zone. Now that is not likely to
happen at Town & Country other than maybe if there was a hotel it would be the one case. So if
you want to limit the height I would suggest doing it there but not any implication here that that
applies to Stanford Shopping Center.
Commissioner Garber: I agree.
Chair Holman: That was my intention.
Commissioner Garber: Okay, hang on. What I wanted to get to was the suggestion by the author
of the motion here was your intent to try and limit height of a hotel that would occur along the
railroad tracks?
Commissioner Keller: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: That being the case do we need the amendments to accomplish that or is
it accomplished as part of the way that it is already written?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, if it is within the 150 feet we need to take out the abutting and then as
long as the residential zone is within 150 feet of the hotel or wherever it goes then it has to be 35
feet, it can’t be more than 35 feet.
Commissioner Garber: So then my friendly amendment would be to take out your last issue,
which was the three floors because it is already covered as part of the third suggestion.
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: It is covered if what you are talking about is near a residential zone. If what he
is talking about is across the entire site then it is not covered.
Commissioner Garber: I think his concern was only about one portion of the site not the entire
thing.
Mr. C. Williams: Is that correct?
Commissioner Keller: This was suggested by Chair Holman. So perhaps you want to comment
on that.
Chair Holman: Yes, my intention was that it would be only at Town & Country and it would be
applied to where there would most likely be a hotel and that it be protection for the properties on
the other side of the railroad track. So probably taking out the word abutting does cover that.
Mr. C. Williams: Okay.
Commissioner Garber: Okay, then my friendly amendment is to take out your last piece of
language.
Commissioner Keller: I agree to that.
Commissioner Burt: The seconder does as well.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Tuma abstained due to conflict)
Chair Holman: Any more comments or are we ready to vote on the motion? Okav. Does it need
to be restated? I think we are all pretty clear on it. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously with Commissioner Tuma not participating.
At this time as it is 9:30 1 think we should do two things one is a check-in again as I suggested
earlier about the next items, items two and three on the agenda, then subsequent to talking about
that we will take a short break.
Mr. Larkin: Staff strongly recommends that the Commission attempt to get all three items done
tonight. The issue is we are just a little over a tenth of the way through item number one. So my
suggestion would be on the remainder of the items rather than come up with precise language as
we did for this one if you can make your general recommendations so that there is something
that you can forward on to City Council that would probably be the most helpful.
Then we do require a clarification of items that may be brought after ten o’clock and that would
most likely be both items two and three but that requires a consensus of the Commission to bring
new items after ten o’clock.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Page 33
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2 Commissioner Bnrt: Don, I am not sure how you have just really have addressed our dilemma.
3 We can attempt to truncate the remainder of our discussion on the ZOU. It is very important
4 what we are doing here tonight and as much as we can attempt to be more general than precise
5 that is not going to make it a 20-minute discussion. So where do we stand on being able to deal
with our reality that we still have a lot on our agenda tonight? What can give?
Mr. Larkin: Well, the same constraints that apply to this item apply to item two. The suggestion
is not that you finish this before ten but that the Commission make a determination that it is
willing to raise items two and three after ten o’clock. Staff is willing to stay here as long as it
takes.
Chair Holman: There is a timeliness to addressing item number two?
Mr. Larkin: There is a timeliness as we have made clear with all of our zoning issues.
Essentially if we are going to do any kind of restrictive zoning it has to be done and completed
by November 7 because that is the election date in which Prop 90 is on the ballot. If Prop 90 was
to pass we could conceivably be precluded from doing any of this. So that is why in order to get
things to Council in a timely way it has to be done tonight.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: So what about Chair Holman had mentioned a possibility 0f an October 4
special meeting? Could items two and three be on that date and still meet your timeline?
Mr. Larldn: It would be difficult but possible:
Chair Holman: So I would like to take a poll of the Commission to see how you feel. We do
have a lot to cover as Commissioner Burt said. This is very important, it is the Zoning
Ordinance Update for the commercial properties so obviously it is very important and we need to
not hurry through it. We need to be as expedient as we can but not hurry through it. So does
anyone have a proposal for how we address items two and three? Commissioner Lippert, I think
I saw your hand up.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am in agreement with Commissioner Burt it is going to get late and I don’t
think we are going to make good decisions and we are going to truncate our comments. I would
be inclined to continue this item either to a special meeting next week or to the October 4
meeting.
Mr. C. Williams: That is next week. That is what we are talking about. I have been informed
that the applicant for item number three is here from New York. At the risk of putting us in a
little bind next week I would offer up the possibility of doing items two and three tonight and
putting off the rest of the Zoning Ordinance Update until next Wednesday. And the appellant
can’t make it next week on item number three as well.
Chair Holman: That helps us make a determination.
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Vice-Chair Lippert: We could call a special meeting for tomorrow if a majority of the
Commission were available.
Mr. C. Williams: I think we can be preparing our CMR and get the ordinances in pretty good
shape. It is just a matter of making revisions that the Commission decides on next Wednesday. I
understand Don saying we are through 10 percent but I actually think we have discussed a lot of
issues there and we did run into this dilemma with the Town & Country that is very different
from everywhere else where we have individual sites. So I don’t think it is going to be as
torturous as Don might think it would be.
Chair Holman: With the permission of the Commission I am going to suggest that we follow
Staff’s recommendation here and move items two and three forward after a brief break and that
we then continue the commercial zone districts and go as far as we can as long as we are not
bleary-eyed and Staff is hanging in there withus tonight and try to finish tonight. That will
involve some endurance and some attention and maybe some coffee. If the Commission agrees
to that that is what I would suggest doing.
Commissioner Keller: I would agree with that. Being a night owl myselfI can stay here as long
as we need to.
Chair Holman: Is there any objection to that? If not, why don’t we take about an eight-minute
break and we will come back and address items two and three. Curtis, did you have a comment?
Mr. C. Williams: And then come back to the ZOU if you have time tonight or put that off to the
fourth?
Chair Holman: Our intention as we just stated is that we would do items two and three right
after the break and then we will take up again the commercial zones and see how far we can
possibly get.
Mr. C. Williams: Okav. Great.
Chair Holman: So we will take an eight-minute break. Curtis, do I need to adjourn item one for
the interceding?
Mr. Larkin: You can table it or continue it to later in the meeting, either way.
BREAK
Vice-Chair Lippert: Can I make a motion that we continue that?
Chair Holman: I think we have some other matters to deal with like Commissioner Burt would
you like to speak to that?
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: I need to say I will be out of the state on the 4th and so I won’t be able to
participate further and if the Commission would allow me I would like to just rattle off a few
concerns and do it in two minutes and we can be out of here so I can pass along to the rest of the
Commission the aspects that I would hope they would address.
Chair Holman: Let me do one thing first if I might and that is to check and see if Commissioners
are fried or if we are willing to stay for another hour. No? Staff is saying no too.
Mr. C. Williams: I don’t want to put you through that, no.
Chair Holman: Okay.
Mr. C. Williams: This is fine to do it this way. I was also going to offer that if you in the next
couple of days wanted to get together with me we could just through those and then I could try
and convey that back to them and try to address anything before we got back to the Commission.
Commissioner Burt: That sounds good as well.
Chair Holman: If you want to just take a couple of minutes though why don’t you throw them
out and then if you get together with Staff we can get that feedback as well.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. First was a concern regarding Fry’s and its amortization and what
would occur if there were a change of occupant or a change of use if we got rid of the
amortization? Another issue is in the auto overlays and whether any of the sites, well actually I
shouldn’t just say auto overlay, I have to really look at the zoning map on this. We had
considered some sites as potential auto overlay zones on the west side of 101 along West
Bayshore that were not included and they might be hotel sites.
Mr. C. Williams: They are not in the commercial zones.
Commissioner Burr: They are not in the commercial zones, okay good. I also had a question
because on the PowerPoint presentation I think it was there was a discussion of not allowing any
hazardous material I think use or storage. I think there may actually be thresholds that Staff is
intending because a literal conformance to that would mean you couldn’t have a hardware store
with its chlorine and all kinds of things with its chlorine. You can’t have cars with their gasoline
to be stored there. So hazardous materials we need to make sure we are discussing within proper
parameters. I would also like to look at how we might create incentives for rooftop gardens not
necessarily as an alternative to other open space but in addition to our traditional open space.
Staff has a proposal I think it was in the CN zone on E1 Camino to have a standardized 1.0 FAR
it currently has a .9. I would like to see if the Commission would want to look at incentives to
move that up rather than just granting that increase perhaps that that increase goes to retail or
who knows what. I can understand the reason for standardizing it but we may want to link it
with something that is a desirable outcome. Next, I wanted to see if there were ways that we
might be able to address the needs of the small independent doctors. While acknowledging that
we have had a problem with some of the medical uses of basically intensification of those
allowed uses that didn’t have controls on parking and those things. I don’t know whether the
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
solution is to allow them on second floor or in SOFA II we I think had a certain amount of
ground floor but not on the street face entrance. So maybe there is some solution there but I
think we have with the way they are being pushed out of Welch Road we need a way to
accommodate them in the community and to some degree they border or a commercial service.
We don’t technically classify them that way but they have some of the aspects of that. Then
finally as we did with the Town & Country center I would like us to rather than have a formulaic
of a. 15 FAR on the commercial that we look at whether we want something that retains
essentially the current amount of commercial retail that we have at a site. Once again maybe not
the precise amount but very close to it so that we don’t encourage a redevelopment that meets the
¯ 15 but has a significant loss in commercial as a result. So you guys are going to have your
hands full. These are complicated issues. I think we did a pretty good job on Town & Country
but it took awhile to hash it out and I will be thinking of you. Thank you for allowing me to add
those.
Chair Holman: Okay, so what we need to do with this item then is, unless anybody has any
pressing matter to raise, we need to continue this item to a Special Meeting of October 4, 2006.
Mr. C. Williams: Six or seven o’clock?
Chair Holman: This will be the only item, right?
Mr. C. Williams: This will be the only item. Do you want to do your minutes tonight or put the
minutes on the agenda too?
Chair Holman: Why don’t we do six o’clock because this is our only stab at it? So let’s do six
o’clock. Is that agreeable to Commissioners? Okay.
Mr. C. Williams: And we are going to be in the Council Conference Room,
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you for that.
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
October 4, 2006
DRAFT EXCERPT
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearings:
Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of an Ordinance Deleting
Chapters 18.41 (Neighborhood Commercial), 18.43 (Community Commercial), 18.44
(Community Commercial Combining District), 18.45 (Service Commercial), and 18.49
(Commercial Downtown), of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and
Adding Chapters 18.16 (Neighborhood, Service, and Community Commercial) and 18.18
(Commercial Downtown) Providing for Allowable Uses and Development Standards in
Commercial Zones, including Mixed Use Criteria, and Amending Sections 18.94.070 and
16.20.120 to Delete Amortization Requirements and to Allow Additional Signage for
3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue (Fry’s Electronics);
Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: Yes we do have a brief
presentation. What I thought I would do is respond to some of the questions that have come up.
Chair Holman: Excuse me Curtis. Is this for public comment? Thank you for the clarification.
I’m sorry Curtis.
Mr. C. Williams: What I was going to do was respond to what we heard at the last meeting
where you left us with half-dozen or so questions: I will respond to those. I also met with Kim
last Friday to get some elaboration on those. Then Commissioner Keller has emailed some
questions earlier this week so I will try to respond to those. Julie has some responses. Chair
Holman called today and I will talk about the response to the questionnaire. Then I would like to
let Rick Williams briefly talk about the issue of the minimum commercial area recommendations
and where that came from because I know that is an issue of interest to a number of you. Then I
guess you could do the public comment after that and then your deliberations.
Chair Holmani IfI could interject one thing. Some Commissioners are new and these
microphones, I don’t know if they are oversensitive or not sensitive enough but the rustling of
paper really interferes with being able to transcribe the minutes later. So if we try to keep the
rustling of papers at a minimum that is one of the big detractors from clarity. It is comfortable in
this room we tend to kind of jump in and start talking. So if we could try to keep some order to
that. Then the other thing is try to speak loudly and clearly so it is easier for the transcription.
So with those comments, thank you Curtis.
Mr. C. Williams: Some of the questions Commissioner Burt raised were first of all if the
amortization date on Fry’s is removed and there is a change of use or occupancy there is that
allowed and is the commercial space retained that way? The response to that is that there are
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
conditions right now that limit that site to 60,000 square feet of retail so that would still be in
place and any change of use like wanting to take that retail space and wanting to make it office
would be considered a change of use not consistent with the existing nonconforming use so it
wouldn’t be allowed. So essentially there could be a different user potentially, some other retail
could come in there, but it couldn’t exceed 60,000 square feet that it is limited to currently.
Commissioner Garber: Could it be less than the 60,000?
Mr. C. Williams: It could but the other space would basically be vacant then because it wouldn’t
be allowed to be converted to another use.
Vice,Chair Lippert: That retailer could include a grocery store which we do not divine much
sales tax from either.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, it could include a grocery store, which is not as big a sales tax generator
as some of the other uses although I wouldn’t say it is not a positive sales tax producer. We have
a fair amount of grocery stores and a lot of it is exempt from sales tax.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right.
Mr. C. Williams: The second question was on the area of hazardous materials use and storage.
We have a provision that says that for mixed use that hazardous materials use and storage should
not be allowed in the nonresidential part of the mixed use component. What we did was
identified thresholds in reference to some of the fire and building regulations tables. I think Pat’s
comment was is that threshold so low that a hardware store with a couple dozen cans of paint or
something like that wouldn’t be allowed. The answer to that is no, the threshold above which
you have to get certain permits from the Fire Department is fairly high and does allow those
kinds of uses that could be permitted in terms of mixed use. So I have amemo here from the
Fire Department if you are interested I can read to you what some of those quantities are and
that. We did run it by the Fire Department and it is not something where just having a couple
gallons of kerosene or having a few gallons of paint is going to trigger that prohibition.
Commissioner Keller: Am I correct in assuming that the threshold is dependent upon the degree
of toxicity of the item?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Keller: So paint is fairly low toxicity and therefore you could have a lot more
quantity than arsenic, which is fairly high toxicity, and therefore you would probably have a
threshold that is fairly small.
Mr. C. Williams: Absolutely, that is exactly what the Fire Marshall said. The table is different
depending on the toxicity of the material.
Thirdly, Commissioner Burt brought up incentives to providing rooftop gardens and can we do
something to provide for rooftop gardens that would be in addition to open space requirements
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
and that kind of thing. Also~ he expressed concern to me about would allowing rooftop gardens
to be counted as part of the open space~ could that in some instances mean that we generally get
no open space elsewhere and all open space is on the roof?. We don’t have any
limitations on that kind of thing. So as far as incentives to providing rooftop gardens
we think this provides some incentive to rooftop gardens allowing it to count against the open
space first of all. We are going to be coming to you in late October and early November with
some landscaping issues that apply kind of across the board in commercial, industrial and multi-
family zones. We think that if there is a desire to talk more about some of that that might be the
more appropriate forum for doing that. On the other hand I tend to agree that there may be
something we need to do here to specify that maybe no more than 50 percent or something like
that of your open space can be satisfied with rooftop gardens so we do assure that there is open
space distributed throughout the project as well. If that is something you would like for us to do
we would be glad to add something like that into the ordinance.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question there. What about doing a penalty? So in other words if
you do a rooftop garden it only counts as half of the amount that you would be required to
provide and therefore you have to provide twice as much in order to?
Mr. C. Williams: That is similar to what I was suggesting but yes, in a different formula kind of
way. Yes, that could be done too.
Commissioner Sandas: I have a question. I am not sure why a rooftop garden would count as
open space at all and why we would have that and not just require open space at the ground level
which provides easy access for the public
Mr. C. Williams: Well, we are anticipating rooftops gardens and I think the language in here
talks about having access and it is intended to be and it can be a very nice entity for the
residential users.
Commissioner Sandas: Yes, for the residential users I think it is wonderful. I think rooftop
gardens should be encouraged but I am just worried about the amount of cement on the ground
below as opposed to open space.
Mr. C. Williams: Right. So that is where I think we could do something to balance that.
Chair Holman: Curtis, do you want to go through all of these and then us ask you questions?
Would that be better for you?
Mr. C. Williams: It would probably be more efficient that way~
Chair Holman: Okay.
Mr. C. Williams: The issue of the CN, Neighborhood Commercial, on E1 Camino Real and the
potential to increase that from a 0.9 to 1.0 FAR, I think this might have come up last time, should
we maybe only provide that if the additional .1 FAR is retail as opposed to it being residential is
essentially the way it is currently in the other zones. Our response to that is that certainly we
Page 3
1 could do that if you would like to do that. It would be fine. I don’t think it makes a big
2 difference one way or another it is one-tenth, i1 FAR, so if that incentive is better, you feel that is
3 more comfortable that’s fine. I think the only concern would be that it is already hard enough to
4 reach a .4 FAR especially in the CN where we almostalways have surface parking so you would
5 probably never see it happen. But we could do that or keep it limited to .9.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Medical offices he suggested that we could allow those if they are not on the street face frontage
of if they are on the second floor. We already do allow them generally on the second floor in
these zones. In some cases they are also allowed behind retail uses on the first floor. So I don’t
think we need to do anything. We could do more to try to accommodate them on the first floor
behind but I would hate that we would be doing it to some extent at the expense of retail. So I
wouldn’t suggest going there at this point.
Can we, and this question has come up a couple of times before, ask about retaining the current
amount of retail at the site. I think Rick can probably talk to this a little bit when we get to his
material. We do think that that’s not realistic in many situations and it discourages reinvestment
and revitalization of those sites. We have opportunities with some of the potential turnover in
these sites even with less retail to have a more advantageous type of use and revenue flow than
we would have with maintaining the existing retail there. Many of them will not turnover if they
are told they have to fill that amount of retail. So we don’t think that is appropriate but we are
open to hearing you out on that.
He also asked about the 25 percent of the hotel floor area that could be used for residential
condominium use andwhether those residential condominiums are then turned around and rented
out on short-term rates like a timeshare type of thing whether we get transient occupancy tax. I
haven’t gotten a firm answer on that. I think the answer is no. His point was that if we do then
we shouldn’t worry so much about percentage and limiting the percentage. In talking briefly
with Susan Arpan, our Economic Development Manager, she doesn’t think that we get it on that
and it would bevery difficult to track whether somebody is renting out their individual unit by
some other means. So we would stick with the recommendation of 25 percent so we do have
some limitation on that residential use.
Then last Friday when he came in he asked about rezoning Alma and Edgewood Plazas to CN.
They are currently both cow~’nitteesPlm~ned Communities and they are proposed to
ge-be that ~-Any application that would come in would then be Planned
Community zones. We are not rezoning as part oftheZOU process. We have discussed that
before. What I did suggest is that when those projects come before you that you can as a
baseline if you want to in comparing what could happen if this was under CN to what is being
proposed you certainly are able to do that. We can help provide that kind of comparison for you
when they come through.
So that was the questions I had from Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Keller asked and
maybe I will run through some of these and then I will tell which ones Julie will fill,in and we
will come back to those.
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
First what commercial properties are on the Housing Sites list and what information do we have
as far as their current use, number of units prescribed in the Housing Element, the square footage
of retail? I don’t think we have that detail here but my understanding is that we have only got a
couple of sites left and Julie can go ahead and respond to that.
Ms. Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager: Well I distributed the list that is actually in the
Housing Element. There are only two sites that are commercially zoned that haven’t been
developed in housing that are on the inventory. Those are, and the site numbers refer to a map
that is in the Housing Element, and those are sites number 521, which is the former craft and
floral building and site 531 and that was the site that actually there was a mixed use development
that was approved but the permit has expired and the applicant never developed the project.
Those are the only two cuirently on the inventory that have commercial zoning districts on them
and weren’t developed under the housing that was projected in the Housing Element.
Just to let you know how the state deals with this we made a commitment that we would rezone
these properties that weren’t zoned for housing to the proposed zoning if a housing project
wasn’t underway or wasn’t completed. The state may require us to go back and even ones like
Hyatt Rickey’s that has commercial zoning but is currently developed in housing forthis next
Housing Element we may have to rezone it for housing to preserve that housing district on the
property.
We have identified in here mixed use and I know that was one of Commissioner Keller’s issues
as to whether ornot we could legally identify mixed use andif that would pass muster with the
state. As you can see it would, however, at the time we put mixed use as a proposed zoning
district we were thinking that mixed use would be a separate zone so that you could -~ right now
it is going to be incorporated in the commercial zoning districts. So the state wants you to have
these sites preserved for housing. So I think under the way we are currently looking at mixed
use we wouldn’t be able to propose a CS or CN or whatever type of commercial zoning district
and enable it to get mixed use unless we did something. There is a possibility of maybe
designating these sites mixed use on the Comprehensive Plan and somehow preserving them for
housing in that fashion. But we have to kind of explore that and we will be doing that with the
next Housing Element.
Mr. C. Williams: So the second part of it was could they be built under a mixed use requirement
and could we require that this housing be 100 percent affordable or attainable levels of housing?
We don’t think we can without potentially having a take-in-use argument that we would need to
compensate the property owner even pre-Proposition 90 they would have that argument to make.
Unless it was a nonprofit that wanted to do housing. We couldn’t require a private property
owner to and I don’t know if you wantto say anything about that, Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Assistant City Attorney: I think you said it. You took the words right
out of my mouth.
Mr. C. Williams: What commercially zones properties currently are not utilized for retail? We
don’t really have that information available. What commercially zoned properties are suitable
for hotels? We don’t have any specific Criteria for hotels. There are certainly a number of
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
properties out there that could be redeveloped that seem to be large enough for hotels. Certainly
the existing motel sites could be redeveloped for that purpose for higher intensity type of hotel
use.
Then what are the implications of converting retail use, and correct me if I am not interpreting
the question right, of converting something that is a retail use to a hotel use that doesn’t have any
retail, on it? I think that would be a ldnd of case-by-case what type of retail and what amount of
retail is there now, what is the size of the hotel or that kind of thing, what are the characteristics
of the property in terms of access and does it work for a hotel but not for retail. So it could be
beneficial in terms of a revenue situation but it could probably go either way but it would really
depend on the specific site and the specific proposal we were looking at.
Commissioner Keller: So a hypothetical situation in which that was to happen would that be
coming through a variance, would that come through a PC or what?
Mr. C. Williams: It wouldn’t unless you specifically required that a hotel come through a special
process, Site and Design Review or something or a use permit or something like that which tends
to discourage them to some extent due to the extra time when it gets more
discretionary.
Commissioner Keller: What I am wondering is if there are such sites which are zoned retail and
that which are zoned commercial and somebody were to propose a hotel and we were to require
a minimum amount of retail how would that proposal thenbe submitted?
Mr. C. Williams: If you required a minimum amount of retail then I should clarify that we are
not suggesting that here with the hotel, we are suggesting it with the mixed use when you have
residential.
Commissioner Keller: So if there were no residential then it would not be mixed use and
therefore there would not be a requirement for retail.
Mr. C. Williams: Right. That is the proposal.
Then I am going to let Julie answer this one. You had asked how much housing is required by
income category, how much has been built, what our projections in the Comp Plan were, how
much more is projected and that kind of thing. Julie has a table.
Ms. Caporgno: Yes, I distributed the table. At the top it shows the breakdown that we were
required by the ABAG Fair Share Housing ReqUirements. Our contribution was 1,397 units and
to date we have approved 1,135 and built 987 of them. So our unmet need is 262 but you can see
they are broken down by the different income levels.
Then we also broke down the different projects that contributed to each of those income
categories.
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
As far as with the Comprehensive Plan it assumed by 2010 that we would develop 2,400 units. I
didn’t realize until I was sitting here that this shows the Housing Element timeframe started in
1999 and the Comprehensive Plan was approved in 1998. So there are about 150 more units that
should be added to each of those columns that would take you back all the way to the inception
of the Comprehensive Plan. I can send that out to you separately for your own information.
There are still some units that we haven’t developed or approved under the Comprehensive Plan
that were assumed to be built by 2010 of the 2,400 units.
Commissioner Keller: So what I am assuming from here is that this 673 approved is actually the
maximum of the amount of the need and the amount of above moderate that was actually
approved which is higher. So you have capped the amount that is approved for the above
moderate at 673 when the actually amount that was approved was 1,922.
Ms. Caporgno: Correct. If you see that box that is what it says. The City has actually approved
1,922 above moderate units and 129 low-income units but only 673 and 116 respectively
contribute to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
Commissioner Keller: So it looks like from here ifI do the rough math it looks like about
another 1,300 units were approved but they don’t count because they are in the wrong category.
Ms. Caporgno: Correct. They don’t count towards our contribution for the ABAGnumbers.
ABAG will take into consideration when they allocate for the next Regional Housing Needs
Assessment they will take into account the number of units we built totally but they are not going
towards our contribution. So for instance we are still deficient in these two categories and it is
not offset by the fact that we built more market rate units than were required.
Commissioner Keller: Right. Now earlier I think you said that there were 2,400 units projected
in our Comp Plan.
Ms. Caporgno: Correct.
Commissioner Keller: It says that 1,136 are mentioned in this total, in this column approved
1999 and 2006. That doesn’t include about 1,300 units that are on the bottom in above
moderate?
Ms~ Caporgno: No.
Commissioner Keller: There are about 1,200 to 1,300, 1,922 minus 673 is about 1,250 units
according to my math. Therefore there are another 1,250 units that are above this total of 1,136
so then the net total is actually instead of 1,136 it is 14 or 13 less than 2,400 plus you mentioned
another 150 that were before the date of this. So by my reckoning that is approximately 2,550
approved units during the life of the Comp Plan.
