HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 312-05i '\ \
4. All development in this area of the GM zone, including administrative office and research
and development, is subject to CEQA review, including traffic.
The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for non-residential use would remain at 0.5 to 1. A mixed use
project with a residential component would be allowed at 1.0 to 1, provided that the floor area
ratio of the non-residential uses shall not exceed 0.5 to 1. Administrative office use would also
require a conditional USy permit in the GM Zones under the new ordinance.
The deletion of the (B) combining district has been raised as a concern recently because of a
proposal for a mixed use development in that zone. Staff and the Commission continue to
recommend that the (B) combining district should be eliminated for the above reasons.
Increased Height for Biotech/R&D
The P&TC voted (5-0) to recommend that the additional height not be allowed in the ROLM and
ROLM-E zoning districts based on view impacts, the development intensity adjacent to sensitive
environmental lands (in the ROLM-E zone), and the proximity of residential uses (in the ROLM
zone). Increased height in the GM zone is not an issue since the height limit there is currently 50
feet and is recommended to remain at 50feet.
Residential Uses and Mixed Use
The P&TC voted (3-2) to recommend to Council prohibition of single-family and two-family
residential uses in the General Manufacturing (GM) and Research, Office and Limited
Manufacturing (ROLM) districts and allowance for multi-family development pursuant to RM-
30 densities and development standards, adding some intent language about providing for
compatible transitions from low-density residential zones. The P&TC voted (4-1), however, to
prohibit residential uses within 150 feet of any H (hazardous materials) building occupancy in
the GM area east of San Antonio Road and north of Charleston Road, and to require a
conditional use permit (CUP) for other residential development in that subarea, due to the
historical and current heavy industrial use in that area.
Staff has discussed this recommendation with the Fire Department and is concerned that the H
occupancy can apply to several classes of hazardous materials storage" some of which can be
very minimal (a few gallons of paint or gasoline), so that the proposed 150 foot requirement
would likely eliminate any future residential use in this area. The CUP process should provide
sufficient discretion to determine whether a' residential use would be appropriate. The CUP
review would require determination that the proposed residential use would be compatible with
surrounding uses and would not cause any adverse impacts on the subject or adjacent properties.
The CUP would also require review by the Fire Department, who could identify the proximity of
hazardous materials to the residential site.
Staff also believes that the CUP process could help to assure that extensive redevelopment of
industrial and/or research sites for residential development does not reduce economic diversity or
cause relocation of needed industrial support services, substantially alter traffic generation and/or
characteristics, or impact adjacent sensitive environmental areas or neighborhoods. Therefore,
Staff recommends that Conditional Use Permits be required for all multi-family residential uses
in the ROLM, ROLM-E and GM Districts. This would also include mixed use projects that have
a residential component. Staff believes that this added level of review would provide for further
CMR: 312:05 -East ofEI Camino Real (Non-Stanford Lands) Page 3 of6
· \ "
minor accessory structures that are largely governed by State law and is contrary to the City's
efforts to streamline permit review.
Staff Alternative Recommendation: Allow automatic teller machines as a permitted
accessory use in all of the Office, Research and Manufacturing districts, subject to staff
level ARB review.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The implementation of the proposed ordinance amendments is not expected to impact staff
resources or the City's budget. Some additional staff time will be required to monitor office uses
in the Stanford Research Park, but that should be an occasional rather than ongoing task. Some
time will also be required to educate staff and the public regarding the revisions. The overall
effect Of the ordinance amendments, however, should be to provide for updated development
standards and allowable uses, which should facilitate increased economic development in the
City.
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 are a significant step in that direction, and will be supplemented with performance
criteria for industrial and commercial uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Office/Research/Manufacturing Chapter 18.20 revisions are consistent with the
environmental analysis conducted for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Land uses and
development standards are not expanded, and performance standards are retained, so that impacts
should be minimized. The Comprehensive Plrui Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
certified by the City Council on July 20