Ms. Caporgno: Possibly. I kind of got lost in your math.
Mr. C. Williams: Does this include this?
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Caporgno: This is all of this. The 1,922 above moderateinclude the 1,397.
Commissioner Garber: When you reissue this perhaps you have two columns here. One that has
the ABAG and the other one that has the RHNA numbers so we can see what the differences are.
Ms. Caporgno: Yes,~that would be simpler. The 673 units you can see, maybe it is so small
maybe you can’t see it, we have exceeded the number for the market rate by 673.
Commissioner Keller: Well, perhaps it would be useful in terms of this as was mentioned by
Commissioner Garber is the idea that the amount that counts for ABAG and the amount that
counts for the Comp Plan and also to put a grand total on the bottom. Since some of these
numbers have been capped, some of the numbers on the bottom chart have been capped, when
placed on the top chart I don’t see a grand total on the very bottom. So adding another column
that would indicate the life of the Comp Plan and a grand total on the bottom would basically
definitively indicate how many housing units we have actually built.
Commissioner Garber: And where they are.
Commissioner Keller: And where they are, yes.
Mr. C. Williams: We will try to clarify that for you.
Ms. Caporgno: I think either there is an incorrect number here or it just coincides that we have
1,922 Comp Plan units-but I don’t think, that is the case. We will clarify and give you a
table that explains that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question. Is there a correlation between unit size and affordability?
Ms. Caporgno: Normally, it is assumed that thesmaller units are more affordable but there is not
anything that we - it is all within an income level - the way we allocate these is either the below
market rate units are in the moderate income level because they are from 80 to 120 percent of
AMI and then the low and very low are usually projects like Court where they get actually
funding and they are committed to a certain income level.
Commissioner Garber: To answer the question directly though, the answer is no. The levels are
defined by dollars and not by square footage.
Ms. Caporgno: Correct.
Vice-Chair Lippert: The reason I am asking that question is because part of our charge here is
dealing with percentage of FAR.
Commissioner Garber: Oh, and how do you correlate?
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vice-Chair Lippert: Exactly. Even though we have to provide a certain number of BMRs,
which is what, ten percent?
Ms. Caporgno: No it is 15 percent.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So the idea is that we would want comparable size units for the affordable
housing but if you get more units in there you are going to wind up with more affordable
housing.
Chair Holman: If I might, has that proven true in Palo Alto? I don’t know that it has. It seems
like no matter how many units we build the market ....
Mr. C. Williams: The term ’affordable’ because you get more units and maybe five units each
unit sells for less than if it were only four units but none of those units is going to meet the
income levels that make it affordable or to be able to call it affordable.
Chair Holman: And even at that though it seems like, maybe I am reading something into your
statement too, if there are more smaller units while they don’t satisfy the affordable category that
if they are smaller they are more affordable or that we are creating a marketplace thathas more
affordable units. That wasn’t what you intended?
Vice-Chair Lippert: No. The number of affordable units is based on a percentage of the units
built. So if you build 15 units you have to provide one that would be affordable. If you build 30
units then you have to provide two.
Chair Holman: Okay, that was the direction. Okay.
Commissioner Keller: Can I ask some follow up questions to the issue of mixed use just to
clarify? In terms of the two properties 5-21 and 5-31 the two properties on Alma Street, since
these are proposed zoning of mixed use can we.require that there be some retail as part of these
units since our specification in our Housing Element was to describe them as mixed use?
Chair Holman: Can you hold the answer to that? I think the Staff has a few more questions to
answer and we are beyond clarifying questions. We have a member of the public to speak. So if
you could hold that.
Commissioner Keller: Sure.
Chair Holman: That would be great.
Mr. C. Williams: Okay, so that was Commissioner Keller’s questions. Then Chair Holman had
a question this afternoon about how we can retain motel uses on E1 Camino Real for the
hotels that we have. What I informed her of was that first of all generally we think that there are
a number of opportunities for these motel sites to be much more productive in terms of revenue
generation as well as just the design- enhancement and such that could occur by being
redeveloped as some mixed use project or some retail project or another motel or hotel on the
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
site. The specifics of that are that we have TOT, Transit Occupancy Tax, and information about
the hotels. We are not allowed to share that with you on a motel-by-motel business. But we can
give you some aggregate sense of that. I looked at that list there are 25 give or take motels or
hotels in Palo Alto. There are 17 that I counted that are essentially motels south of Page Mill or
certainly south of bigger hotels like the Westin and Sheraton. So of those 17 out of 25 comprise
about 25 percent of the TOT that we get. If you take out the two largest of those in terms of
TOT these 15 comprise about ten percent of the total TOT we get. Those are not productive
hotels. They have high vacancy rates or low occupancy rates. Don can tell you about the police
calls at some of them. In any event we don’t think it is productive to try to retain those motels
but the incentives that we are putting in for hotels which includes we think is a better approach to
provide opportunities and some incentives for doing something more on those sites that might be
a better design as well as more attractive from a revenue standpoint.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question on that. Aren’t a lot of those hotels people that are on
public assistance?
Mr. C. Williams: There are some I think.
Mr. Larldn: It depends on which ones you are talking about. Most of the true hotel/motel uses
are restricted 30-day stays. I don’t believe it is used for long-term housing.
Mr. C. Williams: There may be some that have some components of that. If it is truly someone
living there, a housing situation, then it wouldn’t be in this list and there would be no TOT
associated with that.
Commissioner Sandas: I think this might be a clarifying question. So then a 25 percent block in
the hotel for residential use like condominium type use or timeshare is an incentive to build
hotels or motels here? That is something that the hoteliers .....
Mr. C. Williams: We are researching some publications as well as our Economic Development
Manager has been talking to some hotel -representatives who definitely feel that
having that residential condominium component is an incentive to build a hotel.
Commissioner Sandas: Yes, because I was going to say that there doesn’t seem to be with
such a low occupancy rate or high vacancy rate ....
Mr. C. Williams: Those are that kind of hotel. The other hotels we have intown have high
occupancy rates.
Commissioner Sandas: Good, okay.
Mr. C. Williams: The Sheraton, the Westin and Garden Court all have very high occupancy
rates. They are the ones, not surprising, have the high TOT.
Chair Holman: Anything else you have?
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: I would turn it over to Rick unless you wanted to take that first.
Chair Holman: Please and I had one quick question about the motel. The economy having taken
a southward bend is some of the low occupancy related to the economy which is now coming
back and for the higher end hotels is quite improved but is that related at all? I don’t know what
time period this was done.
Mr. C. Williams: This is very recent.
Chair Holman: Okay.
Mr. C. Williams: This information is the last quarter I think. It is recent and I don’t know what
the trend specifically has been but that is recent information. I doubt that there is much
correlation there between the economy and the low occupancy rates.
Chair Holman: Okay. All right. I think if we could we have one member of the public who
submitted a card, Amy Powell, who is here from Orinda.
Ms. Amy Powell, Orinda: Good evening Commissioners. I would just very quickly like to ask
you all to p lease take a careful look at the provisions that prohibit residential mixed use in the
Midtown Shopping Center. I took a look at this issue for the first time two years ago when I
purchased one of the properties in the shopping center. I discovered from the zoning ordinance
that although it is covered in a couple subsections it is not clear that residential use is prohibited.
I looked at it again I think in March when the Zoning Ordinance Update was presented at
Midtown Resident’s Association meeting, it wasn’t discussed, but I looked at the ordinance and I
came away thinldng oh good, they are going to allow residential mixed use with residential on
the second floor and retail below. I thought that again when I looked at the ordinance update a
few weeks ago when I go the notice but I understand now from Mr. Williams that the intention is
to continue the prohibition on all residential development in the Midtown Shopping Center.
I am not aware of the extent of opportunity for public participation on that issue. I understand-
that that prohibition was initiated a very long time ago with intent of not shrinking the parcels in
commercial use on the fringes of the shopping center. Coming forward what we have by
carrying it on is a situation where ground floor will be restricted to retail use and second floor
development will be allowed to be office use but residential use will be prohibited. I would like
you to give careful consideration to what policy objectives are going to be furthered by that
situation. I understand that there are objectives of increasing housing, and of protecting retail. I
know that the resident’s association is interested in not intensifying parking. It seems to me that
allowing the flexibility of residential or office development on the second floor in the shopping
center would be a better way to promote those policy objectives. Thanks.
Chair Holman: I think we have a couple of clarifying questions for you. Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I was just going to ask what do you see as the benefit of having the
residential plus the retail there?
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Powell: My experience over the past two years in trying to figure out how to make my
particular property something that is economically viable and something that everyone can be
proud of the challenge has been taking a small number of square feet, because I have a very
small parcel, and bringing it up to code and still being able to rent it at a rent level that is
attractive to local businesses: Having the opportunity of retail plus residential because
residential is more in demand I think would increase the opportunity for economic viability in
situations like that. Obviously the parking restriction is the limiting factor particularly for small
parcels.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, one of the considerations that comes up here is the interface between
residential and retail. I don’t know if you are aware of the protests from the condominiums
adjacent to I think it was Midtown Skating and what was going on there where they were
complaining about noise. In fact skating had been there for many years and then the condos
were added later.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ice-skating.
Commissioner Keller: Ice-skating, fight, had been there for many years and then the condos
were added later. There was also something about tennis courts that were going on there. I am
sort of wondering what your thoughts are about how we deal with that interface and whether the
people who live in the residences that you would consider building whether that would be
impinging in some negative way on the retail or visa-versa?
Ms. Powell 1: I think anyone who would occupy those residences would do so lcnowing that they
are existing in a retail environment, in a commercial environment, and hopefully they would be
willing to accept those limitations on whatever quality of life they perceive. I don’t think that
that issue would relate differently to the neighborhood commercial in Midtown than it would to
other neighborhood commercial areas. I think the issue would be same as it is in other areas that
don’t have the residential prohibition.
Chair Holman: Any other questions? Thank you very much.
Mr. C. Williams: Do you want to see if we have any public speakers and then close the hearing?
Chair Holman: Are there any more speakers who would like to speak to this item?
Ms. Diana Chien, Palo Alto: I am sorry we missed the meeting. Is this open to talking to the
public? I am sorry I not familiar with the procedure.
Chair Holman: Yes, if you would like to fill out a card and come forward to the microphone and
speak to this item of the Zoning Ordinance Update.
Ms. Chien: I will be more than happy to do so.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: If you would like to come to the microphone and fill out the card later that would
be fine.
Ms. Chien: Great.
Ms. Caporgno: While we are waiting I just wanted to say that I looked at the numbers and
Commissioner Keller is correct in one respect. What I was confused about is the Comp Plan
assumes 2~400 units to be built so you are really looking at the second column as opposed to the
first column. You were comparing the 1,900 plus the 100 and some units and you were saying
we were over 2,400 right now when you add all of these columns up plus the 150 or so units but
that is approve as opposed to built. So you really should be looking at the second column,
adding all of those totals up plus 150.
Commissioner Keller: Do we expect that the ones that were approved won’t be built?
Ms. Caporgno: We don’t know. It will be done by 2010 so some of those maybe and some of
those may not be.
Mr. C. Williams: If all of them were then it would be over 2,400-
Ms. Caporgno: So right now where we are though is the built column that compares to the
2,400.
Commissioner Keller: Are there any there that you expect not to be built?
Ms. Caporgno: 1 don’t lcnow if they will be built by 2010.
Commissioner Keller: Okay.
Chair Holman: Okay, Diana Chien. You will have five minutes.
Ms. Chien: Thank you. Dear ladies and gentlemen, my name is Diana Chien. I am the daughter
of Charles and Grace Chine, the owner of the Mayflower Garden Motel located at 3981 E1
Camino Real in Palo Alto. We are here today because we are concerned about the City’s
intention to rezone our property from its current zoning of CS, RM-30, or RM-40 to a
commercial zoning district.
At the time of the last Comprehensive Plan our property was identified as best used for housing
with a commercial portion for that area fronting the E1 Camino Real. Since that time many
similarly zoned property has been allowed to become 100 percent residential. This has been due
to market demand and neighborhood group desires. This is still the case as we have experienced
in the past and today. Our motel is located in the area called the E1 Camino motel row area.
Other than the three small 100 percent commercial businesses rest of this area is zoned CS and
RM-30. For our property the current ratio is RM-30/40 and CS is less than five to one. That
means our property is zoned mostly for multi-residential. There are three other motels in a
multi-residential project Camino Place in this area along with our property. We are concerned
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
that we are being singled out for this new commercial zoning task the City of Palo Alto is
undertaking.
My family has owned Mayflower for 28 years, since 1978 when my father was 52. Now he is 80
years old. There have been many zoning changes and studies of the Comprehensive Plan by the
City of Palo Alto. My family has tried to make improvements and possible expansion but due to
zoning restrictions we have encountered many difficulties and cause our family a large sum of
money and lost revenue. We have abided by the laws and restrictions set by the City of Palo
Alto. Now we feel the sand is moving underneath us and that we have no site for our future.
Among the many zoning changes, Planning meetings, and recommendations I would like to
mention one important recommendation pertaining to our property. In September 1995 at the
City of Palo Alto Planning Commissioner Meeting Mr. S chreiber, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment, recommended that Area 7, which is 3901 to 3981 E1 Camino Real that
is called the motel row area, to be kept multi-family residential. I quote, "We do not suggest
going to expanded commercial designation for these sites. If one of the four motels sites were to
redevelop we certainly want to retain the multi-family residential land now available?’ For many
reasons my family strongly feels that the best use of our property for us as property owners as
well as for the neighborhood in general is for multi-family residential. For example our
property’s frontage to E1 Camino is very small. It is only 150 feet including the driveway into
the property. Furthermore, the depth of the property is almost 400 feet with no back entrance or
exit. It backs up to Ventura School-resulting in a very limited exposure, no visibility to the street
for retail commercial purposes. The property is bounded on two sides by residential use.
Commercial use on this site would produce conflicts such as noise, lights, etc. with adjoining
residential use. Furthermore, access to the site from E1 Camino Road is poor due to the limited
area for the curb cut and the close proximity to a signaled intersection. Residential use would
cause the lowest level of traffic to the heavily traveled E1 Camino Real. We do not oppose the
changes you have presented today but we would like to be a full participant in the City planning
process. After 28 yearsof living with zoning limits, after relying on the City to tell us what to do
and plan, after we abide by the laws, now the sand is moving under our feet again. To change
the intention of the City’s Comprehensive Plan it requires a revieiw of the complete
Comprehensive Plan. We intend to present a more fully detailed package to you in a few weeks.
I thank you for your attention.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Any questions for the speaker? Curtis.
Mr. C. Williams: Could I go ahead and respond to that since it is ¯ not addressed here?
Chair Holman: Yes.
Mr. C. Williams: I know we have reported to you before that on August 7 Council directed that
we do a number of things related to commercial zoning and one of them was that we rezone or
bring back proposed rezonings for three sites that are currently zoned primarily residential. One
is the Mayflower Motel, one is Summer Winds Nursery and the other one is Palo Alto Bowl site.
So all three of those are under study now at the Staff level. Julie is heading up the team that is
worldng on those rezonings. They will be meeting with the property owners. They have already
had some initial contacts with them. They will be meeting with the community in the.area
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
around those to see how they feel effected by zoning changes to some kind of commercial or
mixed use categories. We will then be bringing some recommendation forward to you at public
hearing in the future, at the earliest November maybe later than that and then on to the Council.
So there are several steps here at which point Julie’s folks will be looking at the specifics of
these three sites. It may be that they all may not fall into the same category as far as what
suggested zoning would be. It is going to depend on what is on either side of them and what the
site is shaped like as well as a number of other factors as to what we bring back. So I appreciate
the comments an~t we do have a game plan laid out to meet with the interested parties and then
come forward to you and they will certainly have a lot of input at that time.
Ms. Caporgno: We are planning on going to the community at the end of this month. We are
just right now trying to get a location. We will be looking at several prototypes for the
individual sites. A mixed use configuration -- residential on the property, which is currently
allowed, and then a retail scenario for the site. So there will be various scenarios that you will be
reviewing when they do come back to you. As Curtis said we are hoping to come to you with
those rezonings for the three sites in November and then probably going to Council with a
recommendation in early 2007.
Mr. Larkin: The rezoning isn’t actually on the agenda. If it is a quick Clarification that’s fine but
we shouldn’t get into a lengthy discussion of that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: No, it is a quick clarification. The first one is with Prop 90 coming up if it
passed would that represent a taking?
Mr. Larkin: I don’t know that it would be considered a down-zoning but I can’t tell you what
Prop 90 would do because it is not very well written.
Ms. Caporgno: Council was aware of this when they asked us to pursue this. They knew we
wouldn’t be coming back to them before the election and they had some discussion about the
potential effects of Prop 90.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Regardless the existing uses and zoning on there would be legally
conforming, correct? So even if there was a rezone.
Mr. Larkin: They are currently legally existing nonconforming.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So nothing would be taken or forced to demo the buildings or sell the
businesses, etc.?
Ms. Caporgno: No.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I would just like to know how submitting a proposal for redevelopment of
that property interacts with a rezoning that is going on in a_12proximatel¥ the same-- time?
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. C. Williams: There isn’t anything submitted. She mentioned bringing a proposal to you but
there is nothing coming to you any time soon. I think they are probably looking at meeting with
Julie and showing them what they are thinking.
Chair Holman:. Right. Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: You mentioned development of prototypes. You are talking about
prototype uses not building types, etc.?
Ms. Caporgno: Kind of massing scale on properties given the development standards so that you
could see what it would be like and get a feel for where you could put parking, kind of the sizes
of the building, that sort of thing.
Chair Holman: Okay. Given that there are no other cards from the public I would like to close
the public hearing. Rick, I believe you have a presentation to give. Did you have something
else, Curtis?
Mr. C. Williams: No, I will let Rick give his and then when he is done Iwill respond to
comments and things.
Chair Holman: Just as a reminder too, did you want to state what you potential constraint is so
we can focus questions to you as early as possible?
Mr. Larkin: Yes, I have a hearing early tomorrow morning so I may disappear assuming the
meeting is hopefully not as long as the last meeting. But if it runs long I will probably be leaving
a little early. So if people have questions for me let’s get them out of the way early.
Commissioner Sandas: So what does that mean exactly in numbers? Like ten o’clock or eight
o’clock?
Mr. Larkin: Certainly by ten o’clock because my goal is to be asleep by eleven.
Mr. Rick Williams, Consultant: At the last meeting that I was able to attend, I apologize for
missing one, the discussion about retail space, and the percentage of retail that was appropriate
as a percentage of the FAR was discussed and asked about. We were discussing it and I gave
examples illustrated up on the wall there for small sites and What the implications of a relatively
small site versus a large site. We had previously looked at larger sites so without having a fancy
presentation with it what we did was kind of looked at what the issues of looking at a greater
FAR on a large site and how that would play out differently than a small site. We felt that on a
standard retail site if you are doing traditional parking ratios when you aren’t able to take into
account mixed use you are going to get approximately a .25 FAR. That would be a relatively
standard floor area ratio for a retail development. That is regardless of whether or not you are on
a small site or a large site. If you are building a shopping center you are hard pressed to get
above a .25 FAR unless you are doing structured parking, which would require a large site. If
you are doing a small site and you are doing a single story or a two story building and you are
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
trying to park it you are always going to be somewhere between a .2 and .3 floor area ratio as
kind of your max without going to something more extensive from a parking standpoint.
When you are doing structured parking sub-grade I can tell you know that every economic work
that we have done with economic consultants retail development isn’t alone in and of itself in
paying for sub-grade parking. So what is really paying for sub-grade parking has the mixture of
uses above whether it is an office or a residential use. That is what pays for the sub-grade
parldng and justifies it existence. So retail whether it is in Palo Alto or in other areas just isn’t
supporting that. We are anticipating that you are going to get retail space that is around .25 FAR
as a relatively standard practice. We felt that a. 15 FAR is a minimum FAR for a mixed use
development. We gave some flexible considerations to unique shapes of different parcels. Some
parcels will be able to achieve a .25 and others will not be able to achieve .25 and that is just
because of the fundamental depth of the parcels. The less deep the parcels are the more difficult
iris to get the parking on it behind the buildings and still get the retail up front. We articulated
that in these buildings here where in one way the greatest amount of retail development was
actually being able to be applied here with a mixed use building that had surface parking on it or
a completely sub-grade parking here. If you have partially sub-grade parking or an above grade
podium you can see that the depth of the retail, so the percentage of the retail, is substantively
less. So this development is able to be sub-grade parking and get additional retail predominantly
because the residential on top of it is able to pay for that sub-grade parking, The retail isn’t
really paying for it it is just being able to be justified through the residential development. We
are also needing to use all of the mixed use to get that additional retail or the additional
residential. We are having to use the reductions of the parking requirements for mixed use
development in considering that. So what we have really looked at on the small sites is that you
can in some instances achieve a .25 but that more predominantly you are going to get somewhere
around 15 percent floor area ratio. Now if you have a maximum that is higher people will have
different choices to make for developing.
Commissioner Keller: Do you mean a minimum that is higher?
Mr. R. Williams: Yes, a minimum that is higher. If you have a minimum that is higher you are
going to probably start to restrict or minimize the number of parcels that you are going to see
change over time. The difference instances that you have when people are considering whether
or not to redevelop their parcel is how much retail do they have now on the site but also what the
quality of that retail space is. If it is very deep where some of the parcels are completely covered
in retail you are going to see a reduction in retail space but it may actually be that you will get
higher per square foot rent because that deep retail space, and we have studied this in depth in
Mountain View, the first 50 feet or so is quality retail space and everything behind that is not
really considered very good retail space. So the deeper retail spaces aren’t really sought after
and are more of a liability. You are just paying for extra square footage so what you will find are
the rents actually go down. The quality of the space which is really the height of the space and
the light and the design of the signage and the design of the awnings and the whole frontage and
how you enter it from parking, etc. is really the greatest thing that dictates how much rent you
get. So you are getting a higher quality retail space but maybe less. What you will find is that if
somebody has to provide additional retail space my anticipation is that you are not going to see
those parcels change over. So there will be a lot less change and eventually those retail spaces
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
will become of a lesser grade and a lesser grade and a lesser grade and then you are going to
want to see them change and you are not going to be able to without changing the zoning code
again because they are just going to deteriorate. Unfortunately along E1 Camino Real you have a
lot of retail spaces that are substandard so you are getting secondary uses and tertiary uses. You
are not really getting the quality retail spaces that the neighborhood that is behind it is really
looking for. So my anticipation on small parcels is that if you enlarge the floor area ratio
requirement just asking or requiring more retail doesn’t mean you are going to get more retail. It
just means you have a regulation that requires more retail. You may actually get more retail in
smaller pieces if you allow more change to occur over time along E1 Camino Real or other
corridors. That is different in Downtown and the whole mechanism strategy changes there.
My greater fear actually is that on large parcels that you are going to have even greater
restrictions. What happens on a large parcel is as the Diane Chien just mentioned is on a deep
site with very little frontage you have a fairly large floor area ratio requirement for retail but
most of the site isn’t actually very good retail site. It can be a 60,000 square foot parcel as she
described which is 150 by 400 feet and it can go to the other extreme like the Hyatt Rickey’s site,
which maybe had a little tiny bit of good quality retail frontage along E1 Camino Real, but the
rest of the site would never have been good retail. If you would have envisioned that whole site
and said it needs to be 25 percent retail you would have had acres of retail that wouldn’t have
been very high quality and probably wouldn’t have been built ever. It would have been left
vacant or just been maintained as was.
Although I think that some retail is reasonable I think that you need to balance that. We looked
at a wide variety of mixed use developments up and down the E1 Camino Real corridor and
found that predominantly in a mixed use component particular!y on larger sites, deeper sites, the
amount of floor area ratio for retail is down at around seven, ten or 12 percent. In certain
instances it reached 15 so we thought that 15 percent was a good threshold to reach particularly
on the larger parcels.
So in kind of summarizing it all up my concern with requiring additional retail floor area ratio in
the goal of achieving more retail may in fact not really work because you might have less sites
turning over and so less overall retail in the end.
Commissioner Sandas: I don’t lcnow if this qualifies as a clarifying question. I am going to try
to make it if it’s okay?
Chair Holman: Are you through with that portion?
Mr. R. Williams: So I think that on small sites the reasons are different than large sites but I
think that the rule still applies on either the small or the large sites.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay. Here’s the question. Is 60,000 square feet a large site or small
site?
Mr. R. Williams: It is kind of a medium moderate site. But I just kind of was doing the math on
it.
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Sandas: I guess I was just wondering being that a site like that might be deep,
400 feet back, is there an opportunity in terms of retail or mixed use for almost a shopping center
not like Town & Country or Stanford Shopping Center but being that it goes in deep is there a
way to develop something that is not exactly street front, E1 Camino front, but goes back in and
is inviting?
Mr. R. Williams: The problem with that is that retail wants street frontage. If you can’t be seen
from the street and you are hidden behind there are very few instances that retail succeeds when
hidden behind either other buildings or they are going to ask for the buildings to be pushed back
and the parking be pushed to the front which is something we have been trying o fight for the last
five years. So I think that’s the push and pull with the retail. The bigger sites are actually more
problematic in that instance because when you get to the bigger retail shopping then they really
want to push the parking to the front and keep the buildings to the back. So I think that all in all
that in the CS and CN zones I think that the floor area ratio around. 15, this doesn’t limit them
from achieving more if they can balance that, but I think there is a threshold in there where you
start eliminating the ability to have a viable project. Retail is really now considered more of an
amenity to a mixed use project and is underwritten by the residential development. It is not the
moneymaker in the project.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Samir had a question.
Commissioner Tuma: Rick, I don’t know if there are any parcels in these areas that fall into this
but are there any very wide parcels that have a lot of good frontage that aren’t necessarily as
deep but still would be larger parcels that would instead of looking at the size more looking at
dimension?
Mr. R. Williams: Almost all the parcels in most of the corridors are narrow and deep or
proportionately have less street frontage than they do depth. I can’t think of one.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I was going to make a point which is the parcels that have secondary access
and the example that I can think of are E1 Camino and E1 Camino Way. You have a street
frontage on E1 Camino and you have a secondary access in the back. On the Barron Park side
you have E1 Camino Real and then you also have an alley, which nobody owns that very well
could be a secondary access. Then you have comer lots where you have frontage and then you
have secondary access off of a side street which have opportunities to actually have larger
amounts of commercial. Is that not so? Larger amounts of retail because of the fact that your
access would not need to be out - you wouldn’t have to sacrifice the visibility along E1 Camino
Real for the access to the site.
Mr. R. Williams: It benefits you more because you don’t have the driveway access. So there is
an efficiency in not having the driveway access at the back of the site. However, the real
mathematical equation is how many parking spaces and what is your footprint? So even in an
alley configuration you can only park a certain proportion relative to the amount of retail you
Page 19
1 get. You get more efficiency in those and I would assume that based on that unique
2 circumstance of a particular parcel you would be able to bump up the proportion. So that is why
3 it is a minimum not a maximum that we are suggesting. However it still comes down to you get
4 a certain amount of retail, you can park a certain amount on the site and at a standard parking
5 ratio for a straight retail development that isn’t able to take into account a lower parking ratio for
6 mixed use development you are still going to end up with about a .25 to .3 maximum FAR within
7 a straight retail/commercial development. That is just because of the way the math works.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: Can I just add to that? I did want to emphasize what Rick said about what we
are talking about is minimums not maximums. These zones typically have a .4 FAR maximum.
If there is a good site that it does work on it and there is a good place where an alley helps it out
and they can get more, more is allowed, but to try to legislate that is what our concern is in that
we are going to legislate discouraging good retail from happening in a lot of these sites.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes. I was wondering about the discussion that was made earlier by Mr.
Williams and that is the issue of the current use. You had talked about the achievability of the
amount of retail and thought that the achievability was. 15 or .25 depending on the nature of the
environment. What I am wondering is if they currently have more than that amount then clearly
that amount is achievable.
Mr. R. Williams: No. It would be considered substandard and they aren’t meeting their current
zoning regulation. Frequently the parcels with alleys behind them almost don’t have any
parking. They might have one or two spaces and so they are substantially under-parked and then
the neighborhood is complaining about those not being parked onsite. Some of those spaces the
building owners or landowners will probably have to do a little bit more hard evaluation as to
whether or not they want to change over their site because they actually have a benefit above and
beyond what the existing zoning regulations are.
Commissioner Keller: So what I am wondering is to the extent that the site is currently
satisfying the zoning regulations in terms 0fparking would it then make sense to say that a
minimum is appropriate? Or to make adjustments where they are nonconforming according to
current rules? I am sort of wondering how to play with that. Are there any sites like this that
have more than 15 percent that are parked?
Mr. R. Williams: That are conforming?
Commissioner Keller: Yes.
Mr. R. Williams: I am sure there are retail sites that have say .25 maybe ,3 floor area ratio that
just meet current standards. My anticipation is ,25 is kind of the threshold and depending on the
shape of the site if it is the absolute perfect dimension site you might get up to .3. I don’t think
you are going to get far beyond that. You are not going to get up to .4 with all retail uses
because you are not going to be able to park the site there I am just convinced of it.
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Keller: I am not suggesting .4. I am just wondering if based on whatever is there
now and the idea that basing it on whatever is there now and at least if they can achieve that then
it might make sense to say well, that is existing proof.
Mr. R. Williams: But that allows you to achieve that it doesn’t allow you to do anything else on
the site. You can’t then provide additional residential units on the site. You are just providing
for the retail space on a single story generally maybe a two-story building. So there isn’t a
mixed use. component that you are achieving on that. It is just a straight retail space and in all of
these zones you can do a straight retail project and that is what you would end up with.
Vice-Chair Lippert: What is Fry’s? What do they run?
Mr. C. Williams: What are run as far as what?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Percentage of FAR.
Mr. R. Williams: Fry’s today or a new Fry’s?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Today’s Fry’s.
Mr. R. Williams: It is low it is probably less than .2 FAR I would imagine.
Chair Holman: Are you referring to the Fry’s that we have here?
Mr. R. Williams: No, the new Fry’s.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Today’s Fry’s. The reason that I bring that up is it is the antithesis of what
we are talking about. It is a site that is remote, it is big, it is deep, and it is in the back, not easily
visible from E1 Camino Real.
Chair Holman: While they are looking for that Commissioner Garber you have a question?
Commissioner Garber: I need their attention.
Mr. C. Williams: This is going to be all of the buildings out there not just the retail space. The
retail space is limited to 60,000 square feet. If you take that over the whole site I am sure it is
probably .15 or less. If you take all of the buildings that are out there including all of the
warehousing and all that kind of stuffit is probably going to end up being .35.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So it is in 25 percent range?
Mr. R. Williams: But it isnot all retail.
Chair Holman: The warehousing though is supporting the retail, right?
Page 21
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 Mr. C, Williams: Some is but it is counted differently. It is really warehousing so it is a
2 different parking rate than the retail portion.
3
4 Mr. R. Williams: Yes.
5
6 Mr. C. Williams: Fry’s is unusual.
7
Mr. R. Williams: Today if they were building a Fry’s they would want substantially more
parldng.
Mr. C. Williams: You are going to see sites like that I think you are going to them back at some
point in time with a proposal for either an area plan, a comp plan, or a rezoning so we can more
specifically consider what to do on a site like that that is more less an anomaly.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I will save my comment until later.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: So an example of what you are talking about supporting a, I am not sure
where a health club falls in there, but for instance the site that is just down the street from Fry’s
the new health club has to provide structured parking below grade as opposed to above grade in
order to support the use that they have. It is actually providing the required amount of parking
but that is significantly larger than would otherwise be required, correct?
Mr. R. Williams: I am not familiar enough with that particular site.
Mr. C. Williams: It is requiring a substantial amount of parking to accommodate the health club.
Commissioner Garber: They are then structuring that parldng.
Mr. C. Williams: They are structuring it in order to get the health club size that they need.
Commissioner Garber: So what I am hearing Rick is that your recommendation here or what
you are trying to [emapl is the recognition that because the future is unknown and because there
are things that could stand to be better in a number of these areas that have been presented to us
in this zone that the wisest course, i.e., your recommendation is to create fairly low minimums to
allow the greatest flexibility of that land criteria so that you can have the greatest amount of
flexibility for the uses that go in there depending on how the economics of that particular area
falls out. By creating that flexibility you allow for some sites that are going to have greater
opportunity for retail, to create greater opportunities in retail, and other sites in the same zone not
having to create special circumstances within the zone to accommodate them so there may be
other sites that are better for the residential. By having those minimums those particular sites
could have greater residential versus retail and you could accommodate all that.
Mr. R. Williams: That is correct.
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: At which point you are really relying on the market forces to as well as
the physical constraints of each site to determine what the final outcome is. That is what I am
getting.
Mr. R. Williams: That is right.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you for that clarifying question.
Chair Holman: I have a question. Commissioner Sandas do you have a question?
Commissioner Sandas: No.
Chair Holman: I struggle with this one greatly. There are a lot of things in theory and a lot of
things are relative and a lot of things are certainly subjective. So I guess I would like your
comment on my query which is if we are looking at redevelopment of sites to, and I am going to
place everything in the theoretical without trying to pass any judgrnent on it but just put the
issues out there, to focus on redevelopment so that we get theoretically better buildings so we
have a better avenue along E1 Camino. That we will theoretically get more vital retail than what
exists theoretically now. One might also say that while theoretically the buildings that exist may
not all be as E1 Camino worthy let’s say following the E1 Camino Design Guidelines. They
theoretically provide services and retail to Palo Alto and contribute theoretically to its
uniqueness whereas new development, or redevelopment if it had to satisfy the economic criteria
if I understood you correctly is going to charge higher rents in order to be able to support the
redevelopment. So then one could presume that we could lose a number of these theoretically
well-serving businesses that we have on E1 Camino. That is my struggle and it has been for the
weeks that we have been considering this certainly the last couple of weeks that we have been
looking at this. So how would from your perspective, the three of you, how would you quantify
say the bicycle shops on E1 Camino that are unique, independently owned, they are near where
you live, they are locally owned businesses and locally owned businesses put more back- there
are studies that prove that local businesses put more back into the community than do chains.
And there should be a mix of local and chain you need both, right? So how do we achieve better
theoretically buildings for El Camino in keeping with the E1 Camino Design Guidelines without
ending up with a series of chain stores that can pay the higher rents and thus eroding,
theoretically, the quality of life and the unique character of Palo Alto and those independent
businesses? That is my struggle that is my question.
Mr. R. Williams: We actually struggle with that a lot also and I think one of the keys is to
understand that as every community is tweaking the regulations and trying to get commercial
revitalization, which is probably the most difficult thing to do, the retail piece of the equation of
community revitalization is the hardest of all the equations. These relatively minor
modifications to the regulations will not trigger a complete change in the business atmosphere
and the streetscape atmosphere in the entire strip along the entire length of the El Camino Real.
It just doesn’t happen. Every single parcel has its own special unique character with its own
special property ownership issues and they have their own business that they are working with
themselves and they own the building or somebody else is been there for 20 years and they are
getting ready to retire and their shop is going to close regardless of what is happening. There are
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
some communities that end up with six, no offence to anyone, six wig shops along a stretch and
we know that that is one of the lowest economic return uses and not very many communities
need six of them on the same block. There are many communities that I have seen that have
them or have a row of churches, also a singular good use but you don’t want every storefront to
be a church.
Chair Holman: Thus the issue of quotas as well that I brought up.
Mr. R. Williams: Every single parcel has its own variation so that I am sure that even in the
hottest market that you are not going to see a really extensive amount of turnover of parcels and
redevelopment. All of these parcels are very small so each one is an arduous process to
redevelop. Many of them won’t change for five, ten, 15, or 20 years and they are going to
change for many other reasons besides the regulations.
When somebody does decide to change over and redevelop their property then you don’t want
them to hit a bunch of roadblocks that keep them from doing it in a realistic way. So I have
never in all of my little zoning experiences in Mountain View or South San Francisco or any
other location I have never seen these types of modifications immediately trigger a complete and
total change in the way development has treated a street. There are incremental improvements
and generally on these smaller parcels which people have anticipated changing for an extensive
period of time but not on a large percentage of parcels, not even on ten percent of parcels over an
extended period of time. I don’t have that fear that there is going to be a huge amount of change
because of what I can perceive of as a relatively incremental regulatory change.
Chair Holman: Curtis.
Mr. C. Williams: I could take mv shot at that question. Ithink to me currently we have mixed
use allowed in these zones. We don’t have any minimum on the amount of retail. When we put
together this proposal over the last couple of years we started out saying you have to have some
retail. We started out at 900 square feet or 1,000 square feet is what we had been talking about
for a while now. Because of the Council’s direction-to try to encourage more retail we said well,
let’s get away from that and let’s try to get some number that is more substantial but how can we
do that without going to far? So I think we have come a long ways. This takes it a long ways
towards preserving the retail a lot more than now. Right now you don’t see that wholesale
change taking place but I think what you will get out of this is when that change does take place
that there will be better deSign, better pedestrian orientation, a better mix of uses and we will
preserve more retail than we probably could have under the current regulations.
So I want to go back to the fact that this whole ordinance revision that is before you is something
that we had a long wish list of things that we would have like to have done. I know others have
their own wish lists and for various reasons we have tried to focus down on essentially three
things. One is taking away the completely residential option in the commercial zones so that we
do have a better opportunity to do retail. Second, is to provide just a more realistic set of
standards for the mixed use criteria because they are skewed in a way right now that particularly
when you have commercial on either side of you you are treated like a residential use. Then
thirdly, we have added this hotel component to try to encourage hotels primarily for the revenue
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
potential that they have. So we have really focused our attention on those areas and I guess my
encouragement to you is to try to do that too and recognize that this incremental. We use that
work quite a few times with this Zoning Ordinance Update that these things are incremental.
Let’s try to have this minimum retail percentage.
I wanted to add that Chair Holman has asked a few weeks ago and we didn’t get to bring this up
last week. There are three mixed use projects that have been approved in the past year-plus
along E1 Camino. One is in CS zoning and the other two are in CN. One project, which is the
Old Pro site, has a retail component of nine percent, .09 FAR, for that and it also has some first
floor office. So the entire first floor is .20 retail on that project. The other two are the sort of
side-by-side 1795 and 1805 E1 Camino Real. They both have first floor entirely retail, they are
each. 15 FAR retail and then they have a second floor of office that gets them to the .40
maximum with .25 office on top. They each have two residential units above those. I think the
architect will tell you on those projects that is the kind of a mix that is necessary to make each
one of those components work. That is an example of what I think have been three very well
accepted projects in terms of using small sites in ways that are attractive and serve multiple
purposes in terms of the residential. These are doctor’s offices, dentist offices.
Vice-Chair Lippert: What about E1 Camino Way?
Mr. C. Williams: E1 Camino Way I don’t have the numbers on that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: You know the one I am talking about, the one that has Starbuck’s and such.
Mr. C. Williams: Every project has Starbuck’s that doesn’t identify them. But, now I don’t have
those. I was just thinking of the ones in the last year that have been approved. They aren’t built
yet. So I think we are seeing that that has been working and if we required more retail, maybe if
we required .15 on that first one we wouldhave gotten a little bit more retail on that site. I don’t
know if that would have worked or not. That is sort of where we are. So we are comfortable
with that as taking a good step forward in trying to assure that we do have reasonable first floor
retail on these mixed use projects. Whereas right now we have no stipulation as to how small
that retail space.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber I think you had your hand up.
Commissioner Garber: Yes, just to clarify really your question which I enjoyed hearing the
discussion on. Once again let me test what it is I think I heard there which was that the dynamics
of the actual ownership and current leasing of the spaces in these zones has greater impact over
their current use than does a change in zoning. I mean how those individuals are going to be
using or planning or living in those spaces has greater impact in the near term than a change in
zoning would in the long term. So over 15, 20 or 25 years obviously the zoning is going to have
a much broader impact because those people have changes and they will have to comply. Near
term five years, ten years, probably 15 years or whatever the sort of lifetime span or in this case
30 years over here, if somebody does own it for 30 years presumably they will feel the impacts
but then a lot of other things are going to change as well and not the least of which is the various
ebbs and flows of the economy. So what I was confirming once again is that the dynamics of the
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
individual ownerships, leases, etc., have greater impact in the shol~ term than the zoning does in
the long term. Okay?
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: What about the idea of rather than - the idea here is what we want to do is
we want to incentivize this in order to get better quality commercial. So if we had a minimum
amount of commercial FAR that they had to build but then on top of that said there is another
sort of bump up on the amount of commercial you have to provide in order to make it a mixed
use building because what I hear you saying is that once you begin to add the other uses of either
office or residential the parking really has to go underground so that you have more opportunities
on the ground floor to increase that retail space. So what about having two thresholds? You say
if you are going to just develop it as simply retail you have to build a minimum and then if you
are going to make it a mixed use building then you have to increase that retail FAR another let’s
say 25 percent.
Mr. C. Williams: Let me clarify first of all that this minimum retail only applies to mixed use
right now. We are not suggesting we are essentially doing that and saying right now if you
want to go out there and have retail we can’t really tell someone if they have a .40 retail right
now and they want to put in a .25 retail that they can’t do that especially because the .40
probably didn’t meet the parking requirements and for them to put the .25 in they will meet the
parking requirements. So what we are essentially saying though is if you want to do mixed use
then you haveto have this minimum amount of retail. I don’t think like these numbers here
these are not the below grade parldng this is surface parldng. Many times I think we see on
maybe the bigger sites you do get that chance to do thebelow grade parking and the small sites
are too constrained to make that work. So sites like this have to park the residential also at the
surface and that is one of the reasons why when we talk about potentially limiting the residential
unit size it is a problem because if they could theoretically in the FAR get four residential units
but they can’t park four residential units and it is not financially worth it for them to do two units
at half the size to make it work because they still have to park it then that’s detrimental.
Vice-Chair Lippert: But they could go in and they could develop the site as multi-family
residential without any commercial component couldn’t they?
Mr. C. Williams: Today?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes.
Mr. C. Williams: Today they could if they could park it.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right.
Mr. C. Williams: It is tough to park on a small site so it ends up being a very small project.
Vice-Chair Lippert: But if the residential component is paying for the underground parking
somebody could come in and say I am just going to put in underground parking and do all multi-
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
family residential and get my .60 FAR, which would more than adequately pay for the site. The
idea is then we lose the retail component. So why not prohibit residential unless it was a mixed
use building?
Mr. R. Williams: That is what we are doing.
Mr. C. Williams: That is what we are proposing. The use column in the table we have changed
it to essentially cross out the residential by itself and put only multi-family residential when it is
part of a mixed use. That is sort of step one. Step two is now if that is the only scenario you can
have residential what we want is a minimum of retail. So .15 and I think we have said .25 in
some other areas.
Vice-Chair Lippert: That is an about-face of what Council gave direction back in the 1980s
when we lost Rodolfo’s and we lost Cameo Club that way.
-Mr. C. Williams: That was when these folk’s site was rezoned to multi-family and many, many
other sites. Fry’s was at a time when we were trying to look for more residential.
Mr. R. Williams: It wasn’t that long ago because the E1 Camino Real Guidelines actually one of
the things that we had to do in that was develop design guidelines for residential along E1
Camino Real. So there was design guidelines setup for that interface so it would better because
there is the one.apartment project, the Montage, that is actually an all residential project on a key
corner and turned its back on E1 Camino. That is when we started getting involved with the
design guidelines. So if you think about the way this has come full circle these regulations are
more restrictive towards encouraging retail today than what you currently have in the regulation
because you could do a residential project today. So we are adding more retail required just
because of that.
Mr. C. Williams: It is more restrictive in terms of requiring more retail. Yes.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller I think you were next.
Commissioner Keller: First let me ask a question I alluded to earlier since Don is still here. To
what extent can we require retail in those properties, which are listed in the Housing Element as
zoned for mixed use?
Mr. Larkin: Well, I admit I don’t know the specific answer. We would have to allow housing
and that is clear. Under the state law whether or not we can require them to be mixed use
projects is less clear. We would probably do that well I would have to look at that more
carefully than I can do it here but my guess is that if we have sites like in the Downtown area
where we have a ground floor retail component requirement then we would be able to enforce
that requirement. One of those sites is but I am not sure about the other one.
Commissioner Keller: So one of them is the 5-21,650 Alma and Forest I had the impression we
were doing something with 900 to 925 High which is not E1 Camino Real and 900 Alma which is
doing something else too.
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Larkin: The 800 Alma is where there will be something else.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, okay. So would it make sense for us to think about not exempting
these units from the ordinance that we pass in terms of mixed use?
Mr. Larkin: I don’t think that we were contemplating exempting those from the ordinance.
Mr. C. Williams: Council’s direction was excluding housing opportunity sites from that
restriction and that is what we have written in here. I guess my point would be you are talking
about two sites, we know what they are, it looks like both of them probably would be proposed
as mixed use projects anyway but I wouldn’t want to put something in the zoning ordinance that
essentially addresses two sites. We are going to do our Housing Element Update at which point
we will have a whole list of new sites and we can consider at that time how we want to designate
the zoning.
Commissioner Keller: We have this exception that we are contemplating putting in now. The
question is does it make sense to have that exception or does it make sense not to have the
exception and just basically have the precedent so that the mixed use means mixed use and if
anything is added to the Housing Element subsequently then it is our intent for those to be mixed
use in the future, therefore we don’t have this problem. That is my concern.
Mr. C. Williams: I understand that. I think number one Council’s direction was to exclude the
housing opportunity sites but that doesn’t preclude you from recommending something you think
is a better solution. Secondly, I am just concerned that you put something in the zoning
ordinance that precludes looking at housing opportunity sites. There maybe sites that are zoned
commercial that for other reasons are not good retail sites and they could be listed on the housing
opportunity sites not as a mixed use project but whichever way the Commission wants to go on
that. Like I said it is only two sites and it probably doesn’t really matter which direction you do
it and then we are going to have to have the discussion again when the Housing Element comes
up.
Ms. Caporgno: As I said before when this was developed and we identified them as a mixed use
we were anticipating that there would be a mixed use zoning district. Since that hasn’t occurred
we don’t know if the state would even, the state approved this with the understanding that the
mixed use be exclusive requiring housing. Since that isn’t going to be the case in our next
Housing Element we won’t have a mixed use zoning district that would require a housing
component unless we figure out some mechanism for that. So we may not be able to do
something like this in the next Housing Element anyway.
Commissioner Keller: On the Comp Plan Update process that problem could possibly be ....
Ms. Caporgno: That is what I said before. We may be able to do something with a mixed use
designation in the Comprehensive Plan and say that the mixed use designation requires a
component in any site that is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use would have to
Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
have a portion of the development would have to be housing as opposed to a mixed use of let’s
say office and retail.
Commissioner Keller: Okay. Earlier you talked aboutparking and that there is a parking
requirement for retail and then there are parking requirements for other things. My
understanding is that there is some principle that says that the overall parking requirement might
be less when you have mixed use. We are not at this juncture planning to do adjust the parking
requirements but I think that is something we are doing later on, is that correct?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, that is correct.
Commissioner Keller: So therefore while what we do may not ~X the problem at some point in
the future when we revisit the parking requirements the parking requirement for mixed use will
be diminished and therefore the impact of residential and retail won’t be exactly the sum of the
two as would be required now.
Mr. C. Williams: Potentially. I think realistically we feel like we probably will not suggest a
reduced rate for.mixed use parking. We will leave in tact what we have now which is a
provision which allows up to 20 percent reduction for mixed use but I think we have a couple of
adjustments for that that we may propose. One which is more stringent is I think we will include
a requirement that we have essentially a traffic engineer study that shows the hours of demand
for each of the uses and makes that comparison that justifies that rather than right now it is
basically right now if we are doing mixed therefore we should get a 20 percent reduction. I don’t
think there has been a lot of scrutiny of that. That is one thing. The other is we talked about we
would like to suggest at that point but it is not on the table now that this joint use parking be
allowed when there are ten or more parking spaces required on the site. Right now it is 30 or
more so you have to have a pretty big project before you can even take advantage of that.
Two of these E1 Camino projects are right next to each other and we are able to get some
exceptions to do that but we need to have that discussion and it is not an easy issue to address at
this point. We will be back to you with those discussions.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, I think you had another question.
Commissioner Garber: A couple. Some criteria of the types of housing that are required are
written into the zoning ordinance that 15 percent has to be affordable, etc. but not all of it, is that
right? Imean there are other parts that are held inside the Comprehensive Plan that are held as
part of requirements that are either county or state affected etc. which are then applied over the
zoning. Is that correct?
Ms. Caporgno: Actually yes the below market rater program is only in the Comprehensive Plan.
There is reference to it in the zoning ordinance but the program itself is in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Commissioner Garber: So I am just wondering to some of Commissioner Keller’s interests
which I share as well, if the most effective way to get at some of these affordable or very
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
affordable or however we would like to refer to these housing issues should we be looking at
other things other than specifically the zoning to try and effect some of those policies more
directly? It may be that the way we affect those isn’t specifically through this rezoning effort
that we are focusing on today but maybe I know that you guys are going to be looking at the
Comprehensive Plan and there may be opportunities in there for us to address this far more
directly than we can really through this particular tool.
Ms. Caporgno: I think so, I think yes.
Commissioner Garber: Okay. I am going to come back to something else and that is I had in my
notes when Commissioner Burt was making his comments last week that he had also mentioned
the auto dealership overlays but I don’t have anv reference in my notes as to why he raised that.
Mr. C. Williams: He and I crossed that off the list when we met, I think he said this has already
been answered and crossed it off. So I am not real sure what that issue is.
Commissioner Garber: I wasn’t remembering what it was.
Mr. C. Williams: For your information we have some language in here that mixed use is not
allowed on an auto overlay site.
Chair Holman: I think that is why it wasn’t an issue anymore because we already had that
discussion I think.
Mr. C. Williams.: That is right. Yes.
Commissioner Garber: So my third question here really comes back to the CN zone districts and
that is specific to Midtown and Alma Plaza. I know that the City had looked at introducing
residential into those areas in the past, If it is not in the deep recesses of your brain could you
maybe refresh some of the topics to us as to what some of the dynamics of that issue is?
Mr. C. Williams: Thank you for bringing that up. I wanted to respond to Ms. Powell’s
comments. Yes, it was in 2001 when the ground floor retail and all the neighborhood serving
use discussions happened. There were provisions that residential not be allowed in each of the
Midtown or Charleston areas. Again, our wish list included trying to somehow work that in
because there are discussions even in the Comprehensive Plan about potential for exploring at
least the potential of mixed use in those areas.
Commissioner Garber: Meaning retail plus residential?
Mr. C. Williams: Right, it was specific about that. So our initial proposal did include Midtown
and Charleston and we went out and met with neighborhoods. There was quite a fractious divide
if not a strong opposition to changing what had at that point only been like that for a few years.
It was a hard issue to get past so again at this point we think that is a battle to try to argue that for
Midtown and would take an awful lot more series of community meetings and such to try to
address that. We felt it was better served to leave that in place currently.
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: Do you recall what some of the issues were that were being raised by the
community?
Mr. C. Williams: Some of them were parking which was definitely an issue of where you park
the additional residential. Other I think had to do with as somebody mentioned adjacent noise
and odors and things like that. We think those can be addressed through performance criteria for
the most part and the parking criteria you would have to [meter] you are limited by that but by
the same token that Could extend this process quite a bit to try to force that issue. We didn’t
know Ms. Powell before but hadn’t had anyone really arguing for providing that residential
component in there.
Commissioner Garber: Aside from some of the community concerns that were raised do you
recall if there was any looking at the actual parcel sizes and running some calculations to see if
you could actually create a scenario/prototype that would actually work and satisfy the parking
requirements, etc.?
Mr. C. Williams: I’ll ask Kevin.
Mr. Kevin Gardner, Consultant: We didn’t really look at Midtown too specifically.
Mr. C. Williams: We did recognize that we did not want to do like what we are doing on E1
Camino and suggesting any increases that we wanted to recognize that that was a different type
of neighborhood commercial than on E1 Camino and try to make that distinction. I don’t know if
we ran any prototypes for that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: The difficulty with the Midtown area though is that the parldng fi~om parcel
to another basically runs into each other. A lot of property owners rely on each other as access
from one site to another in order to get through all of the parking. So even though it looks like it
is one large ocean of parking in fact that is a variety of parcels there that people are actually
traversing. Some of those sites can’t even support the parking on their own site they have to rely
on the fact that there is overflow and spillage onto the adjacent property.
Commissioner Garber: Some of them have marked the parking places as to who owns them.
Vice-Chair Lippert: But that is not really ....
Commissioner Garber: I am not saying it is an answer I am just offering it as another symptom.
Commissioner Keller: Would it be fair to say under Prop 90 if we do not change the restriction
on residential within Midtown and Charleston then we are not liable for subsequently allowing
residential if there is a decision to do that and therefore it might make sense to do nothing now
regarding that and revisit it sometime subsequently?
Mr. Larldn: I would hate to think that way but it is probably true.
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert did you have another question?
Vice-Chair Lippert: That was my question regarding the parking.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, you talked earlier about the idea that we should require a 15 percent
FAR in certain circumstances and 25 in other circumstances based on the zoning. I think part of
the various kinds of restrictions and part of the numbers change depending on what zoning
exists. What my main question regarding that is you talked about that is the minimum that is
required and that in certain circumstances more might be possible. Considering that at least
currently residential use has the highest bang for the buck so to speak for the property owner; and
office is probably second although that was reversed maybe ten years ago, and retail is the lowest
and I am not sure whether that was true ten years ago or so. What I am wondering is based on
those economics that retail is likely to stay remunerative to the property owners do we have an
expectation that the property owners would provide more than that 15 percent if it could be
designed in such a manner?
Mr. R. Williams: In the same way that I think that the property ownership and who is
developing it and what their particular interest is that although everybody thinks that every
developer will always go for the option which makes the most money that instant I don’t actually
think that that’s necessarily the case. I wouldn’t have thought that these two projectsalong E1
Camino Real would have made more sense to put in office than something else but those
particular developers were also doctors or dentists that wanted their own offices. So is that the
highest and best use? Probably not. Did theyput in their own office space? Yes. Would
somebody that owns a piece of property andwants to put in a restaurant short-ship themselves
for the restaurant that they dream about? Probably not. They would put in some residential
above but they would design it so that the restaurant works for them. So to say that every single
development is going to be done exactly the same is not really the case. So you get a wide
variety of ways that people strategically develop their property and that is why I am not overly
concerned about them all developing exactly the same way or all of them having chain stores or
all of them having the maximum amount of residential. I think that is really the answer to that.
People do things for different reasons.
Commissioner Keller: I think the two cases you cited are sort of owner-occupied properties. I
am not sure whether properties that are not owner-occupied are subject to the same constraints.
Mr. R. Williams: Particularly on small properties what you will find is that a lot of times they
are owner-occupied or owner-developed or developed in conjunction with another owner. So
particularly on small parcels you find that there is some sort of a connection or relationship
between the property owner, the developer and the use that is eventually going to go in there.
On the large parcel site I agree that there is a different tendency there.
Commissioner Keller: I am sorting of thinking about this idea of how much retail we might
require. I am wondering about the potential that we require that all of the ground floor space in a
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
,39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
mixed use development be retail even if it is more than 15 percent. Does that make sense or does
it not make sense? It looks like in the plans you have there three out of the four scenarios
include that and the third scenario does not. So I am sort of wondering about let’s suppose we
say that if you can fit more ground floor space then that ground floor space should be retail. I am
wondering how that works.
Mr. R. Williams: Well, on that particular scenario I would say the reality is the ground floor
space is all retail. There is a half level of parking that prevents you from putting retail any
further back. So that is in essence the ground floor. So I think in all of those scenarios the
ground floor is all retail.
I think that what happens on a large project you are not going to have the whole entire ground
floor retail you are going to have some residential in back that might be at grade. So you would
have a retail part and then residential possibly behind it in a more horizontal rather than vertical
mixed use. So again it doesn’t always apply the same depending on the size of the site or the
configuration. However, on small parcels I think you will find that predominantly the ground
floor will be retail and there would be something else. The only other things you would end up
with are utility spaces, lobbies for the residential above so that you can enter in, parking would
be another space that I wouldn’t consider retail and once you get to a certain size it is going to
flip over and you are going to have a mix of uses that are horizontal as well as vertical. So in
those you would have residential on the ground floor or office. We talked earlier about having
office space on the ground floor behind retail as being an appropriate use as well. So again it is
not always the same.
Mr. C. Williams: Most of our retail zones have the ground floor retail requirement at this point
so it is pretty difficult to do anything but retail onthe ground floor as it is with those exceptions
that are listed in the code for where there is already an existing office and you can replace that
with office. You can have it in those locations but generally if you have retail existing
somewhere and you convert it all you can do on the ground floor is retail.
Commissioner Keller: And that applies to E1 Camino?
Mr. C. Williams: It applied everywhere except those CS on E1 Camino that I mentioned that do
not have housing on it. Those do have and that is one of the issues that we point out in the Staff
Report. That has flexibility to be developed with office. So all the CN, CD and CC have
essentially that prohibition against ground floor office that we think are sometimes difficult
because we find locations where maybe it would be good to have some office space but we can’t
permit it.
Chair Holman: Maybe it would be helpful in that CS if you indicate how much of that is on a
map that might be helpful for us. Then Commissioner Lippert had a follow up too.
Vice-Chair Lippert: It sounds to me like we are making an assumption that retail space is going
to have a series of small retailers when in fact a larger parcel could in fact support a much larger
retailer and there would no need to build either residential or as you were suggesting maybe
some office space on a ground floor. Is that correct?
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, that is certainly an option.
Mr. R. Williams: They don’t have to provide any mixed use they can do an all retail project.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I was just going to offer one more dynamic that will keep things from
changing too quickly and that is not to mix my metaphors but I will, an object that is in motion
will tend to stay in motion so if Mr. Newton has just invested a sizable piece of cash in
something despite whatever outside constraints are acting upon him he is going to look to get
that money out before he make a change and that is going to be effective at both a small scale
and a larger scale because of the simple reason that cash is hard to garner. ~The areas where you
end up with friction is when somebody is planning a change in an environment that they are
expecting and finding out that the environment has changed. At which point there is friction.
But those circumstances I would suspect are probably generally few and far between and are
manageable on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Keller: One of the things about housing, maybe this is too broad a question but
we have talked a lot about the jobs/housing imbalance. In terms of the housing and jobs
imbalance one of the issues is that people who work in Palo Alto live elsewhere and we are
trying to add housing so that people who work in Palo Alto can live in Palo Alto. I am sort of
wondering if there are any statistics of the people who live in Palo Alto how many of them work
in Palo Alto? If we add housing do people work elsewhere and therefore they are commuting to
Sunnyvale or San Jose or San Francisco?
Ms. Capor~no: We have some data and it is the census data. We would have to get back to you
on what it provides. It is looking at census tracks and census areas. So it is not just within the
city boundaries. Generally we have some of the data that we could get back you with on that.
Curtis, do you want to add anything?
Mr. C. Williams: No, I guess my sense is that there is some data not necessarily specific to Palo
Alto and that is really a sort of Comprehensive Plan exercise. I guess I am having trouble seeing
the relevance of that to the specific zoning issues that we are talking about. I don’t want to get
into any philosophical discussions about it.
Commissioner Keller: I will explain why I was asking. In some sense the idea we are thinking
about how much - here we are talldng about the desirability of creating housing. One of the
things that we are doing is encouraging housing in a mixed use environment where we are
encouraging retail. The housing there is to encourage the retail in some sense. I think that is
what we are thinking of. So I am wondering how much the housing in and of itself is an intrinsic
good in this regard in terms of how that - we talked about the housing/jobs imbalance but in
terms of the benefits of the housing independent of the retail is what I was trying to get at.
Mr. C. Williams: I understand that. I think our only answer at this point is that the
Comprehensive Plan says that is an intrinsic benefit.
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Holman: I think what I would like to do is we have been at this a little bit over two hours
and just take about a seven minute break and come back. We have mostly only covered one
topic but it probably the most important and most complex topic that we will address tonight. I
think a seven-minute break might be healthy.
Okay, coming back to our meeting and discussion. I hope we have vetted all the questions and
issues about the minimum retail requirement for ground floor in a mixed use development. I
think what we will do is end up with a motion of course or maybe more than one motion but I
think what we will do is go through the Staff Report where they have highlighted what the
recommended changes are to the ZOU for commercial development. If you will look at for
instance page four of the Staff Report what we would like to do is focus this on seeing if there
are any particular issues. I would like us to really be concise it is 8:30 and we do need to finish
tl’ris this evening. If we want the advantage of having the City Attorney here we need to get
through this and this has to be finished tonight because this has to go to Council to beat the
Proposition 90 election issue.
Mr. Larkin: Just a reminder, the CC and CC(2) district discussions are completed.
Mr. C. Williams: Not the CC(2), just the CC.
Mr. Larkin: Excuse me just the CC discussion has been completed so there shouldn’t be any
discussion of that.
Chair Holman: Right which includes also we did Town & Country Village as well that is part of
CC. Okay. So if we look at again page four of the StaffReport these are highlighting the
changes. Are there any issues or concerns?
Mr. C. Williams: Would you like to just real quickly run this?
Chair Holman: Sure.
Williams: So there are five key changes that we have noted:
That we have talked about limiting residential uses so it is mixed-use only and no stand-
alone residential, except for the housing opportunity sites could still be stand_-alone
residential.
Increasing the FAR for hotels to .20:1 although in the CN zone hotels aren’t permitted so
it doesn’t apply there. Allowing up to 25 percent of that hotel square-footage to be used
for residential condominium purposes.
Requiring a conditional use permit for commercial retail and service uses that operate
between ten o’clock at night and six o’clock in the morning in CN and CS districts, when
they are abutting a residentially-zoned property.
Reducing the front setback along El Camino Real to allow the buildings to come instead
of being setback 20 or 25 feet to come essentially up to the sidewalk or close to it and
accommodating an eight to 12 foot sidewalk depending on the location.
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Then the transitional area where height in particular and some daylight plane
requirements kick in 150 feet from, we have added ’an abutting residential property,’ so
that if you have a commercial property -between the project and residential
that it is still 150 feet from the residential so those standards don’t kick in; it is only if
you are immediately adjacent to the residential property.
So those are the main changes. We have noted that there also are a couple of cleanup items that
we have included in the standards for commercial districts as well as just the reformatting of the
whole section combining all the chapters into one.
Chair Holman: So I would invite Commissioner Tuma comments, questions or salutations on
any of these points.
Commissioner Tuma: On the last of those the 150 foot requirement we have changed that to
abutting the site. We discussed this a little bit before but I couldn’t imagine a scenario where
there is a small sliver of other type of property that intervenes between the site and the residential
so it doesn’t actually abut but it is very, very close, an alleyway or some other intervening piece
of property, how would that be handled. 9
Mr. C. Williams: I think that would typically be addressed through the Design Review process
with ARB in a context based criteria that are in here that indicate that there is a unique or take
that into account. If it is appropriate to have greater setback or landscaping or whatever the
situation is that is best for that situation. It probably depends on the particular project location
and where the h6mes are and those kinds of things to do that. If you wanted to try to do
something here to try to address that we could say something to the effect that in no event or
these things kick in if you are within say 50 feet of a property lille even if there is Something
abutting.
Commissioner Tuma: That is the concern because we had a distance before and now we have
gone with abutting and maybe we could just make it clear by having a caveat there that some
relevant distance.
Mr. C. Williams: I don’t see a problem with doing that and I would suggest 50 feet so if you
have a sliver of land commercial or otherwise or alley or something that doesn’t belong to that
residential property that isn’t zoned residential but you are still as close as 50 feet from the
residential property then you would have to have those lower heights and daylight plane.
Commissioner Tuma: To me that makes sense.
Chair Holman: Why don’t we do this, does anybody have any question or comment on the first
one of limiting residential use to mixed use? So the Commission is in support of that?
Commissioner Keller: I am in support of that without the exception stated.
Chair Holman: Okay. Do you want motions on each one of these? Would that make it simpler?
Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: I would like motions on whatever you need to make a motion on. In other
words, if there is not an issue on an item I don’t think we need a motion.
Chair Holman: Are you okay with that?
Mr. C. Williams: If you have something like that it would be fine to make a motion or take straw
votes.
Mr. Larldn: Right, either straw vote or keep a tally so that we can simply scoop them up in one
motion at the end.
Chair Holman: Okay, I am going to go to the second point here, increasing the floor area ratio
for hotels, generally 2.0:1 except in the CN zone were hotels are not allowed and allowing 25
percent for residential use. Does anybody have any questions, comments or concerns about that?
Okay.
What I am going to do here is for the first two bullets can we just have a straw vote then of all
those in favor of supporting those two recommendations from Staff?.
Commissioner Garber: Sorry, may I just ask a question? What you are a suggesting is that the
opportunity zones should be multi-use with the same residential requirement as any other?
Commissioner Keller: Yes.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I disagree with that I think we can deal with that when we do the
Comprehensive Plan amendments. The issue is that City Council as I had alluded to before had
made some hasty decisions in terms ofrezoning parts of E1 Camino Real and they became
housing sites to the detriment of E1 Camino Real and the economic viability of E1 Camino Real.
So my feeling here is that we have an opportunity to correct this when we do the Comprehensive
Plan amendments so we should just keep it whole right now.
Chair Holman: IfI might, we are only talking about two sites neither of which is on E1 Camino
so keep that in mind.’
Commissioner Keller: Well, in particular I am not interested in spot zoning but in particular if
we exempt the 5-21 site which is the one on Alma and Forest then that under the regulation could
become 100 percent housing and I am not sure that that’s what we would like to encourage. I
would think that that’s not what we want to encourage. It may have been that the City Council
not being aware of exactly which sites were in question was being cautious by suggesting we
exempt that.
Mr. Larkin: I would just caution you that there is a fair argument to be made and a fairly
persuasive argument to be made that they could be 100 percent housing either way regardless of
what the Commission does because of state law. So that is the context in which the City Council
gave direction.
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Does that?
Commissioner Keller: Well, I would wonder whether it is properties designated in the Housing
Opportunity Sites in the City’s Housing Element now Or whether we are referring to if future
properties are Opportunity Sites that they suddenly become exempt from the requirement for
mixed use.
Ms. Caporgno: I believe that when the Council directed us to do this on August 7 to make these
changes to eliminate standalone housing in the commercial zones it was an interim measure prior
to complete - the reason was because we weren’t going to go forward with the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment immediately so they wanted something in place in that intervening period of
time. So I think it is just the direction at the time anyway was interim until we completed the
update to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. C. Williams: In the Comprehensive Plan when you develop this list next time you can say in
the proposed zoning category what you want it to be. If the thought at that point is that some of
the sites could be mixed use then you could specify that it should be limited to mixed use and
that would help and we may or may not have to go back into the zoning ordinance to change
something but there may be other sites that they say should be rezoned.
Ms. Caporgno: It is just because they are commercial zones right now. What we will be doing
with the Comprehensive Plan and the next Housing Element is that those sites should be
designated planned for residential purposes. Right now these two sites we have never rezoned
and we should be rezoning them to a zoning district that would restrict the uses on the property
to insure housing.
Commissioner Keller: I am still a little confused because we have indicated that these are to be
mixed use. We have indicated by mixed use my understanding is that we expect there to be
essentially ground floor retail plus residential above. And that if we eliminate this exception
then when we do the Comp Plan Update we could say that the sites on the Housing Opportunity
list are not to have any uses other than retail or and housing if that is what we want it to be. But
if we leave this exception in then depending on the wording of the exception anything that is put
on the Housing Inventory List suddenly becomes potentially 100 percent housing and I don’t
think that that’s what we intend. So even if you put this exception the exception should refer to
things in the Housing Opportunity Sites only the ones that are there now that is where it should
apply not the future ones. Even the ones there now there is a reasonable argument to say that we
will fix forcing them to be housing and retail in the Comp Plan otherwise we will have to go
back to the mixed use and fix it again.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: I had a clarifying question. I just heard from Don that the proposed
zoning which we don’t have the zoning district of mixed use was there but just toclarify with the
Council’s recommendation were they recommending that these two sites that seem really well
suited for mixed use, there is only one floor of retail and then all the rest is housing and they can
build that a little taller than something along I can’t remember the name of the street.
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Caporgno: Remember the Council never evaluated this. There was a memo from the City
Attorney who recommended that we exclude the sites that are listed on the Housing Inventory
because of state law requirements. That is why they did it. It had nothing to do with individual
sites.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay. So can I follow up with a question? What is the state law just for
my edification? What is the state expecting of us?
Mr. Larkin: We can’t put any requirements on housing on our inventory sites that aren’t in
existence. So if there are development standards - the mixed use zoning designation for those
sites because we never actually created the mixed use zone and zoned those sites we can’t
impose those standards on these sites. So if a developer who owns a one of these properties
wanted to develop 100 percent housing it wouldn’t matter that our zoning said only in this
context because they would have an absolute fight to develop a 100 percent housing project on
those sites as of right now. It doesn’t mean that we can’t create design guidelines but how we
enforce that is going to be dependent on what we do with our Comprehensive Plan designation.
That is why the suggestion was made we exempt them for now because if they come through the
door tomorrow with a project they get to build it. When we update our Comprehensive Plan we
can address that by creating these mixed use requirements in the Housing Element and we can
fix it but we are not going to fix it through the zoning ordinance here tonight and that is the
bottom line.
Commissioner Sandas: Okay, so the bottom line is that we need to be okay with this.
Mr. Larkin: Yes.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Mr. Larkin: You can change the ordinance if you want but it won’t be effective so we might as
well focus on what we can
Commissioner Garber: I was only going to suggest procedurally that we go back to your
which is I would tick off all the things that we don’t have issues with and let’s
highlight the ones we do and that way we can focus our attention on everything together.
noted, we have two that we need to come back to.
So
Commissioner Sandas: Which ones?
Commissioner Garber:
Commissioner Sandas:
Commissioner Garber:
The first bullet and the last bullet.
The first bullet is a done deal more or less.
Well; as far as you are concerned.
Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Sandas: As far as the state is concerned and as far as our attorney is concerned.
Mr. C. Williams: So the middle three bullets are okay?
Chair Holman: No. Sorry. The second bullet I did not hear any comments or concerns about
the second bullet. Are we all in agreement or the majority in agreement? So that is a six-zero.
On the conditional use permit for commercial retail including restaurants and services operating
between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in the CN and CS districts when adjacent to residentially
zones properties. Any questions, comments or concerns about that?
Commissioner Keller: I just have a clarifying concern which is that a restaurant that closes at ten
o’clock but still has patrons in it that say until eleven is that a CUP or not?
Mr. C. Williams: It is under this~
Commissioner Keller: Okay, I just want to make the record clear on that.
Mr. C. Williams: Operate or have associated activities.
Commissioner Keller: Okay, because somebody may argue that a restaurant that closes at ten is
okay and I just want to be clear.
Vice-Chair Lippert: You know, now that you mention it they are there for another hour cleaning
up afterwards and that falls into that. So maybe the way to define it is see service.
Mr. Larkin: The other option is to fix it through the CUP. conditions so that if they are there until
eleven then you can condition the CUP.
Mr. C. Williams: That is exactly what the CUP is for. It sets the conditions out for what can
happen after ten o’clock.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Great.
Chair Holman: I guess my concern actually is most especially in the CN zone why would we
have any businesses operating between midnight and 6:00 a.m. I am trying to think of examples.
Commissioner Keller: You mean like Safeway or a donut shop?
Chair Holman: That is CS I believe.
Mr. C. Williams: I don’t know but it doesn’t seem to me like we should be so exclusive that we
say they shouldn’t they just require a use permit and they come in and it would be noticed and if
there were some activity that had to happen then that it would be considered and it may not be
approved. But I just wouldn’t want to be as directive as saying you can’t do anything. In some
locations it might be okay to have a delivery at 5:00 a.m. and in other locations you are next to
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
somebody and it is not the way that it is situated of where your delivery comes up to or the
access route or something.
Chair Holman: Okay. Then my other comment is in a lot of places throughout here we have
used the words ’adjacent and abut’ and I have difficulties with all of those because again
adjacent to residentially zoned properties and again there could be a driveway, an alley, or a
street that intercedes and I think it still is an issue. Noise travels more than just across a property
line. So I think we need to go back to at a minimum the 50 feet but I would be open to
something greater than that but certainly nothing less than 50 feet requiring a CUP. Any other
comments? Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: I agree with that completely. I think that there are so many parcels that
are chopped up in little comers here and there and just because it is not - ’abutting’ is really a
problem for me ’adjacent’ is a bit vague so I would like to see it defined a little bit better.
Mr. C. Williams: Okay, so ’abutting’ is defined as basically having common property lines. So
if we say ’abutting or within 50 feet of.’
Commissioner Tuma: In this case, I think what Commissioner Holman is objecting to is
’ adjacent to.’
Mr. C. Williams: Right, that is in the Staff Report but the code language I think we have gone
through that and it consistently said ’abutting.’ We agree adjacent is not defined in the code and
it is also it is more vague. Abutting does mean up against it.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Adjacent could be directly across the street.
Chair Holman: So you said abutting or within 50 feet but if it is abutting it is within.50 feet so
do you need the language ’abutting’ or is it just within 50 feet?
Vice-Chair Lippert: No because 50 feet could skip a property line or skip a parcel.
Mr. C. Williams: I understand what you are saying. We will think about it. It doesn’t hurt to
say abutting or within 50 feet.
Commissioner Keller: Let me ask this clarifying hypothetical. Suppose you have a large parcel
of some sort or a deep parcel and with one big parcel the parcel is abutting right abutting a
residential property but the use is in the very front of the property, okay? So the question is what
is it that you are measuring? Are you simply saying that because the property in question is
abutting residential it can’t have any such things or are you saying that the use can’t be within
150 feet or 50 feet? I am just wondering what is the measurement.
Mr. C. Williams: The property is abutting regardless of the uses it requires a CUP. So you come
in on that CUP and you define and in the case of the thing being in the front there are a number
of things that probably won’t factor in that would otherwise and you address them through the
CUP.
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: So because you are doing the CUP the threshold is if you will lower?
People can get by if they are good citizens and apply various requirements that we can place? So
would there be a concern with having that distance be somewhat larger say 150 feet or abutting?
Mr. C. Williams: It would I think because you would end up with CUPs for practically every
project out there and that is just a burden that you are placing on commercial development that
we don’t think is reasonable.
Chair Holman: I don’t think it is as clearly defined but the uses say between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m. if it is, as somebody else mentioned, a delivery as opposed to a nightspot that is totally
different and that would be dealt with during the CUP process.
Mr. C. Williams: Absolutely.
Chair Holman: And its adjacency or proximity to residential development.
Mr. C. Williams: Right. I assume there would be a lot more interest in those
nighttime uses near residential uses ~with the nightclub ang-than something else where they
are just concerned about deliveries.
Vice-Chair Lippert: You know there are things that you can get your hands around and there, are
things that you can’t get your hands around. A driver making a delivery at five o’clock in the
morning, he is there, he delivers, and he is gone. Something that is in operation beyond a certain
hour usually happens on a regular basis and it is very easy to send somebody out and do
enforcement on something like that. The same thing for the building being located 150 feet or 50
feet away from a residential zone. It is formalized in the fact that it has a building permit, it has
plans, and you can’t just take that building and literally move it closer to the property line. So I
think that the CUP process is more an appropriate for this and it is a good catchall.
Chair Holman: So if I might be presumptuous based on a couple of comments I have heard
including my own, Commissioner Tuma would you care to state what you think you would
propose for CUP?
Commissioner Tuma: The proximity issuewould be that if it is within 50 feet then the CUP
requirement kicks in.
Commissioner Keller: Can I ask one clarifying question about that? Is that 50 feet the building
envelope, the property envelope?
Mr. C. Williams: The 50 feet is the residentially zoned property.
Commissioner Keller: From? In other words .....
Commissioner Sandas: At any point.
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: From any point of this property.
residentially zoned property.
Vice-Chair Lippert: That is exactly right.
Chair Holman: So do we have consensus on that point?
Commissioner Sandas: Yes.
So if this property is within 50 feet of a
Chair Holman: Okay, all right. Moving on. Reducing the front setback along E1 Camino to
allow buildings up to the property line so long as they provide for adequate sidewalk. Sidewalk
width generally is eight to 12 feet and appropriate pedestrian streetscape design. Any comments
or questions on that? I see two at once, Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: Just the adequacy of the sidewalk and the appropriateness of the
streetscape design how is that determined?
Mr. C. Williams: The ARB will be looking at the streetscape design but it is primarily in the
context-based design that has pretty specific criteria here for what we are looking for on
streetscape. The ARB has additional guidelines of their own to look at. Then the E1 Camino
Real Guidelines have a lot on streetscape and then that also factors into the sidewalk with the E1
Camino Design Guidelines have sidewalk widths.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. One question I have about build-to lines. Suppose somebody
wanted to have a slight bit or some degree of recess in order to have outdoor tables for
restaurants sort of like the property that replaced Kirk’s on California Avenue where the burger
place and the taco place are. Is that the kind of thing we want to encourage or the kind of thing
we don’t want to encourage? I know we don’t want to encourage cars in the front but I am sort
of wondering whether we want to encourage some degree of in and out, pedestrian activity in the
front and how that is accounted for?
Mr. R. Williams: It is accounted for both in design guidelines and in the regulations to allow for
flexibility and that but it is predominantly to create a building wall unless it has seating areas or
other opportunities. So it does create some variety within it and the ability to create variety
within it.
Commissioner Keller: Would those seating areas be considered open space as far as the open
space is concerned or would it not?
Mr. R. Williams: Yes, they can be.
Mr. C. Williams: If they are on the private property and not the sidewalk, yes.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Page 43
1
2
3
41
5
6
71
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Sandas: Well, I was reading that to assume the flexibility that either you can
build your building right up to the property line or you could do what you want from the property
line as far back as you wanted to. It seemed like it made the-provision for outdoor seating or
anything like that. I think that is what I heard you say.
Mr. C. Williams: No, we don’t think the flexibility~ in terms of it doesn’t require you to
be - it has some range of setback I think zero to ten feet. So there is some opportunity you don’t
have to be right at zero.
Commissioner Sandas: You are not required to build on .....
Mr. C. Williams: But you also can’t be beyond the ten feet.
Commissioner Sandas: Ten feet back.
Mr. C. Williams: Ten feet back from the property line except if this covers 50 percent of the
frontage. So for 50 percent of the frontage you can’t. You could in some areas go farther back
or go out like that and then you have a driveway and some other spaces that are set farther back.
Mr. R. Williams: Those are illustrated pretty extensively in the various guidelines.
Chair Holman: One I still had a little bit of concern about was, I guess probably because I have
images around town that are stuck in my head, is the ordinance says a minimum of 50 percent as
Commissioner Garber noted and one example particularly sticks out where it is more than 50
percent, actually two projects. I always walk by and because the whole building except for a
very minor setback on the ground floor is at that minimum setback that you feel pushed off the
sidewalk. I know that is not the intention of the guidelines but the ordinance does say a
minimum of 50 percent so I am a little concerned about allowing 100 percent especially for
larger projects to be at that minimum setback.
Commissioner Sandas: Can I ask you a clarifying question? So what you are saying is that if
there is 100 percent of a building that is built up to the property line.
Chair Holman: Kit is multi-story.
Commissioner Sandas: You feel that you are being pushed off the sidewalk?
Chair Holman: Yes, that tension of being pushed off and a lot of people have that reaction. So it
is a clarification for how the ordinance is written in keeping with the guidelines.
Mr. R. Williams: A couple things about it and I am not sure which building you are thinldng of
precisely.
Chair Holman: There is one on Lytton and one on Hamilton. The one on Lytton especially.
Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. R. Williams: I don’t know the building specifically and the other thing is they don’t have
the 12 foot sidewalk now because this requirement, currently there is an eight foot sidewalk and
we are requiring an additional four feet. So we are setting it back so it is a wider sidewalk than
you currently have.
Commissioner Sandas: On E1 Camino as part of the E1 Camino Design Guideline.
Mr. R. Williams: So that is one of the pieces so it is already going to be wider from that
standpoint. I am not experienced at feeling you are being pushed off the sidewalk from the
building on a 12-foot sidewalk.
Chair Holman: I haven’t put a tape to this but it looks to me like about a 12-foot sidewalk.
Mr. R. Williams: I have to admit I am not familiar.
Chair Holman: And it is two story. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Garber: I was only going to mention that the specific designs that would be
proposed would go through ARB and presumably they would be able to catch that sort of thing.
Chair Holman: This did too.
Commissioner Garber: But did they have this requirement to answer to?
Mr. C. Williams: No, but they went through ARB. I think that is something that ARB would be
looking at when they have this requirement more so than they probably did beforel I don’t know
what the circumstances were there. That is Downtown and Downtown already has not setback in
the front, as it is we don’t have to change anything there. So we would be essentially requiring
something more than that.
Commissioner Keller: This is kind of a left field question but it fits here. Does it make sense
and if so to what extent does it make sense in the situation where people create a ground floor
restaurant and have seating area that is permanently required if you will as part of the ground
floor restaurant because it was recessed and whatever, does it make sense at all to consider part
of the seating area as part of the retail FAR or does that not make sense? I am just thinking
about it. Just hypothesizing for a moment. I think that if you have nice greenery and some
seating out that that’s actually an attractive use.
Mr. R. Williams: It is not considered part of the FAR. If it was considered part of the FAR it
would be a disincentive for having the restaurant but you are already getting - but making it be
FAR isn’t giving them an incentive. The other thing is, the bigger issue is that when they
provide seating they have to provide the parking associated wit that seating I believe.
Commissioner Keller: Actually, maybe I misspoke. I don’t mean counted as FAR I mean let
them count it towards the minimum FAR that is required for retail. That is what I am suggesting
Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
as opposed to - not counting it as far as building FAR but counting it towards the minimum FAR
for retail.
Mr. C. Williams: First of all, if it is just retail there isn’t any minimum FAR. So we are only
talking about mixed use where the minimum FAR kicks in and I just think that is
overcomplicating the issue.
Chair Holman: Also weather factors and all kinds of things. Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Enough said.
Chair Holman: Well I stated my concern. Other than that does anybody else have concerns with
the eight to 12 foot setback? I am going to come back to you.
Commissioner Sandas: Do we have a consensus on that?
Chair Holman: Yes, no one else had any comments or concerns about that one except for mine.
Commissioner Keller: About which one?
Chair Holman: The eight to 12 foot setback on E1 Camino.
The 150-foot residential transition area is maintained but the related setbacks, daylight plane, and
height requirements only apply if the residential property abuts the site. Comments?
Commissioner Lippert: I agree. I think that is perfectly well stated. I think that it is a pretty
good change in the zoning ordinance. Part of the reason being that we have always applied the
RM-15 standard when you had a mixed use component above a commercial or a residential
component above a commercial. It begins to really relieve that constraint.
Commissioner Keller: I would suggest two changes to that. One is on the ZOU ordinance that I
have under development standards on page 14. It says within 150 feet from abutting residential
zone is 35 and then it says footnote five. Footnote five says for sites abutting an RM-40 zone
residential district or residential planned community district maximum height may be increased
by 50 feet.
Chair Holman: Not by 50 feet.
Commissioner Keller: I’m sorry, to 50 feet. The issue is that if a property abUts or that R-1 and
abuts RM-40 or abuts RM-40 and RM-30 or RM-15, in other words a combination, then it
doesn’t seem to make sense that just because you are abutting one RM-40 that that should count.
So what I would suggest firstly is that for sites for which the only residential that it abuts and I
will come back to that later is RM-40 or residential planned community then the maximum
height can be increased to 50 as opposed to if any of the abutting residential is RM-40 or PC.
Does that make sense? (okays) So I want the universal not the existential. I want it all not
some. That is the first thing.
Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: I apologize, just so I underStand I may have lost the thread in this. But
for any property all of the sides with the exception of its street side would need to touch a
residentially zoned property.
Commissioner Keller: No, what I am saying is that this is written saying it could be increased to
50 if it abuts some RM-40 or residential PC. What I am saying is if all of the abutting residential
is either RM-40 or PC then the height can be increased. So in other words, if there are any
residential that is not RM-40 or PC then the height is not increased.
Mr. R. Williams: And I would assume you include commercial, PF and all of the other zones
because .....
Mr. C. Williams: Any other residentially zoned .....
Commissioner Keller: The issue is that if there is any residential zone abutting that is not RM-40
or PC then it is still limited to 35 feet. Suppose we have a property and on one side is RM-40
and the other side is RM-15 it should still be limited to 35 feet and not 50.
Commissioner Garber: Is that the intent of the Staff?
Mr. C. Williams: I don’t think it is a problem with that. I would point out that we are actually
not to that point yet. That is the next use table and that is on the next page of the Staff Report
where it is the third bullet there that talks about height. This one on page four deals with the
table before that which doesn’t have that provision associated with it. It simply says maximum
height.
Commissioner Tuma: Page?
Mr. C. Williams: It is on page 12.
Chair Holman: It is 18.16.060, correct?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes and (a) Exclusively Non-Residential in the height in that has standard
heights and then within 150 feet of an abutting residential zone district is 35 feet, 25 feet in CN
regardless. So if it is all commercial that is what we are talking about in this section.
Commissioner Keller: So if it is all commercial then and there is an alleyway in between the
property in question and residential, even R-1 properties, then 150 feet doesn’t apply. So I am
not sure what it means ’ 150 feet of an abutting.’
Mr. C. Williams: That is where we need to put the abutting or within 50 feet and I agree with
that.
Commissioner Keller: Okay.
Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question here also.
side that is closest to that residential use?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes.
Would that daylight plane only apply to the
Vice-Chair Lippert: So in other words, if you wind up with a parcel, you have a residential zone
adjacent to it and abutting it and on this side you had a commercial zone but it was all
commercial and not a factor here it would only be this one where you would be concerned about
coming up and having the daylight plane. ’Not here it could go straight up on that side of the
building, correct?
Mr. C. Williams: Right but it would be 150 feet from that residential.
Vice-Chair Lippert: That is the point that I am trying to make. What is the net impact from this
side of the property line on this side?
Commissioner Garber: So both sides of the property line or just the outside?
Vice-Chair Lippert: You would still wind up with a daylight plane that would come across like
this. It would come up and then it would be whatever .......
Mr. C. Williams: It isn’t a daylight plane issue it is a height issue.
Chair Holman: But this says daylight plane, setbacks and height requirements.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct so daylight plane means that it would come up and then it would
come over so technically it is slicing through on an angle in that direction.
Commissioner Garber: It would slice to the height the other edge would define.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right, you would have a wedge-shaped building.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, on daylight plane it would definitely only applies on the side where the
residential is. The height is a little different between is it basically within 150 feet of that
residential property line and the height is 35 feet. So if that takes you all the way across the lot
then it takes you all the way across the lot.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right, but what I am trying to get at is what advantage would there be if you
had a daylight plane where it would come up and it would meet and it would create a tent like
that. The important thing is the fact that you probably want to encourage massing just to be
skewed to one side of the site.
Mr. C. Williams: Correct, yes. That is the way that it works. So height we need to change that
language on this residential portion, table three, to be abutting within 50 feet.
Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: There are two things at once here. Also with the setback daylight plane.
Mr. C. Williams: The setback daylight plane ....
Commissioner Garber: Is germane to the side that is abutting.
Mr. C. Williams: It is germane to the side that is abutting. I think the question is would we
require a residential daylight plane basically if there were a residential zone 50 feet away? I
would question why we would do that we have a height limitation but why we would have a
daylight plane. I mean a daylight plane is really to create some space it is not the same as the
height limitation.
Chair Holman: So the height kicks in and I think where I am seeing it apply more is the rear
property line because especially along E1 Camino there are all these commercial properties but
they either abut residential zones or there is an alley or something like that interceding. I think at
the rear it is still is a significant issue. One of the members of the public actually asked
something, which isn’t in here or mentioned something, which I think, is actually a good
addition. That is to require landscaping at the rear of these parcels. It helps provide not only
screening, I’m sorry? Okay. It provides screening but also some sound absorption.
Mr. R. Williams: It is in the book, theDesign Guidelines and it is alsoin the regulations.
Mr. C. Williams: I think the way it works here in the rear is basically if you had an alley there
and then you had the residential property line which we are saying is the way it would be written
here is that within 150 feet of that residential property line going forward so across the 50 feet
and then 100 feet beyond that you would be limited to a 35 .foot height.
Chair Holman: Okay, so if that is the intention clarification is the Commission in agreement
with that?
Commissioner Keller: Are you basically suggesting deleting the word ’abutting’ within 150 feet
of a residential zone district? And if you want to put in the same caveat that except for RM-15
and on PC that would be fine with me.
Mr. C. Williams: We would put it in the other one but it isnot within 150 feet of the residential.
That what we are trying to get away from is within 150 feet of a residential zone district. If there
is a 100-foot lot between this one and this one we don’t think there should be a limitation on the
height of this property.
Commissioner Keller: So you are suggesting it be within 50 feet or abutting?
Mr. C. Williams: It is 50 feet or abutting, yes. If the lot is within 50 feet or abutting then within
150 feet of that lot we have the height restriction.
Commissioner Garber: I suspect a diagram might be helpful.
Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: Let me try to get this straight. What you are saying is that here are the
conditions in which it applies. If the lot is abutting or within 150 feet of a residential property
other than RM-40 or PC residential then the following restriction applies, Within 100 feet of that
residential district there is a 35-foot height limitation.
Mr. C. Williams: If the residential property is either abutting the commercial property or is
within 50 feet of that then within 150 feet of that residential property the height is limited to 35
feet.
Commissioner Keller: Okay, that is fair. With the RM-40 and PC residential not counting?
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Keller: In other words, residential property other than RM-40 and PC zones.
think we are in agreement there.
Chair Holman: Let him go ahead and describe that.
Mr. R. Williams: Residential property within 50 feet or abutting. Then within 150 feet of the
residential property the height limit is 35 feet. Beyond that even if it is the same property it goes
up.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Even if we were to make it 50 feet and allow them to go up 50 feet that is a
one to one ratio or 45 degree angle which is what we would require in a residential zone as a
daylight plane or a height limit in term of- the whole idea is you want to make it workable in
terms of people not being in the shadow of a big building. Like I am.
Commissioner Keller: So let me ask a hypothetical question. Would this basicaliy be an
incentive for somebody to subdivide their property so that let’s suppose they are 50 feet away
they subdivide it let’s suppose they are adjacent and they subdivide 60 feet in the back?
Chair Holman: If I might, I think parking would become a lot more difficult and would be a
disincentive to subdividing the property.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, you don’t want to subdivide.
Mr. R. Williams: You couldn’t put any of your FAR as part of that other property and you
would lose all the FAR for that site area. I think the reality is that if you have an abutting
property or property close to residential the Design Review Committee takes that very seriously
and looks for all the screening and daylight planes, etc. I think the regulations also create
setbacks and the reality is in every study we have done including those up there when you push
the buildings to the street you don’t have enough FAR in your regulation to still keep the
building back at the back of the property too. It pushes the building up and so it immediately
renders the daylight plane to not really be the issue. It is never the regulatory issue.
Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Keller: I am not talking about daylight plane I am talking about height.
Mr. R. Williams: Height, daylight plane it becomes the non-issue and I think you are actually
adding extra disincentive to developing property because your building is so far away from the
residential in that instance that it isn’t the issue.
Mr. C. Williams: We already have the 150 feet with the lower height in there now. This is a
very small tweak of that.
Chair Holman: So are we all in agreement on that? (ayes) Okay. So we need to go back to the
first bullet point here just real quickly. Limiting residential uses to mixed use except for
propertieS designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Element. Can we come to
closure on that one?
Commissioner Keller: I will propose a compromise. The compromise is that except for
properties currently designated as Housing Opportunity Sites on the City’s Housing Element.
Mr. R. Williams: I want to caution against wordsmithing too much because what you are doing
is you are now creating a permanency for those sites on the Housing Inventory if you add that. If
we later remove those from the inventory they are still exempted in the ordinance. So I think
that is probably not what you intended and you need to be careful.
Commissioner Keller: Well, what I am worried about is I don’t want this to apply to commercial
properties in the future that are placed on the Housing Opportunity list.
Mr. R. Williams: It will unless we fix it in our Comp Plan. So I think you should focus on
fixing it in where we can and not on where we are likely to create more problems.
Commissioner Keller: What is the timing for the fixing of the Comp Plan versus the revised
Housing Element?
Ms. Caporgno: They are going to be done in conjunction. We are doing it together.
Commissioner Keller: So at the same time so we won’t have a problem. Okay.
Chair Holman: The Housing Element is part of the Comp Plan.
Commissioner Keller: Well, sometimes they get off-sync.
Ms. Caporgno: That is tree but we are going to be doing them together.
Chair Holman: Okay, if we might there were a couple of cleanup matters. One was deleting the
maps from the Downtown Commercial (CD) Chapter. Is there any issue with that? Seeing none,
okay.
Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
A clarification on the definition of historic rehabilitation. Any concern with that? Seeing none I
had just one question previous, which was related to this. In the interest of time I think I will just
ask question if the Commission would support this.- Previously except in SOFA II where it was
rectified buildings on the seismic inventory, in other words buildings that needed to be
seismically retrofitted, got the seismic bonus when the building was demolished rather than when
the building was retrofitted. So ifI might suggest to the Commission that we would like to be
consistent with SOFA II and not allow the retrofit bonuses for those buildings that are
demolished but rather the ones that are actually rehabilitated.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I would be very careful about this. To give you an example one of the
reasons why the good old Floral Craft building has remained and has not been an active is that it
cannot be rehabilitated. It is a hollow clay tile building and so we don’t really allow for them to
replace that building in an economical way.
Commissioner Sandas: I don’t understand.
Chair H01man: I guess I don’t understand why they just couldn’t demolish the building and
rebuild and right now they have the incentive that they can take advantage of that and they still
haven’t redeveloped.
Vice-Chair Lippert: That is a good point, yes, but they should be able to take advantage of
seismically upgrading that building and having the bonus FAR in order to do that.
Chair Holman: If they rehabilitate but not demolish.
Vice-Chair Lippert: You can’t rehabilitate it. It is a hollow tile building. The same thing for
Watercourse Way that is a hollow tile building.
Chair Holman: Actually, they can be rehabilitated is my understanding from doing a lot of this.
But I just wanted to see if there was a general sense, we have a lot to cover still, so I just want to
see if there is a general sense.
Commissioner Keller: I would be in favor of what the Chair suggested and particularly since for
example the precedent is there for R-1 properties when you add on to them you get a design
bonus but if you buildit from scratch you don’t get a design bonus. So the incentive is useful for
rehabilitation.
Commissioner Garber: Was that the intent in SOFA II to give bonuses to keep the structures that
were in that area?
Chair Holman: Yes, it was two things. It was one to do that and the other was we felt that
rehabilitating a building was the purpose for the incentive and not demolishing it. So it was
counter to the purpose is what our feeling was.
Commissioner Garber: Commissioner Lippert your example, could you review that again,
please?
Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well, just that you take the California Floral Craft building as an example.
It is a hollow clay tile building it cannot be adequately retrofitted. It needs to be raised and start
from scratch.
Chair Holman: My point with that one is they have had this incentive all along and they still
haven’t redeveloped. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this but I just wanted to see if there
was a sense of the Commission to make this change.
Commissioner Sandas: What constitutes historic?
Chair Holman: This has nothing to do with historic. It is seismic retrofitting.
Commissioner Sandas: Historic rehabilitation, so it is not it just means rehabilitating the
building that exists?
Chair Holman: Yes and seismic upgrades.
Commissioner Sandas: That is what I mean.
Chair Holman: So don’t look at this. This is different, the same section of the code but not
related to this in the Staff Report.
Mr. C. Williams: I guess my concern is just not being familiar enough with it to know whether
this is something that is a big issue with people or not.
Ms. Campbell: How many in Downtown have done that?
Chair Holman: I know of one in SOFA I that did it and that is what triggered the discussion for
SOFA II. I don’t know how many of these buildings even still exist in Downtown, not many, but
I couldn’t give you an exact number. Again, I didn’t want to belabor the point it is something I
brought up last week or before that and I thought I would see if there is a consensus of the
Commission to make this change or bring the issue to the Council?
Commissioner Garber: There is no reason not to do it. I don’t have...
Vice-Chair Lippert: I will make a compromise on it, which is let’s say that three-quarters of the
building can’t be retained. That is one of the ways we look at it. What constitutes a
rehabilitation or a new structure and they generally say when you violate three-quarters of the
building.
Chair Holman: The definition of demolition is 50 percent of the building.
Mr. C. Williams: I guess I am just not comfortable with kind of going there. This sounds like
something that HRB ought to look at.
Page 53
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 Vice-Chair Lippert: We are talking about seismic not historic.
2
3 Mr. C. Williams: Well, something that the building officials ....
4
5 Mr. R. Williams: The seismic retrofit also touches more than just the zoning ordinance and we
6 are not proposing... I think it is something we need to look at independently because that touches
7 both sections of the code that we are not amending and I think we need to look at that more
8 comprehensively before we can make the change. I think the point is well made and so it is
9 something that Staff can look at.
10
Chair Holman: Okay. Yes, it is out there.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So we are just going to defer it?
Chair Holman: Yes:
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, that’s fine.
Chair Holman: At this time.
Mr. R. Williams: We don’t have the notice for Title 16 provisions on the agenda so
we can’t amend the building code portions of that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: We also only have an acting Chief Building Official who is not certified.
Chair Holman: So Curtis, would you care to speak to the ground floor uses in CS zone on page
five of the Staff Report?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes. This is the issue as we mentioned before the CS zone is the only one of
our commercial zones that does allow office use on the ground floor in somewhat more broad
terms than others. All the other zones are essentially protect existing retail, personal services and
restaurants on ground floor and they can’t be converted to office use. The CS zone does allow
conversion to office use as long as it is not housing right now but it limits that to 5,000 square
feet unless a conditional use permit is granted for something larger.
I think one of the main reasons we think this is still appropriate is we need somewhere that has
some flexibility to allow office especially medical offices. We are limiting here, this is really
professional and service and medical offices, it doesn’t allow administrative offices like
headquarters buildings. I think one thing that maybe would work is to like we have housing in
here to add retail maybe to that and say that if it is retail now you can’t convert it to office but if
it is some of these other uses that you can go to office.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I always had a problem with this and one of the problems is that it was
enacted during the period of time when there was really a great incentive to, and it was almost
Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
like under a siege mentality where retail was being converted into office space. We don’t have
that anymore. However, I do think it is important to preserve retail but I think it should be a
percentage of the commercial FAR. My thought here is this, if we limited it to a percentage on
the smaller sites the office element would simply just go away. On the larger sites they could
support it. It would be something that would be a little more meaningful and perhaps add a little
more vitality to the whole mixed use concept. So that is just a thought. You pick a number like
maybe five percent and you might end up with about 5,000 square feet on a 100,000 square foot
site. On amuch smaller site you couldn’t get anything that would be meaningful to be office
space.
Mr. C. Williams: And that is our concern is that for instance I just was dealing with a dentist
who has been moved out of a Welch Road office about three weeks ago and looking high and
low to try to find an office space to move into. There has been an empty wireless carrier store on
E1 Camino for quite a while now and the property owner hasn’t been able to get anyone in. It is
CS zoned and she was able to go in there and use that as her dental office.
Vice-Chair Lippert: What about putting it on a sliding Scale where you have a minimum of
5,000 and then it begins to slide up to a certain percentage of the site on a larger site.
Mr. C. Williams: That is fine but I think we have already got the 5;000 square foot limitation.
So all you are doing is making less of a requirement for a use permit because on a larger site you
can have more than 5,000 square feet.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I am having trouble with the antecedents so perhaps you can explain to
me in the second paragraph of page five it says, while this would provide additional protection,
could you tell me what ’this’ is?
Mr. C. Williams: This is deleting the E1 Camino Real exception from CS zoning.
Commissioner Keller: So alternative recommendation A would provide additional protection for
retail and that is what you are recommending?
Mr. C. Williams: No. This is an alternative recommendation. Our recommendation is to leave
it alone. It is an alternative that we provided for the Commission to consider if you would like to
make that recommendation.
Commissioner Keller: I am just trying to figure out - so this means not the alternative
recommendation. I am confused.
Mr. C. Williams: This means, this whole paragraph deals with the alternative recommendation.
I am just saying it is not Staff’s recommendation. It is an alternative to Staff’s recommendation
that you might want. We tried to identify a couple of those that we think there are some gray
areas in and this is one. That alternative is to make the CS zone match, all the other zones and
Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
essentially anything that is in retail, personal services, housing or restaurant use cannot be
converted to office period.
Commissioner Keller: I see. So this refers to alternative recommendation A, which is one of the
options that Staff has identified.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Keller: Okay.
Commissioner Garber: The reason not to do that is to be able to allow some office and allow
that use in these areas where they can benefit presumably the community as well as a leasing
community that is being tossed out of another part of the city.
Mr. C. Williams: Right. I think another thing we thought of was the possibility of maybe to
lower that 5,000 square foot number to 2,500 or something like that to create smaller offices
before you trigger the use permit requirement. What we have now is essentially says you can
have office on the ground floor but limited to 5,000 square feet. If you want more than 5,000
square feet you have to go through a use permit process.
Commissioner Garber: But in the case you just described was that. space greater than 5,000
square feet?
Mr. C. Williams: No it was about 1,500 square feet. That was adequate for this dentist and her
operations.
Commissioner Garber: But then presumably the parcel is also very small too. So relative to the
streetscape it has a small impact.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma you look like you might have a comment or question.
Commissioner Tuma: No, to me it doesn’t make sense to go with alternative A:. I think Staff’
original recommendation makes sense.
Vice-Chair Lippert: But what I would do is say limit it to 5,000 square feet and then anything
over that you could get there with a conditional use permit.
Mr. C. Williams: That is what it is now.
Commissioner Tuma:
get more than that.
Commissioner Keller:
That is what he is saying is leave it that way and with the CUP you can
Were you suggesting 2,500?
Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: I just threw out 2,500 as another option here if you thought that the 5,000 was
too much and you were trying to preserve retail more it could be 2,500. I know it would work
for a very small office and Commissioner Garber mentioned it doesn’t alter the streetscape so
much. It assures that we just get one small storefront.
Commissioner Keller: I think that Commissioner Lippert had sort of said something about a
sliding scale percentage-wise. Were you thinking of something along those lines?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually, I will say that I was wrong. Curtis persuaded me that we
shouldn’t be doing that. One of the reasons is what it would do is force offices out of some of
the smaller buildings that are more desirable to something like a dental office. I am thinking the
other way around which is that 5,000 square feet on a much larger parcel is very limiting. So
that is where I was coming from.
Mr. C. Williams: They would still have an opportunity under the use permit process to request
something larger on that larger parcel.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct.
Chair Holman: I would suggest two things to make two changes. One is to limit it to 2,500
square feet and also add in what Curtis suggested earlier which is that it could not replace retail.
Commissioner Keller: Could you explain what you mean by ’not replacing retail’? DO you
mean that if its last use was retail it would have to remain retail or if it is vacant would that mean
it could convert into office?
Chair Holman: Well there are vacancy rules where there is retail protection. So if it is vacant for
a year, isn’t it?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Except during the last recession things were vacant for a lot longer than a
year.
Chair Holman: What we are trying to do is stimulate retail. So if we are allowing office to
displace retail and while the pressure isn’t as extensive as it was for a while it could happen
again at least to an extent that we could be counterproductive.
Commissioner Keller: I am concerned about the incentive and I don’t know why property
owners would want to do this. Sometimes property owners will allow their property to remain
fallow in order to eventually create a different project. So the situation is that if we had
somebody who was thinking about a project and was not renting out their space and therefore
kept it vacant for a couple of years and then said okay, forget about that I can now make it office.
I am sort of wondering how that would work.
Mr. C. Williams: The language right now actually doesn’t say for a year or anything. It says if
was vacant in March 19, 2001.
Page 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: That’s right.
Mr. C. Williams: And it hasn’t been used for retail since then then it can be.
Commissioner Keller: So I would be comfortable with keeping that as the restriction. If it was
vacant on March 19, 2001 and .....
Mr. C. Williams: That is what I am saying, the requirement is everywhere else and it is also in
the CS zone but the CS zone has this one provision that says on E1 Camino Real forget all that
stuff. If it is replacing anything except housing, if it is going in anywhere except where there is
housing you can have office up to 5,000 square feet. The question is do you want the flexibility
of doing that in that one district which is basically the pink?
Chair Holman: Which is a lot.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Have you seen a lot?
Mr. C. Williams: No, we haven’t seen a lot. I don’t think there is a lot but it has some.
Commissioner Keller: Would it make sense to think about putting in a similar restriction that if
it is currently used for retail - in other words parallel language to what is there for the others?
Mr. C. Williams: That is what alternative A basically is to put that language in the CS zone like
it is in the other zones, which is if it is used for those retail type uses then it couldn’t be
converted to office.
Commissioner Keller: Then it would require a CUP then I assume?
Mr. C. Williams: It wouldn’t require one at all.
Commissioner Keller: Well, suppose we allow it with a CUP.
Commissioner Garber: But a CUP essentially acts as a deterrent for the ongoing because it is
one more process, it is more time, etc., and it is discretionary.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: I am just wondering do we have adequate medical and dental space in
Palo Alto?
Mr. C. Williams: We are not going to when ....
Commissioner Sandas: Welch Road. Yes, so ......
Mr. C. Williams: They have to find some other. ....
Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45,
46
Commissioner Sandas: My question is I understand the great necessity for retail. You don’t
have to beat me over the head with it we have beating ourselves over the head with it for several
months now. However, why would I want to go to the dentist in Sunnyvale instead? Why do we
need to preclude medical and dental office uses? Why do we need to set so much restriction? I
am confounded by that.
Mr. C. Williams: That is where we are.
Commissioner Sandas: We have to look forward to the trends. Just like in putting the assisted
living facility at Channing House. We are looking forward to demographic trends and we know
that this is an economic trend in our community. So why are we putting and maybe I am just
misinterpreting but why are we putting up so many barriers in favor of small retail that I
wouldn’t say necessarily, not being in the economic development part of city, but I wouldn’t say
that is necessarily generating what we are looking for. We are wanting to preserve car
dealerships because that is where the big sales tax revenue is coming from not Mike’s Bikes.
Although they do sell really expensive bikes there.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I was just going to say in terms of adhering to the concept of creating
flexibility because we don’t know what the future is, I mean obviously we are trying to respond
to a condition that is in front of us now which is the loss of dental and medical office on Welch
Road. But the reality is that space could be used for something else that we don’t know about in
the next two or three years as well. So I would ....
Commissioner Sandas: What space is that?
Commissioner Garber: Allowing office into these zones. By allowing it we are giving ourselves
the flexibility to do it. So I find myself not supporting the alternative recommendation, which
excludes it.
Mr. C. Williams: Could I prevail on the Chair to ask for a motion on this issue?
Chair Holman: I was going to listen to Commissioner Lippert and then, yes.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Maybe it is time to start looking at medical offices that see people as either
services or retail because they are providing similar services as to what a coffee shop might be
where you have people coming in and out all day. It is not significantly different than say going
to the coffee shop where you have commercial traffic going in and out. It is a business.
Chair Holman: Are you going to make a motion?
Commissioner Sandas: No, I am not I just wanted to make one other comment about restrictive
size. I guess one of the things that I am envisioning is that I am kind of comparing Welch Road
to maybe a possibility for something larger than 5,000 square feet on E1 Camino. So I am maybe
spitting in the ocean to raise the tide but I think about 5,000 square feet and I think about my
Page 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
dentist’s office and I think her office is probably somewhere in the 3,000 square foot range. If
she were not a lone dentist but if they are similar to the medical offices on Welch Road if we had
some provision to allow for more than 5,000 square feet.
Mr. C, Williams: We do with a conditional use permit.
Chair Holman: Because of the complexity of this it probably would be good to have a motion.
Commissioner Garber.
MOTION
Commissioner Garber: I will move that we accept the proposed revisions to the commercial
district that Staff has provided here with the following exceptions. I will need some help in
clarifying them. Item number one is we had made some modifications to the first bullet.
Commissioner Keller: I don’t think we have.
Commissioner Garber: So we don’t have that. So the next one was bullet number three where
we were going to change the word ’adjacent’ to ’abutting or within 50 feet.’ Bullet point number
five it does abut the site so was there no change to bullet five?
Chair Holman: No.
Mr. C. Williams: Then also add if it is adjacent to RM-40 or the PC zones that the height canbe
higher.
Commissioner Keller: Well, put it this way. I think it was a 150-foot transition is maintained
but the related setbacks only apply if the residential property is within 50 feet or abutting a
residential property other than RM-40 or PC zoned residential.
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Garber: And, that we exclude alternative recommendation A from this motion.
SECOND
Commissioner Tuma: I will second it.
Chair Holman: Do you need to speak any further to what the discussion has been?
Commissioner Garber: I don’t think we need to speak about it any more.
Chair Holman: I was respectfully asked that the alternative A be broken off as a separate motion
and we deal with the five bullets that we basically have already addressed if you might do that,
Commissioner Garber: I will respectfully not accept your ....
Page 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Holman: It will cause me to vote against this.
amendment.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Do a substitute motion.
I don’t think you will take a friendly
Mr. Larkin: It is within the Chair’s discretion to break apart a motion into two-parts. So if it is
the Chair’s wish to do so she can do so.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Burt absent)
Chair Holman: Thank you. So we will vote Commissioner Garber’s motion on the five bullet
points with the corrections as stated as a part of the motion. All those in favor? (ayes)
Opposed? None. So that passes on a six to zero vote with Commissioner Burt absent.
Mr. Larkin: Then the way that that would work is you would take the second part of the motion
which is to adopt Staff’s recommendation and not alternative A.
Chair Holman: And, Commissioner Lippert seconded that. Is there any reason to speak to that?
I will be opposing it just because I would like to see it included that it not replace retail in place
at the passage at the ordinance. I think that would cover it for me. The reason for that is because
I would like to think+ we would have some mechanism by which we could protect the doctors’
offices on Welch Road. That isn’t before us tonight but I think it is also possible that we could
end up with these displaced services, which are important to the community creating a medical
ghetto along E1 Camino that would displace a lot of valuable uses. So that is why I would
oppose not including that as a part of the motion. So if there are no other comments.9.
Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I would like to propose as a substitute motion what Karen just said.
Chair Holman: I think it doesn’t matter because we vote for his motion or against his motion I
think it accomplishes just what you are stating.
Mr. Larkin: Your substitute motion is the opposite of the motion.
Commissioner Keller: Okay.
Chair Holman: So all those in favor of ....
Vice-Chair Lippert: Please restate what the motion is.
Mr. C. Williams: The motion is to retain as proposed and not do alternative A.
Page 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: Can I make a comment first? I think that we need to carefully address the
issue of medical offices. I think that that requires a comprehensive look at a designation of a
category of medical office. The problem is with the proposal is that it just says office and if our
intent is that we allow medical offices to replace retail then why not say that? That is different
from saying we are allowing some other kind of office to replace retail. I think that considering
the potential for sometime down the road actually creating a designation and thinking about a
comprehensive look at where we put medical offices would be worthwhile and this does not
solve the problem. In fact it is not clear that medical uses of the space would pay more than
some other office uses of the space and that if offices were allowed that medical would be the
use that was adopted.
Chair Holman: So you are saying office is too general. It is not even specific to medical offices
and this is one of the things you are saying.
Commissioner Keller: That’s fight.
Commissioner Tuma: Is it reasonable to constrain the office us to the medical professions?
Mr. C. Williams: I think you could limit it to medical office. I wouldn’t necessarily suggest
that. I just want to say that this does not address the medical office situation but changing the
current situation might worsen it and so it doesn’t address it either. So we think the best
situation is leave it alone for the time being until and unless because there are going to be
proposals coming forward as far as other ways to address it too. When Stanford’s hospital
expansion comes forward that is going to be part and parcel of a lot of that discussion. So I
would just caution against doing something that might impact it either way. What we are saying
is essentially keep the status quo and allow that flexibility.
Commissioner Keller: But we shouldn’t think of this being the fixfor the medical office
problem,
Chair Holman: No, right.
Mr. C. Williams: Absolutely not.
Chair Holman: Okay.
Commissioner Garber: So where are we? I had created an initial motion, which was broken off
into two pieces. Karen created a substitute motion.
Chair Holman: No.
Mr. Larkin: No, we are through the substitute and now we are back to the second part of the
original motion, which is to adopt Staff’s recommendation and not adopt alternative A.
Commissioner Garber: So ffthis fails then by de facto we are .....
Page 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Larkin: We will still need another motion but we can guess what that would be.
MOTION FAILS (2-4-0-1, with Commissioner Burt absent)
Chair Holman: So I am going to call the question. All those in favor of Commissioner Garber’s
motion say aye please. (ayes) And nay? (nays)
So the motion fails. So we need a new motion and if you feel like you can make a new motion
then you can speak to it in the form of your new motion.
Commissioner Garber: Okay. So I will move that we take Staff’s most current recommendation,
which is to adopt alternative A, which is the status quo.
Chair Holman: No, no, no.
Mr. C. Williams: Alternative A is an option different than the status quo~
Mr. Larkin: As .the maker of the motion I suggest you make a motion for reconsideration and
vote again.
Commissioner Garber: I’m sorry. I am confused between the three different things. Someone
else needs to guide me through this.
Mr. Larkin: You have already voted. You need to make a motion for reconsideration.
MOTION
Commissioner Garber: I move that we reconsider the previous vote.
SECOND
Commissioner Tuma: Second.
Mr. Larkin: Now take the vote again.
Chair Holman: The motion was to accept the Staff recommendation, which is no change.
Commissioner Garber: Yes, exactly.
MOTION PASSED (4-2-0401, with Commissioners Tuma, Garber, Lippert and Sandas in favor,
Commissioners Keller and Holman opposed, and Commissioner Burt absent)
Chair Holman: Okay, all right. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That passes on a
four to two vote with Commissioners Tuma, Garber, Lippert and Sandas in favor and
Commissioners Keller and Holman opposed.
Page 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Development standards, the next bullet points on page five. Curtis would you care to step us
through those?
Mr. C. Williams: Setbacks and daylight planes abutting residential uses, front setbacks the same
as what we were talking about with the commercial height, which we would certainly expect the
same suggestions that were made on the first one. Coverage, open space, landscape percentages.
We have overall landscape coverage percentages. We have added requirements for usable open
space per residential unit and these match the requirements that are in the PTOD ordinance that
was adopted by the Council and so do the criteria as far as locating it above the ground level.
Allowing CN FAR to go to 1.0 instead of 0.9 and to 40 feet high instead of 35 feet on E1 Camino
Real. Reducing the maximum FAR for mixed use in a CC(2) that is the California Avenue area
from 3.0 to 2.0 because you can’t get above 2.0 as it is. Site and Design Review would not be
required if four or fewer residential units are proposed. The minimum commercial FAR that we
discussed before which would be 0.15:1 in CN and CS, 0.25 in the CC(2) zone and there is
nothing in the CD, the Downtown does not have a minimum.
Then there are these couple of qualifiers on mixed use. One that the storage, use, and handling
of hazardous materials isn’t permitted in a mixed use project. That is written in the code again to
be above those exempt amounts so it is to a permitted level. That mixed use development is not
allowed on automobile dealership overlays.
Chair Holman: So as we go through these any comments or questions on the first bullet about
the setbacks and daylight planes? We have talked about this essentially with the abutting.
Commissioner Tuma: We would still have the same?
Mr. C. Williams: This we would leave the abutting I think because you don’t need an additional
setback if you have 40 feet or 30 feet or an alley or whatever. On the daylight plane the same
thing applies. It is when you are abutting the property that you are looking for those. It is the
height that we talked about before which we would need to modify to say the same thing as we
said before with the commercial.
Commissioner Keller: A couple of slight things, which I assume you are saying would match the
setbacks and daylight planes that are most restrictive along that property line.
Mr. C. Williams: Right and it is along a portion. So there may be two, theoretically there could
be a property boundary, very rarely would it happen but, where a property comes back and it is
zoned say R-1 and then right next to it is an RM-30 or something like that and portions of it. So
you would use whatever is adjacent to that property line.
Commissioner Keller: Well, would you use partly R-1 setback and partly RM-30 setback?
Mr. C. Williams: We are going R-1 from the R-1 lot and RM-30 from the RM-30 lot.
Page 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: If you were to do that then you would probably want some sort of radius
because the issue is that in the comer where R-1 meets RM-30 in that comer you would have a
transition affect.
Mr. C. Williams: You know what, let’s just say most restrictive.
Commissioner Keller: Okay.
Mr. C. Williams: I think it is going to come up so ....
Mr. R. Williams: It is not going to make any difference whatsoever.
Chair Holman: Right. Any other? Yes, sir.
Commissioner Tuma: I am sorry maybe it is the hour but I am still not following this. It would
seem to me that if you have a project that doesn’t abut the residential use but it is very, very
close like within a couple of feet of that residential use wouldn’t you still want to match the
setbacks and daylight planes for the residential use?
Mr. C. Williams: It is a residential zone there that is right abutting it. I don’t see that there
would be a case where you would have five feet between a residential zone and a commercial
property.
Chair Holman: If they are offsetting property lines for instance?
Commissioner Tuma: Yes, maybe it is an alleyway. Is that going to give you enough room?
Mr. C. Williams: So an alleyway you would have more than what you would have for a setback.
Your daylight plane ....... what you are really doing is locating the daylight plane to_
keep development away from the residential zones.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay. I am with you.
Mr. R. Williams: When you have a gap in property the zoning goes to the center of that gap so
you wouldn’t have a commercial zone followed by an alley zone followed by an R-1 zone. You
would have R, 1 and commercial abutting,
Commissioner Tuma: I am with you.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So just to put it in practice. E1 Camino Real you have that alley that nobody
owns. It would not occur at the real property line of commercial properties.
Mr. R. Williams: You are talking about the zones not the property lines.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. We have the zone and we have the alleyway and then we have
residential.
Page 65
1
2 Mr. R. Williams: We don’t have a separate alleyway zone. So the zone goes to the back
3 property owner.
4
5 Commissioner Tuma: They abut because there is no intervening zone?
6
7 Mr. C. Williams: Right.
8
9 Vice-Chair Lippert: But you see it is not defined as anything.
10
11 Mr. R. Williams: It is. It is defined as the zoning that it is in.
12
13 Commissioner Garber: So half the alley is zoned one way and half the alley is zoned the other.
14
15 Mr. R. Williams: That is most likely.
16
17 Commissioner Tuma: So the parcels abut for this purpose.
18
19 Mr. C. Williams: Okay.
20
21 Chair Holman: Okay. Any other? What I would like to do here is if there are no real issue we
22 won’t even need to go.back here for an encompassing motion if we Can just agree or not agree on
23 these points.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: I assume on height we are doing the same thing as we did for the last one.
26
27 Mr. C. Williams: Right, the same language as we did for the other.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Okay.
30
31 Chair Holman: The front setbacks are there. Any other comments on that? We covered that
32 earlier. Okay. So we are all in agreement with that.
33
34 Height, we discussed that to the extent.
35
36 Commissioner Tuma: Right.
37
38 Chair Holman: So Curtis you have our comments on that.
39
40 Mr. C. Williams: We will make that change.
41
42 Chair Holman: Coverage, open space, landscape percentages, any comments on that point?
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Only my nitpick that six units requires less open space than five units do.
45
46 Mr. C. Williams: I understand. We draw a line somewhere and we think it is easier..- ....
Page 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. R, Williams: Acknowledged.
Chair Holman: I had one comment on this one, which was regarding the rooftop gardens. I
guess where I would head with this is rather than counting the rooftop gardens as part of the open
space but as a part of sustainability, which will be coming to us I am hoping at some point in the
near future that it be a requirement of a sustainability program.
Commissioner Sandas: I agree with you.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I agree with that. We should use a term like ’green roofs.’
Chair Holman: So?
Commissioner Keller: I am sympathetic.
Chair Holman: Awesome.
Mr. C. Williams: So the motion is - let me make sure I get this one down.
Commi,~sioner Garber: Are we going to talk about Fry’s?
Mr. C. Williams: So we would be changing I think it is going to be the context based design
section that actually discusses that open space provision for rooftop gardens.
Chair Holman: I hope you will forgive us for doing this this way, Curtis. I am trying to get
through it more quickly than not.
Mr. C. Williams: That’s fine.
Commissioner Keller: Can I ask a related question?
Chair Holman: Sure.
Commissioner Keller: My related question is how is all of this affected by rooftop restaurants?
Chair Holman: I think it is a topic we don’t want to go to tonight. If you will bear with us I
think not tonight.
Commissioner Keller: I will bear with you that’s fine. That is something that people might do.
They might build a restaurant up there with open space and tables and whatever. I am wondering
how that affects the retail-requirements.
Chair Holman: IfI might, remembering the microphone issue we have whispering and other
conversations going on. I don’t want to curtail what needs to happen but Zariah is going to be
down my neck and I wouldn’t blame her. Rick?
Page 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. R. Williams: A clarification. We have rooftop or podium in the regulation. We want to
make sure that those are two completely distinct and different things because we spent a lot of
time on getting podium level open space as counting.
Commissioner Tuma: This is in the form code?
Mr. R. Williams: Yes, this is in the code because wanting to get the podium level.
Mr. C. Williams: No it is not in the code. It basically says .....
Mr. R. Williams: The way the regulations are designed with the usable open space here of the
150 to 200 is that open space that is on a podium is allowed to be considered as part of that
recognizing that’s where the open space on a lot of the mixed use projects occurs and is usable
by the residents.
Chair Holman: I think rooftop is not intended to be.
Mr. R. Williams: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. C. Williams: I am not sure we need to because well, what it says is that usable open space
and usable open space is not this landscaped open space area itself. It is an area directly tied to
the individual units. It says that usable open space may be or does not need to be located on the
ground and may be located in porches, decks, balconies and!or podiums.
Mr. R. Williams: Right.
Mr. C. Williams: Then down here it talks about rooftops having high quality landscaping and
that and open space generally but it doesn’t say anything about it actually counting.
Chair Holman: Can we clarify that then?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, we should probably do it in the code itself under the table, Required
Usable Open Space. It says does not need to be located on the ground and then we can clarify
that rooftop open space does not count. We can just add something after that to clarify that
rooftop open space does not count.
Mr. R. Williams: Do you have a rooftop open space currently in the city?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, there are a number. You look at some of the apartment buildings in
Downtown North. You have the penthouse and adjacent to the penthouse is usually a communal
space of some kind for the residents of the mid-rise apartment building. I am thinking of 101
Alma.
Chair Holman: Rick, I need to ask you to speak up, please.
Page 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. R. Williams: Well, I don’t understand why that wouldn’t count as open space because you
have living space or something right adjacent to it or your common room. It is on a roof because
there is residential or another use underneath it.
Vice-Chair Lippert: It is not uncommon in a very urban setting.
Commissioner Sandas: Right, however, my own opinion unencumbered by the facts, is that
from the ground I can’t see that open space. You might see an orange hanging over from an
orange tree hanging over but I can’t see that open space. When I am walking on the ground on
the sidewalk I want to see some open space and it ain’t on the rooftop.
Mr. R, Williams: Except that you can’t see the open space in the backyard from the street either
if there is a building in front of it and you still count it, In fact right now you count the little
fingers of landscaping in the parking lot as open space and one of the things we are trying to do
is eliminate that as being counted as open space,
Commissioner Sandas: And putting it on the roof instead?
Mr. R. Williams: Right or putting it on a podium.
Mr. C. Williams: We need to distinguish .....
Commissioner Sandas: A podium is one thing but .....
Mr. R. Williams: You are trying to create spaces that are usable that are outside.
Chair Holman: Right. IfI might, Commissioner Sandas, I think part of the point that you are
trying to make is not only can you not see that open space but instead of that open space if that
requirement is satisfied on the rooftop that you are going to see more built environment rather
than ....
Commissioner Sandas: Right, more cement.
Chair Holman: Yes.
Mr. C. Williams: That is why my distinction is we have two types of open space. We have a
requirement that 30 percent of the site be landscaped and open space. Start with that. Let’s
essentially say that rooftops do not count against that so you still have to have that landscape and
that. We then have 200 square feet per unit that has to be usable open space that means that it is
accessible from that unit, it is something that they can use and that very well be a lot closer and
usable to them on the rooftop than it is down on the ground floor or on a podium where they
walk right out and they are on the top of the podium and you have some space. So I think we
would like to credit some of the overall open space to the rooftop too, not all of it but some of it,
but at a minimum we think it is important to have allowed usable open space for each one of
those units if it satisfies our definition of being usable the rooftop would count or the podium
would count.
Page 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: You are referring to it as part of the private open space though.
Commissioner Sandas: Usable by the residents?
Chair Holman: Usable and private.
Mr. C. Williams~. Right. Usable open space is private generally.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think the issue here is this: it has alwavs been that parking has been
competing with open space. The parking is generally the group that wins out. In fact there are a
number of projects that have not been approved because we have this competition between the
open space and the parking. So something has to give. You can’t put the cars up on the roof of
the building but you can get people up to the roof of the building. So maybe it is worthwhile
looking at maybe a percentage of the open space can be applied to rooftop. It could be very
simply said as maybe 20 percent of it, not all of it but 20 percent is a reasonable number. Or
what we can say is maybe 50 percent of the usable tenant open space might but up on the
rooftop. That is just a way of looking at it so you are not so constrained.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I think that in terms of the competition of cars and trees the issue is that
counting podium on top of cars or on top of the parking encourages the hiding of all those cars
and putting green on top of it which is actually an amenity for the residents because they can get
to park under something and it is an amenity in terms of greenery that is .a dual good. The issue
of putting greenery on the roofI think is an interesting thing but I am not sure what positive
thing it is encouraging.
Mr. R. Williams: It is not as communally useful as having the space on the podium level.
Chair Holman: Right. Rick and then Commissioner Sandas.
Mr. R. Williams: I think we are overanalyzing it. The reality is there is so much liability in
rooftop decks that they are very small. There is also the requirement of exiting that the Building
Department puts on them so that they are going to remain small because if they are over an x-
percentage of square feet then you need two stairs that go to the roof and most buildings don’t
have the two stairs going to the roof. So there are lots of things that discourage the rooftop decks
that are going to make it a very small percentage of anything that you consider. The reality is
that you are going to have a lot more, in all of these schemes it is very hard to just get the exact
amount of open space that you need, you end up just putting the podium over the cars gives you
much more open space than you ever would need statistically. So generally your projects don’t
have a problem of creating enough usable open space at a podium level to have plenty. The
rooftop is probably more than anything else is an extra amenity for a special unit that someone
spent a lot of money on and is willing to pay the liability for and it is not really going to be the
key component of an open space system.
Page 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: So we can go back to just requiring it as part of the sustainability program as far
as counting it towards open space. Okay. All right. So are we in agreement with that? Okay.
Moving on. CN mixed use requirements on E1 Camino revised to allow a height of 40 feet rather
than 35 feet and FAR of 1.0 rather than .9 to reflect a relationship to height and width to the
arterial. Comment or questions?
Commissioner Keller: If we were to allow that I think it should have the same kind of
restrictions in terms of the adjacent properties.
Chair Holman: It does.
Mr. C. Williams: It does it is subject to all of those things. It is just a matter of the one set of
numbers here changing a little bit.
Commissioner Keller: But the issue is if it is adjacent to or if it is near residential is it 35 or 40?
Mr. C. Williams: Within 150 feet it is 35 feet.
Chair Holman: Right.
Commissioner Keller: Otherwise it is 40?
Mr. C. Williams: Otherwise it is 40, fight.
Chair Holman: Right. My only comment on this, which I know Commissioner Burt as Curtis
had mentioned earlier, rather than give away the other. 1 FAR is that for the owner/developer to
achieve the 1.0 FAR that that extra. 1 be in retail use on little sites that isn’t for small sites where
it isn’t going to make much of a difference but on larger sites it might make somewhat of a
difference, otherwise we are just giving away the floor area ratio.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I agree.
Commissioner Keller: It would be something that since a significant part of this involves alleys
and thereby - because of the adjacent alleys the need for cutting through the property for parking
which is part of your design criteria that you had earlier, that you had to cut through from the
front to the back for frontage, that ameliorates that or whatever the fight word is that concem.
Chair Holman: I am lost. I’m sorry. We are talking about moving from .9 FAR to 1.0 FAR.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, what I am saying is that because these properties tend to have the
parldng or driveway access off of E1 Camino it means that it is more easy to achieve that extra. 1
that way.
Chair Holman: Okay.
Mr. C. Williams: So I think we are fine.
Page 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Holman: Do we have agreement then that the .1 is achievable in retail use? Yes, okay.
Commissioner Garber: It simply gives them more space. They don’t have to use it because the
minimum is set. So whether it is used or not it’s .....
Chair Holman: Okay, the maximum floor area ration in the CC(2) zone is reduced from 3.0 to
2.0, as it is not feasible to exceed the 2.0 given other development standards. Any difficulties
with that? Curtis did the workup and it is not achievable to get to the 3.0 so it is not a
downzoning or anything of that nature. Any questions or comments? Okay, we are all in
agreement on that.
Site and Design Review for mixed use projects ....
Commissioner Keller: Can I ask a question that is related to that?
Chair Holman: I am going to respectfully say no given our timing unless it is really, really
critical to .....
Commissioner Keller: Well it was suggested earlier that for the mixed use in the CC(2) zone be
PTOD.
Commissioner Tuma: I can’t talk about the CC zone.
Commissioner Keller: No, CC(2). That mixed use in the CC(2) zone be PTOD. I know that
was brought up and I just want to make sure that we either decide to do it or decide not tO do it.
Commissioner Garber: When would Staff suggest we address this?
Mr. C. Williams: You can address it after the Comprehensive Plan is worked out. There is
going to be some area study out there south of that area and we can revisit it then but at this point
in time that would be a down-zoning and I think that we would run into a lot of problems with
trying to do that right now and take it down from 2.0 down to 1.5 which is what the PTOD has.
Commissioner Sandas: And the PTOD is an overlay. It is not a zone.
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Tuma: You don’t have to take it.
Chair Holman: Right, exactly. So respectfully ....
Commissioner Keller: That’s fine. It was brought up last time and I thought it would be
worthwhile resolving.
Page 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chair Holman: All right, Site and Design Review for mixed use projects in the CN, CS and CC
districts should not be required if four or fewer residential units are proposed. Yes,
Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: I just want to clarify with Staff and our attorney is not here but for both
this point and the next point tonight we are not talking about these as they apply to CC and we
are not voting on these as they apply to CC. Is that correct?
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Chair Holman: Good clarification. Any comments on this one? I have one and I am not going
to fall on my sword on this one but I would like to retain the Site and Design Review for these
units because we are malting some changes, we are using form code it is fairly new, the E1
Camino Design Guidelines have been in place but owners haven’t known so much that they are
there in some cases. So this is implementing the E1 Camino Design Guidelines and I would like
to retain maybe for a period of one year the Site and Design Review and see what kind of
projects we get. I think there might be more comfort in the community if we did that as well.
Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Rather than keeping it could we ask for an interim report over the same
time period or something of that sort?
Chair Holman: I don’t know how valuable that is going to be and I say that because we are not
going to have the in depth look at the projects that we do during Site and Design Review so there
might be other issues that we would bring up as a Commission that maybe don’t get addressed
that we are not even going to realize are existent.
Commissioner Garber: Part of presumably the reason we are doing the form code is.because it
does relieve not only us but the applicant of some of the process. If we were looking to try to
evaluate effectiveness I would think that we might be able to achieve that in a report as opposed
to having to actually participate in it. Right?
Chair Holman: If it were to have just a back and forth here, if it were a matter of something that
was more objective than subjective as some of it is during Site and Design Review I would agree
with you but given that some of this is frankly subjective I would recommend the retention of
this for a period of time.
Commissioner Keller: I would be sympathetic to the idea that quite often when ordinances are
passed then the feedback loop is either nonexistent or weak. This gives us the opportunity to see
what is going on, to do the appropriate review of what is going on and then to the extent that it is
determined that it is working, fine, and to the extent that it is determined that it is not working
then appropriate fixes can be made. On the other hand if simply to report at the end of the year
and it turns out it is not working then you have allowed a year’s worth of projects that you don’t
like.
Page 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: IfI might suggest too that at the end of that one year period, I am just suggesting
one year, that this Commission could actually prepare its own report for Council and Staff.
Mr. C. Williams: I think of all the recommendations we have here this is one I feel the strongest
about. I think we have had these projects come through, they have had to go through various
exceptions to get approved but they have been very good projects, they have been very
welcomed. On the one hand you could say well that it has been easy to go through the process
there has been a lot of support for them. But it takes time it takes a lot more time and money to
do that and now we have even more sort of controls in here than we have had in the past going
through those processes. We are talking about very small.projects and it just seems like a great
burden on something like that to go through every Board and Commission for projects like these
ones I read off before.
Vice-Chair Lippert: It still goes through ARB.
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Vice-Chair Lippert: It still goes through a discretionary review process. We just don’t see it
that’s all.
Chair Holman: Understood.
Commissioner Garber. One of the critical intents of form Code, correct me if I am wrong, is the
work that is done ahead of the design process between the Staff and the applicant. Ideally then
also with input from the community as Staff sees fit. So again, I am just thinking we should trust
the concept change that we are doing here. I suspect that if there is something that starts to go
south we will hear about it pretty quickly.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I agree with Dan.
Mr. C. Williams: The Comprehensive Plan has a policy as another example to, I don’t know if it
says to eliminate or delete or whatever, Site and Design Review from mixed use projects. We
are again taldng that incremental step of saying well let’s not go whole hog on that at this point.
We have some small projects that have been two or three units here or there let’s allow them to
go through there but if we get something bigger let’s still stick with it and come through all the
Boards and Commissions.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am just thinking of [Mamude Taki’sl project over on E1 Camino Real. It
would have gone before ARB and it would have been approved and it wouldn’t have been stuck
in this sort of never-ending process.
Chair Holman: Another part of my rationale is because four units or fewer doesn’t necessarily
dictate what the size of the project is especially given that if we don’t limit the size of the units
but also there could just be a few units as a part of a mixed use. So I don~t know that it really
dictates the size of the project.
Page 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: But the size of the project doesn’t determine ARB review.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right,
Mr. C. Williams: If it were just the commercial project and it was five times as big as the mixed
use project it would still just go through ARB review. So that is why we thought about maybe
we should have a size of the project limitation too.
Chair Holman: So which of these are you not really committed to?
Commissioner Keller: Let me make an observation. I don’t feel strongly about this so I just
want to put something on the record. Just because something doesn’t work .doesn’t mean it will
be fixed. There is a lot of delay in the process of fixing things. So the idea that something will
be discovered and therefore there will be a rapid fix to that is not something that I have
experienced from the outside of city government looking in.
Chair Holman: So perhaps this would be acceptable to Commissioners and we can move on.
That Staffwill bring as the projects have gone through ARB and have been approved by Staff
that there will be a report of those projects brought to the Commission and we can take a look at
them to decide for ourselves at that point, given at least the information that we will be getting
which won’t be the same as reviewing the project we won’t know the ins and outs, but we can at
least .....
Mr. C. Williams: We won’t do it on an annual basis we will do it as the projects come through
and let you know that this project has been approved and you are welcome to look at the files.
Chair Holman: Right and if Staff would just highlight what the main issues were. Is that
agreeable to Commission?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually I have a better suggestion which is that rather than piecemeal it it’s
going to be much more meaningful in a critical mass and maybe that would be appropriate in a
year from now as a presentation or as a part of a Retreat.
Chair Holman: Not as part of a Retreat, well maybe.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Just a component of it,
Mr. C. Williams: We could give you a report and you can decide whether it is important enough
to put on a Retreat or a study session. We are happy to do either one.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think revisiting it a year from now when there is a critical mass would be
appropriate.
Mr. C. Williams: We will try to let you know as each project comes through. That is not a
problem.
Page 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Okay. Can we move on?
Commissioner Keller: I just have a suggestion. Perhaps it should be based on a timeframe or a
minimum number of projects. So if there are so many projects then it gets moved forward.
Chair Holman: Why don’t we leave that to Staff discretion? How’s that?
Commissioner Keller: Okay. So are we all in agreement? Okay. All right. Next bullet,
minimum commercial FAR is required for mixed use in each zone to assure that there is a
substantial commercial component for each project. Percentage ranges from .1 FAR in the CN
and CS zones to .25 FAR in the CC(2) zone. We are not discussing the CC zones. Comments or
questions?
Commissioner Keller: I have a concern with the potential for subdividing properties. The
consideration is that if you have a property that is deep somebody may wish to subdivide the
property and make part of it into a residential property and part of it into a commercial property
in which the FAR would apply to part of that. So I am just wondering how we deal with that
concern.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: In that circumstance a new map would have to drawn. It would have to
come through Planning and enter into the process through a different route.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct.
Mr. C. Williams: And it probably would take rezoning another parcel to do residential on it.
Vice:Chair Lippert: Right.
Mr. C. Williams: You can’t just split it up and then just divide it out.
Commissioner Keller: So the expectation therefore is if you have a large property and you put
residential on the back say and commercial in the front that the .25 would be expected to apply to
the entire property?
Vice-Chair Lippert: It would also need to meet the regulations in terms of minimum parcel size.
Commissioner Garber: And setbacks.
Mr. C. Williams: Right, yes that is the expectation. The .25 or .15 whichever was applicable
would apply to the entire site including the residential portion of it.
Chair Holman: I have one question about this. Maybe it is primarily for Rick and perhaps not
you are welcome to be the judge of that. I am surprising myself, as I mentioned earlier, I have
struggled with this a lot and I am nearly persuaded. The question for Rick is that at some point
Page 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
there is a size of a parcel where there should be some kind of special study. Fry’s is going to get
its own study. Hyatt would have been a project that could have. The Elks is coming along
somewhere. So I guess what I am looking for is a failsafe for what size parcel should we look at
on an individual basis as opposed to just applying these hard and fast numbers? I know you said
large sites, small sites that these numbers still apply but there might also be other opportunities,
other criteria especially if you look at South E1 Camino. I guess part of where I am going is if
you look at South E1 Camino and I believe the Comp Plan talks about a shopping district for the
neighborhood. So that is one situation I am thinking of too. I don’t want to belabor the point but
it is an important one for me to come along.
Mr. R. Williams: I actually don’t think it has to do with necessarily just a definitive number size
of the site because I would have to look at every single site along to determine what that is. I
think it really has to do with the site and its importance to the community in the long run and
what is its historical value. The Fry’s site to me isn’t a stupendously important site in and of
itself because of the size of the site. It is because it is next to transit. It is important to the
community and the city because it has Fry’s and it is a tax base. I don’t think that the buildings
on it are predominantly important but it is adjacent to different residential neighborhoods. It is
adjacent to transit and that is what makes that important. What makes the other big retail sites
important is because they are a tax base and it is carrying a critical comer of the site. I don’t
think there are that many sites along E1 Camino Real that have that distinction but I think what
will happen is in the process of a development coming forward it will take on, you can kind of go
through and say that is an important site. I think between Design Review, review by the
Planning Commission or review by the City Council you get so much extensive review and
evaluation through any project in this city that you are going to extreme cases almost every
place.
Mr. C. Williams: I want to add that on E1 Camino, well not just on E1 Camino, in all of these
areas Site and Design Review will be required if there are more than four units. So if you get
where there are more than four you can have a lot more than that so all three are going to be
involved in the review for those larger sites. You will have a chance then to look and say
whether you think that works or not.
Chair Holman: Clarification for the Commission, that as a part of that Site and Design Review
use can be affected.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes.
Chair Holman: Okay. Any other comments on this particular point? Are we all in agreement to
that?
Commissioner Keller: I have reservation about the existing uses that are nonconforming but I
am not sure how that can be addressed?
Mr. R. Williams: What are you thinking of?.
Page 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: Well, to the extent that the nature of the topography and geometry and
access to a site is such that it is currently conforming and has more than the specified amount of
retail I am concerned about the potential that less will be built subsequent to that.
Commissioner Garber: You are concerned that we may lose retail as a result of this?
Commissioner Keller: Yes and the interesting thing about the idea of improved retail is that .....
Commissioner Garber: Now you are not talking about just the Fry’s site here.
Commissioner Keller: No, I am not talking about the Fry’s site. I am talking about what is
interesting to me is that improvements are good and bad and the issue is that when you redevelop
sites and wind up with less retail that some may consider higher quality you are pushing out uses
that may not be economically viable that were economically viable in the lower rent. So what
you wind up with is a situation where locally owned businesses tend to get pushed out because
they can’t pay higher rents. What replaces them instead of the unique things that make Palo Alto
more interesting you wind up with a homogenization of more retail that can pay more and that
tends to be chain stores. So you wind up with this up-scaling of Palo Alto in terms of the kind of
retail that exists. We have seen that in. We have seen that in Downtown where former uses have
gone away and newer more expensive uses have come in. So I think that the idea of
redeveloping retail to higher priced rent is not an unalloyed -joy. It has its
benefits and drawbacks. There is some advantage to economic diversity in retail, to having
lower rent retail spaces. If our encouragement is basically to say let’s just say that we are going
to try to maximize the revenue of the City that is not the only factor. Part of the factor is a mix
of services that we are providing to the community. If the situation is that say cleaners can’t pay
high rent and in order to clean your clothing you have to go to Mountain View we wouldn’t
consider that a good thing would we? So there is an idea of a panoply of retail uses that allows
for people in Palo Alto to shop for a lot of their needs in Palo Alto.
Chair Holman: IfI might I would propose this. As you heard me say earlier at length I had
some of the same concerns, is this something that Staff feels like if there is a lot of
redevelopment and this is a trend that starts happening that we have a check-in on this in a year?
Why don’t we do that? Would that be objectionable to anyone?
Mr. C. Williams: The other thing I should mention is that one of the main goals of the Comp
Plan Update is to look at retail and preserving retail. So I think that is also a good avenue to
explore that aspect of retail, the diversity of retail kind of thing and neighborhood and serving
versus more regional. So I think that is a good mechanism and probably in that year period we
probably will be to you with some initial discussions of where that might be headed.
Commissioner Keller: Well, because we are dealing with Prop 90 it might make sense to think
about if the amount of retail that is put into a new site is less than 95 percent of what is there
now, sort of like what we did for the CC...
Mr. C. Williams: You can’t go there.
Page 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: Okay sort of what we did for Town & Country. Can I say that?
Chair Holman: No.
Commissioner Keller: Okay, so ....
Mr. C. Williams: I understand what ....
Commissioner Keller: Okay, if we do that and if it were less than that it would require a CUP
for that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: No, no.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Can we just get through these points and get to Fry’s already because it is
20 of eleven now and I am fading fast. I am not going to be able to comment on Fry’s because I
am not going to remember what I need to say.
Chair Holman: We have had a lot of discussion on this one and I think if we have as you say the
discussions at the Comp Plan, you know I share the same concerns, and if we have a report
coming back to .us in about that year period of time. So if the cattle are getting out we are going
to know it and be able to take some action.
Commissioner Keller: We not be able to if Prop 90 passes.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Just for the record, we won’t get into it, I don’t think that will happen for
all the reasons that we have discussed here. I think in fact it will end up supporting many of the
things that you want to happen.
Chair Holman: Okay. Last two bullet points here are uses involving storage, use of hazardous
materials and excess of exempt amounts will not be permitted in a mixed use project. No
comment there I presume. Mixed use development would not be permitted on the sites
designated with the automobile dealership or AD overlay. We have discussed that previously.
Curtis, next points?
Mr. C. Williams: The other one here was another issue that came up with the Commission last
time on maximum average unit size whether to require some limitations that unit size be reduced
or kept down to a certain limitation as opposed to being whatever is being included in the
project. We again are not recommending do that. That was done in SOFA where we think there
was a very specific plan for certain housing types in that and that worked. But we think that to
try to do that in a mixed use context is going to create a situation where residential is not going
be feasible in many of these particularly these smaller projects and that they won’t work because
the FAR that is allowed for residential won’t be anywhere near achievable because you won’t be
Page 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
able to park it if we limit the unit size. We might get some folks who do that but we want to
leave the flexibility in there.
Chair Holman: So, just for clarity so we can hopefully address this quickly. Any projects that
are mixed use that are four living units or more would come to us and at that point we could
require a mix of unit sizes for instance. But for the smaller projects not require the smaller unit
sizes. That is how it would lay out.
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Chair Holman: Any comments?
Commissioner Keller: I have two quick comments. One is with respect to the site and design
review earlier for four units maybe that should be tied to four units or a square footage of
residential so that you think about if it is four units or less and the residential is less than a certain
amount of the square footage whatever that is because this way we would like to see maybe they
build big units, that is sort of weird. The second issue is that I would like to see come before us
figuring out how we can incentivize the things for which we are short in the Housing Element
and figure out how to encourage that. I am not sure this is the fight way to do it but I think we
need to take a look at that at some point. Maybe that is for the Comp Plan.
Mr.. C. Williams: It could be in multi-family.
Vice-Chair Lippert: It is going to be hard enough to get people to build mixed use anyway
whatever sizes they want.to build, one big apartment up there, I am okay with it.
Chair Holman: Any other comments on that? In other words are we taking Staff
recommendation on that?
Commissioner Sandas: Yes, I would say stick with the ofiginal recommendation.
Commissioner Tuma: Yes.
Chair Holman:
Commissioner Keller:
Chair Holman: Okay.
Okay, is that unanimous.
I don’t care enough, that’s fine.
All fight.
Mr. C. Williams: So the two changes I have in the area of mixed use are for that height, 150 foot
on the height and use the same language as we talked about before with the commercial and then
on the open space to not count the rooftop gardens.
Chair Holman: Right, those will be addressed in the sustainability program.
Page 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: As well as the most restrictive in terms of setback and daylight plane in
terms of adjacency.
Mr. C. Williams: Right, that carries over from the previous language.
Chair Holman: Okay. Do we want to go to Fry’s?
Commissioner Keller: Do we want to actually move that so that we can be on the record in
terms of a vote?
Chair Holman: I don’t think we need to.
Mr. C. Williams: We can just do it overall when the whole thing is done I think.
So Fry’s there are two changes that are proposed. One is an amendment that is due not to the
zoning code actually, it is to the sign regulations in 16.20 and it is written so that very large sites
over ten acres with lots of retail, over 50,000 square feet, without frontage on an arterial
roadway, the idea bein~ that you don’t have a lot of exposure in that situation and the
City is interested in assuring that retail of that size does have exposure, that we would look at
that similar to as if the site were on an arterial and allowed signage offsite on that closest arterial
to be the same size that it would otherwise be if it were located on the arterial.
So in this case what it would do at Fry’s is that the existing 20 square foot sign or so could be
maximum allowed by our chart is about 65 square feet and the maximum height is about 25 feet
allowed by the chart in the sign code. So assuming that Fry’s could find a willing property
owner to accommodate that then ......
Commissioner Sandas: That was going to be my clarifying question. Where would it go?
Mr. C. Williams: The existing sign is at the Footlocker site and whether they could convince
them to go for this there or not I don’t know. I know there are difficulties doing that so it is a
practical issue that may override what we do there.
The second amendment is as we discussed before eliminating the July 16, 2019 amortization date
for Fry’s so that it is still a nonconforming use, it is still restricted to the 60,000
square feet of retail. It is still restricted to the truck delivery hours that are in there for
nonconforming uses. But it doesn’t have the date hanging out there over us. Again, we believe
that the Comp Plan area study and the direction the Council gave us will result in some
substantive zoning discussions around Fry’s well before that date.
MOTION
Chair Holman: I am going to actually make a motion on this to hopefully get this done more
quickly. Curtis, you were clear in saying that amending Chapter 18.94 will essentially have no
effect on the current use there or any other subsequent use there because of the constraints that
are in place now for the property. It will be subject to a study in the hopefully near future but no
Page 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
time determined I think at this point but before 2019.
recommendation on that point.
SECOND
Commissioner Sandas: I second,
Chair Holman: Any discussion on that?
Commissioner Tuma: On the amortization?
I would move that we accept Staff
Chair Holman: On the amortization only.
Commissioner Tuma: Let me ask a question. Something that was said earlier this evening if I
can think back that far. Prior to 2019 ifFry’s were to move out anybody else as long the use
didn’t change could move in? Is that right?
Mr. C. Williams: That could happen regardless of whether we change this date in here.
Commissioner Tuma: Right, But my understanding is the motivation behind changing this date
is to make a gesture to Fry’s in particular and to for what it is worth given the timeframe 2019
but to signal to them that Palo Alto wants to keep them.
I am not convinced that getting rid of this amortization date accomplishes that. I think that Fry’s
could - I am going beyond clarification .......
Chair Holman: Go ahead.
Commissioner Tuma: I have a problem with doing that given promises that were made to
members of the communitv. I know that there has been some outreach but I think we have
enough.time to discuss this and to come up with a plan. Given the fact that it could go to
someone other than Frv’s I am not sure this accomplishes it. I was present at the meeting where
City Council was discussing this and there was a lot of concern that Fry’s won’t be able to stay
there long term anyway because the site is going to need to be rehabilitated and they probably
wouldn’t do that while they were there. They are going to either need to find another place in
Palo Alto or they are going to leave. But I think undoing some promises that were made here
without more discussion and more information is premature, So I have a real problem
supporting eliminating the amortization date as part of what we are doing tonight.
Chair Holman: A clarification, So undoing the promises that were made meaning that this was
zoned for housing. Is that the promise?
Commissioner Tuma: Yes, the amortization date would in fact come to pass, it was zoned for
housing and I just think it creates unnecessary friction in the community and we could deal with
this well before 2019 and still accomplish the same goals,
Page 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Chair Holman: Okay, I don’t know which Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I agree with Commissioner Tuma. What basically this represents is it takes
the time constraint off of it. It is a very long time constraint I mean we are talking about 13 years
in the future is when this amortization date comes into play. I can’t believe that we cannot reach
a solution in the next 13 years as to how to deal with that piece of property. What I am
concerned with here is that what this represents ultimately is the fiscalization of land use and I
think that makes very bad land use policy. When you look at what a site is worth and what it
generates in terms of revenue for the city versus the use that it provides in the city. City Council
had a really great opportunity with the PTOD to adopt some really beefy regulations that would
have allowed Fry’s to remain at the site and to also get some other uses there, when you do a
quick calculation we are talking about half a million (500,000) square feet, 12.5 acres of site
area. Fry’s, which is only 60,000 square feet, is 11 percent. The site isn’t even being fully
utilized to its maximum potential. So the opportunity here is that we can have we can have both
housing and commercial on that site. I feel as though we are making a very hasty decision here.
The other point is that I agree with you Fry’s may not even stay there and we couldbe stuck with
a Safeway or some other commercial use that generates very low sales tax and that would be in
perpetuity because we have removed the amortization date. So this is really I think the elephant
in the living room.
I just want to make a quick comment about the signage. The signage is the same sort of deal
where we are looking very shortsighted and we are not looking long term.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I am sympathetic with the comments of Commissioner Tuma and
Commissioner Lippert. In particular what I heard as a justification for this is it doesn’t matter so
why not do it. If it doesn’t matter the same argument holds if it doesn’t matter then why do it? It
seems to me that where my sympathies lie is we have basically - I understood that we have been
told to do a study of this area as part of the Comprehensive Plan. So I believe that piecemeal
regulation of this site deleting the amortization date is unnecessary because appropriate
opportunity to do that is as part of the Comp Plan Update, as part of the analysis that is being
done of the site where we will look at it in totality, where we will include the appropriate
community input so I think that not only is this unnecessary but it is a mistake to do it in this
incremental way.
That being said, if we want to give a message to Fry’s saying we like you doing the sign
regulation is a tangible thing that encourages them and has some effect. I could imagine ’We Fix
Macs and Fry’s’ but the issue is that if the Footlocker doesn’t want to do it. what is interesting
to me about this is that that’s a tangible thing that actually has a positive impact on Fry’s that at
the end of the day if we were to do that we could say we have done something that is positive for
Fry’s being in its current location.
Page 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The July 16, 2019 amortization date does nothing in terms of encouraging Fry’s to stay or not.
has, as you said, no effect. In fact it might, have a negative effect ifFry’s were to leave and
another use where there that we would not be as pleased with.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: I seconded the motion to get it on the floor and to get it discussed. I am
enjoying hearing the conversation and it just gave me an idea. We are losing some car
dealerships. There is a Ford dealership on E1 Camino that has evaporated in the last few weeks
and what a nice place for Fry’s. Not that that is what we are here to discuss but Fry’s isn’t mixed
use so it could theoretically go into the auto dealership overlay area. Fry’s may be looking in
this way too. So trying to hold them hostage may not work to our benefit at all.
Mr. C. Williams: We are working and will continue to work with Fry’s to see if there are other
sites that fit them better too. So that is ongoing as well and we will explore those kinds of issues.
Again, the issue here is making, and I think it has been characterized pretty well as far as the
long term plans for Fry’s amortization does not determine that but do we feel that that’s a
valuable gesture to them that we are interested in working with them. If you don’t think it is then
that is fine recommend against that.
The sign is certainly a much more tangible thing and I think it is very important to Fry’s to get
increased offsite signage on E1 Camino.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: Ignoring Fry’s for a moment I agree with Commissioner Lippert’s
comments that the site represents a certain opportunity for the City in terms of the potential uses
that it can support that as of right now have not been defined. They were about to be defined as
part of the PTOD but it is no longer there. So it represents I think some good opportunities for
the city to have mixed use, to have some of the uses that we have been talking about involved
with it and/or to be put back into the PTOD zone. That all said, is it then true that the
amortization there is no real benefit one way or the other? Again, ignore Fry’s for a moment and
justlook at the land and the use of the land what are the benefits to them removing that or
keeping that? It is still sort of unclear to me.
Mr. C. Williams: The benefits I think are primarily ones of perception, just perception of
whether and to what extent the City is making a gesture.
Commissioner Tuma: Does it foreclose?
Mr. C. Williams: No, as far as the planning for Fry’s and what ultimately if there is ultimately a
rezoning and what that zoning would be and area plan whether the amortization date is there or
not doesn’t make any difference in that. My feeling is these things are going to happen in the
next couple or three years well before the 2019 date.
Page 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Tuma: IfI might make two technical points. Oregon is defined as an arterial as
well in addition to E1 Camino?
Mr. C. Williams: I think it is defined as an expressway.
Commissioner Tuma: So it would be excluded from the placement of signage?
Mr. C. Williams: I would have to check on that but I think so. We said the nearest arterial so in
this case it is E1 Camino.
Chair Holman: I think it is excluded from signage.
Mr. C. Williams: That is another thing I think is excluded from signage, the street itself is.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay.
Chair Holman: That’s it? Okay, I think Commissioner Keller was next and then Commissioner
Lippert and I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time hashing this. It is not a make or break, it
is not going to make a lot of difference. I made the motion to try to get things rolling along and
that hasn’t been successful. A quick comment.
Commissioner Keller: Firstly, regarding the Ford site at I would rather that be an expansion of
the Volvo car dealership.
Commissioner Sandas: Yes, whatever, I am not here making the recommendation.
Commissioner Keller: I am not thinking that for Fry’s. Secondly, I am wondering and we may
not be able to do this because of what we have noticed but it seems to me that in some sense
what we want to do is freeze Fry’s, freeze what is there unless it goes before the City Council. In
other words not allow it to change without City intervention. I am wondering if that is what we
really want rather than deleting the amortization can we put something on there that says that any
redevelopment of this site requires City Council approval in some sense. Is that possible?
Mr. C. Williams: I wouldn’t touch the nonconforming section other than what we have
suggested at this point in time. Any redevelopment of the site is going to require approval. It is
either going to need to be done through existing zoning which would only limit it to residential.
Commissioner Keller: So if somebody wanted to tear it down and put all residential that would
not go before the City Council. What I am concerned about is that is exactly what happened to
the Hyatt property. What was allowed there was allowed without City Council intervention and
it turned into housing. So what we really want is not deleting the amortization it is freezing the
current use without City Council approval.
Mr. C. Williams: And you can’t do that under the zoning.
Page 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Tuma: Isn’t that what City Council asked Staff to do is take a look at rezoning
that property.
Mr. C. Williams: Exactly.
Commissioner Tuma: So that we were going to look at that anyway. That process is in place.
Mr. C. Williams: Right.
Commissioner Tuma: That is not something that we can really deal with particularly tonight.
Mr. C. Williams: Fry’s has a year lease and they may not take it past that point anyway.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think what is important here is not Fry’s. Fry’s doesn’t have an agreement
with the City. All they do is they collect sales tax on what their sales are. What is important
here is the property owner and what they have there2 The best that they can do - well, they have
a couple of options. Number one they have an amortization they could kick Fry’s out at the end
of their lease and go ahead and build RM-30 housing there. They could do that tomorrow ifthev
could get Fry’s out of there. That is their property right, Or it is contingent on this amortization
schedule. Well, they could put another retail in there. There are no guarantees as to what that
retail would be. That retail could very well wind up as I said being a supermarket or for that
matter it could be a Wal-Mart. That is why it is connected so heavily to the sign. Are you going
to want an eight by eight square sign saying Wal-Mart on E1 Camino Real? Can you live with
that? So that is what it really boils down to. What are the rights here of the property owner and
what is the best use for the citizens of Palo Alto not the fact that there is fiscalization of land use
here?
Mr. C~ Williams: Okay, I think we have the sense that you are recommending against the
amortization. What about the signage?
Chair Holman: Well, we have to vote on it because there is a motion on the table.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I was going to make a substitute motion actually which I forgot. I move
that we recommend extending the amortization for one year and that would give us a change to
sort out a lot of these issues here. So instead of it being 2019 it would be 2020 and that gives the
gesture. I want to extend it for another year thereby it postpones it for another year, no?
Mr. C. Williams: That means 13 years from now already is .....
Chair Holman: Okay. I will withdraw the motion. It sounds like there is a majority that doesn’t
want to remove the amortization and that is fine by me. Regarding the signage.
Commissioner Keller: I will move the sign.
Commissioner Garber: I had a question about the sign.
Page 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Holman: Okay, go ahead.
Commissioner Garber: I think you need a second though if you just made a motion. Did you
make a motion?
Commissioner Keller: I was basically proposing the Staffrecommendation for the signage as
specified that portion.
Commissioner Garber: I will second for discussion. So my question is ifI have a store along E1
Camino now what kind of sign can I put up there now? How does the sign ordinance read?
Mr. C. Williams: The sign ordinance allows you to have a sign that is height and sign size based
upon your frontage along E1 Camino, that distance and two tables that we have in the sign
ordinance that specify what those heights are. I don’t know exactly what it is. I think we
attached the table.
Commissioner Garber: How big of a frontage would I need to be able to have a 65 square foot
sign?
Commissioner Keller: It is 150 feet for 25 feet high and 200 foot of frontage for the 65-foot
sign.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: So 200 feet. So something like the shoe place that is right on the corner
down the street from Fry’s.
Mr. C. Williams: Footlocker.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Is probably 75 to 100 feet maybe? Does that sound right?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. I would say it is about 100.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, probably.
Commissioner Garber: If I had a store that was that long would I want this sign that is
.65 square feet.
Mr. C. Williams: I should say that part of the reason for this coming up too besides just
generally the fact that Frv’s is set back off of E1 Camino is that there is a large sign on Fry’s right
now, signage on the side of the building, that you can see from certain vantage points along E1
Camino. Once that Equinox Health Club is in that is going to be obscured to a large degree by
that new building. So that is one of Fry’s biggest concern is that big sign they do have now is
useless after that building is constructed. So that is one of the reasons why we thought this was
justified to have something offsite.
Page 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Tuma: I would be in support of allowing them to do that. My understanding is
that the primary motivation behind this is the gesture to Fry’s. Is there some way we could
restrict it so that it is only Fry~s?
Mr. C. Williams: I think it is.
Commissioner Tuma: Let’s say a Wal-Mart moves in there. Could Wal-Mart then put up a sign
because of this? So long as it is Fry’s it is fine.
Vice-Chair Lippert: It is not tenant specific.
Commissioner Tuma: Right, so could we make this recommendation tenant specific?
Vice-Chair Lippert: No.
Mr. C. Williams: No.
Chair Holman: I have a question too which is if the sign as proposed were are allowed you
mentioned that once Equinox goes in that the Fry’s sign that exists on the building now would be
obscured by that building at least from some perspective. If this signage size that is proposed
would it not tend to block visibility of the Footlocker store?
Mr. C. Williams: I am sure Footlocker will not allow them to put it on their site if they think it
affects them. They have to get Footlocker’s agreement to put it on their site if they want to do
that.
Chair Holman: It has to be on private property and the only place for it to be is on Footlocker
property is that correct?
Mr. C. Williams: It is not the only place.
Commissioner Keller: No, or We Fix Macs.
Mr. C. Williams: Office Depot is along there. So I know they talked about the difficulties in
negotiating with Footlocker. They would have to do that.
Chair Holman: Okay, I think Commissioner Garber was next.
Commissioner Garber: How tall is Fry’s, that building?
Chair Holman: Not very tall.
Mr. C. Williams: No.
Vice-Chair Lippert: I would say 25 feet.
Page 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Garber: I would guess 25 feet.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: What I was going to say is that signage is a lot like gun control. You can’t
ban people from having guns but you can at least regulate the kind of guns that they have. If an
AK-47 isn’t appropriate then don’t allow them. Say okay, you can carry a six-shooter or you can
have a rifle but not an AK-47 or a_Tommy gun. In this case here we cannot regulate what they
say but we can at least regulate the volume at which they say that. I don’t think anybody is
going to miss that comer with a reasonable size sign. But to have a sign out there that just
screams Fry’s really doesn’t do anything except to pollute the E1 Camino.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I am wonder the extent to which any signage such as this one goes
through some sort of review or can they just slap it up there?
Mr. C. Williams: The sign will go to ARB.
Commissioner Keller: So this basically allows ....
Mr. C. Williams: We set maximum size and when they go to ARB the ARB could whittle that
down and they will determine the appropriate color and lighting associated with the sign.
Commissioner Keller: So is that clear that is amendment would still be subject to all the ARB
regulations and that this is not an entitlement?
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, right. I think our language says something about it is subjectto all
other ....
Chair Holman: What is the maximum height of signs fight now?
Mr. C. Williams: Sign shall comply with all other regulations of this chapter and other
regulations of the chapter requiring ARB review.
Also if the total site signage for a sign based on the size in-of the fronta_g~,~’r ..... .~,~ and it
can’t exceed the total allowed on the site. They have to take away from signage
somewhere else on the site.
Commissioner Tuma: It does now. They can still put signage on the site.
Mr. C. Williams: They could still put signage on the site but the total amount that is allowed for
their site. If they enlarge this sign then they have to take something away which is probably the
sign on the building that they would have to lose to keep the total in signage the same.
Page 89
1 Chair Holman: What is the maximum height for a sign on E1 Camino? Not what is being
2 proposed for this but what is the maximum for any sign?
3
4 Mr. C. Williams: Twenty-five feet. That is the maximum in this table.
5
6 Commissioner Garber: Assuming you have a frontage of 200 feet.
7
8 Chair Holman: Right, right, okay.
9
10 Commissioner Tuma: Actually it goes from 200 to 150.
11
12 Chair Holman: I guess I am questioning how to support Fry’s and also I have some of the same
13 concerns that Commissioner Lippert does. We don’t have any example in front of us, no sketch
14 or anything, as far as size or what the impact might be. So I am wondering if we can split the
15 baby and allow an increase of the signage but not to the extent that is proposed here because this
16 is more than doubling.
17
18 Commissioner Garber: How-big is the sign they have now?
19
20 Mr. C. Williams: My estimate was 24 to 30 square feet.
21
22 Chair I-Iolman: What is being proposed is 65.
23
24 Mr. C. Williams: It is the same as the Footlocker sign.
25
26 Vice-Chair Lippert: I can split the baby. I would be willing to support that.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: The question that I have with the potential for splitting the baby is .....
29
30 Chair Holman: I am sorry I used that analogy. It is a horrible one. I apologize.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Could you estimate the size of- right now there is a Fry’s on top and
33 Footlocker on the bottom, is that right or the other way around? I am not sure which is which.
34
35 Mr. C. Williams: It is the other way around.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so could you estimate the size of that overall combined sign?
38
39 Mr. C. Williams: Double what I am saying here so it is about 50 to 60 square feet.
40
41 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so what we are talking about is a sign that is the size of the
42 Footlocker and Fry’s sign. Could you give me an idea of how tall the current sign is?
43
44 Mr. C. Williams: I was going to say 15 to 18.
45
Page 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: So what this would do is the ordinance as proposed and as I have moved
it basically allows 65 feet and 25-foot height. What I am wondering is whether the compromise
might be 65 feet in size and a shorter height as a way of compromise. I haven’t made that
motion but I am sort of wondering what people think about that.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Height isn’t the issue. The issue here is that keeping the right in perpetuity
for the site. So in essence when Fry’s does vacate if they do and something else goes in there
that sign can change and the next tenant can use that sign. If the amortization continues and it
still remains RM-30 and a housing development goes in there the housing development could
still use that sign.
Mr. C. Williams: No they couldn’t.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Why not?
Mr. C. Williams: Because it has to have a minimum of 50,000 square feet of retail.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So it has to be attached to the retail component, So ifPTOD goes in there
they get to keep it.
Mr. C. Williams:
Mr. R. Williams:
would ....
If there is retail over 50,000 square feet.
If it went PTOD then you would have a new zoning designation and all of that
Chair Holman: IfFry’s was taken out of that scenario anyway.
Mr. R. Williams: I am just saying ....
Commissioner Keller: Well, we don’t have any regulation for what zoning this is. So if it went
PTOD and it had 50,000 square feet of retail and it were a ten-acre site it could have a sign.
While I am sympathetic with Commissioner Lippert’s comments because every time I drive by
the former Circle Star Theater on Highway 101 for which signage was allowed because of
advertising the Circle Star Theater and since then the Circle Star Theater is now history and the
signage remains. I am sympathetic with that idea. What I am wondering as a potential
compromise, and I am trying to float this as a trial balloon, is to allow the signage to exist only
until the time that the Comp Plan Update happens and we evaluate what goes on for that sight
and then we can consider whether a sign will be allowed in the future.
Chair Holman: Amortize the sign.
Commissioner Keller: We will amortize the sign. I would suggest an amortization of the sign -
we allow a sign through December 31, 2010 by which time the Comp Plan Update will have
been done.
Mr. C. Williams: What was your suggestion?
Page 91
1
2 Vice-Chair Lippert: I thought going with one barrel as opposed to two and just going with a
3 smaller sign. Maybe 45 or 50 square feet.
4
5 Chair Holman: Do you want to make that motion?
6
7 Commissioner Garber: That would be a substitute motion.
8
9 Chair Holman: Yes, that would be a substitute motion.
10
11 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
12
13 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, my substitute motion would be going with a permitted sign instead of
14 65 square feet it would be 50 square feet and the 25 foot height doesn’t bother me.
15
16 SECOND
17
18 Chair Holman: I would second that.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if you would be interested in an amendment to amortize
21 that sign through 2010?
22
23 Vice-Chair Lippert: I think that is far too complex. Sorry.
24
25 Chair Holman: Okay, I am going to call the question. We are going to vote on the substitute
26 motion barring any frantic palms I see fly into the air.
27
28 Commissioner Tuma: Just to clarify, the motion is we adopt the recommendation with the ....
29
30 Chair Holman: Amending the size to 50 feet.
31
32 Commissioner Tuma: Right.
33
34 Vice-Chair Lippert: Instead of 65.
35
¯ 36 MOTION PASSED (4-1-1-1, with Commissioner Garber opposed, Commissioner Sandas
37 abstaining and Commissioner Burt absent)
38
39 Chair Holman: All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nay)
40
41 Commissioner Sandas: Abstain, incompetence.
42
43 Chair Holman: That motion passes on a vote of four -one--one, with Commissioner Burt
44 absent.
45
Page 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
101
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: I think we need a motion to adopt the ordinance with all the changes that we
made.
Chair Holman: I was going to ask one more question first which is we went through hopefully
the Staff Report. I do not want to overlook though are there any specific questions having to do
with the ordinance that you marked up that need to be addressed that we have not otherwise
addressed. Yes.
Commissioner Garber: Just One question on page six, the context-based design criteria.
Anything we wanted to do with that ?section?
Chair Holman: Page six of the Staff Report?
Commissioner Garber: Yes.
Mr. C. Williams: That is part of the ordinance and we said it was the same as what you saw in
the PTOD and it will be ultimately ......
Commissioner Garber: Are you looking for any discussion?
Mr. C. Williams: No.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, I have a few notes on my list. The first is in my reading of CDS and
CDN it says.that you can’t add office use if it isalready 5,000 or more but I am wondering
whether you could if there is 4,000 whether based on the arcane wording that is there if
somebody could put an additional 3,000 that makes it 7,000 and pushes it over. So I would just
suggest that you consider that wording so that you don’t have the unintended consequence that
you can add it if it is less than but it exceeds. Does that make any sense? Do you understand
what I am getting at?
Mr. C. Williams: I think I do.
Commissioner Keller: Just because it is worded in an obscure way. Page nine, it says no new
growth square footage of medical, professional, general business or administrative use shall be
allowed once the gross square footage of such office uses or any combination of such uses on a
site has reached 5,000 square feet. The unfortunate wording of that is that if it is less than 5,000
it could be made to over 5,000. So I am not a wordsmith but that is how I read this and I have
seen how people twist things around so I am concerned about both of those.
Mr. C. Williams: It hasn’t been twisted yet.
Commissioner Keller: But that was said about ......
Page 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The other issue is do we want to allow single-family residences or double family residence, sort
of duplexes if you will, as part of mixed use or do we want higher density as part of mixed use. I
am just wondering we haven’t addressed that issue. Do we not care?
Mr. C. Williams: We have addressed it because we have prohibited single family and duplex use
in these zones whereas it is allowed right now. We have under multi-family uses under the
permitted uses. You will see that it is a permitted use with the asterisk that it is only permitted as
part of a mixed use project. So we are looking at not single family.
Commissioner Keller: Well, what I am referring to is a situation where somebody might
subdivide property and put single family along the back and reduce the property along that way.
So I am wondering whether that is something - whether we really want multi-family complexes
as part of this or whether if somebody puts a couple of single family standalone units in the back
under some sort of weird arrangement that that’s what is mixed use.
Mr. C. Williams: A couple of things with that. One is that if they wanted to do that if they want
to do them as single family, separate lots type of development, then they most likely are going to
have to subdivide to do that and they most likely will have to rezone it to do that and that would
make sense to have a buffer against the residential area to have it rezoned because you really
wouldn’t want it to be zoned in a commercial zone and have those residential lots because they
could do things you wouldn’t like to have them do. The other thing is that when we come
forward with the multi-family chapter we will have Village Residential, it may or may not be
called that name, but a development type that allows for under multi-family at least individual
small lots and row houses and some of those types of things that would be more appropriate
transitions. They would actually have a single-family flavor to them but they would be called
multi-family so they would be consistent with this in terms of allowing multi-family as a part of
mixed use.
Commissioner Keller: So, would Staff be sympathetic with the idea that in the event of a
subdivision in which some of the property was not to be commercial that the FAR requirements
would be based on the pre-subdivision amount so that you don’t wind up losing retail through
subdivision?
Mr. C. Williams: I think we would have to see that as it goes through the process and see if that
made sense. There are some sites that if you subdivided in the back to put R-1 lots there and
rezoned it to R- 1 it might make sense to not be granting extra retail.
Commissioner Keller: Well, you are actually granting less retail because ....
Mr. C. Williams: You could exclude those lots.
Commissioner Keller: Right. I am concerned about losing retail but by doing this we set up
rules for how much retail there is in a mixed use project and then you are subdividing offa
certain amount as SFR or duplex or whatever. As a result of that the amount of retail that you
are requiring is now less than was originally required.
Page 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. C. Williams: I am not worried about that. We would have to look at that.
Chair Holman: IfI might, I think the intention of this exercise is to get the real kind of burning
issues to Council in a timely manner. While the points you bring up may well be valid I don’t
think that we can probably particularly address the less likely even though potential in this
timeframe.
Commissioner Keller: I wonder if simply we can require that any subdivision of commercial
property require some Council approval.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Mr. C. Williams: Subdivisions go to Council.
Commissioner Garber: Right. What you are describing is what maybe understood as a p~tential
loophole. But it really doesn’t exist because as soon as you looked at subdividing all bets are off.
You have to essentially start at step one and back through all the processes which is going to take
you back through this organization, this Commission, ARB, Council, etc. so you are back on a
completely different track which is going to take you through the full process. None of those
things get what I would not want to do is try and legislate causally what happens given a
specific instance. That is specifically why you have the process in place to address the specific
ones that come up.
Commissioner Keller: Well, a critical case in point if you wish is the Elk’s property for which
three parcels are being subdivided off and that is going through a ministerial process and then
they are asking for additional properties to be subdivided off and that is another issue. I am
wondering whether we want this sort of subdivision of commercial property to go only through a
ministerial process.
Commissioner Garber: It has to get remapped, right? At the very least it has to be remapped so
it has to come back through us. At the very least it has to come back through us.
Mr. C. Williams: On those parcels- they are mostly R-1 parcels. That strip is
zoned R-1. So it is not all commercial to start with on that property. Like I told you yesterday it
is also trying to subdivide it we are going to consider it to be a major subdivision and it is going
to go through the whole process. They subdivided three lots off that R-l.
Chair Holman: Are we about there?
Commissioner Keller: I thought it was an important issue to bring up since it is relevant to what
is going on and what we are actually seeing. So that is why I am not sure many people are
aware that that was actually going on.
I think that the residents in the area probably are happy with the R-ls being created but I think
that we have to be careful about ......
Page 95
1
2 Chair Holman: Ihad just one quick question. On 18.16.040 under land use under retail use, and
3 this is not a change but shopping centers are not allowed in CN or CS and I just wondered how
4 that married with potentially doing a neighborhood center in south E1 Camino. In the redline
5 version it is page five of 18.16.040.
6
7 Mr. C. Williams: It isn’t a change.
8
9 Chair Holman: I know it is not a change.
10
11 Mr. C. Williams: It does allow grocery stores. It does allow a lot of other retail. Let’s seethe
12 definition of shopping center is. Okay, a shopping center has to be at least one million square
13 feet and a total site area of at least 50 acres.
14
15 Chair Holman: Okay. Should have looked up the definition. Okay.
16
17 Mr. C. Williams: That is good. Logically that makes sense. We specifically defined it here.
18
19 Chair Holman: Okay.
20
21 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have one question.
22
23 Chair Holman: Yes.
24
25 Vice-Chair Lippert: We didn’t vote on the amortization.
26
27 Chair Holman: We took a straw poll on that one.
28
29 Vice-Chair Lippert: I just wanted to make sure.
30
31 Mr. C. Williams: We need an overall motion that will say all of that stuff.
32
33 Chair Holman: So who would like to make the motion to approve the Staff’s recommendation
34 with all the amendments that we made this evening?
35
36 Commissioner Keller: I am not going to make the motion but I would like the list of things to be
37 mentioned just to be clear.
38
39 MOTION
40
41 Commissioner Garber: So moved.
42
43 SECONDED
44
45 Commissioner Sandas: Seconded.
46
Page 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Commissioner Keller: I just think for the record it would worthwhile repeating what all the
changes were so that we make sure we agree on it.
Mr. C. Williams: In the commercial district CUPs were going to be for abutting properties or
residential properties within 50 feet. The residential transition requirements for height are again
abutting properties or within 50 feet and within that provision for other than where RM-40 or PC
residential zones are abutting. These are the exceptions to the Staff recommendation I am
reading. Then on the mixed use the setbacks and daylight planes will be the most restrictive
abutting residential use. The height we would do the same language about abutting or within 50
feet and then 150 feet. Rooftop gardens don’t count as open space.
Chair Holman: And will come back to us as part of the sustainability program.
Mr. C. Williams: Right. Then also on the Site and Design will report back to you on as those
projects come in at least the first year and see what you think. Then no change to the
amortization language and the signage as proposed limiting the size to 50 square feet.
Commissioner Keller: I think there was one other, which was the CN mixed use requirements on
E1 Camino the. 1 density bonus will have to be retail.
Chair Holman: Yes.
Commissioner Sandas: So Commissioner Garber made the motion.
MOTION PASSED (6-0,0-1, with Commissioner Burt absent)
Chair Holman: We have a motion on the floor if there are no comments we will call the vote.
All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes on a six to zero vote with Commissioner Burt
absent.
Thank you Staff very much.
Page 97
Attachment E
,
Commercial Zoning Districts :,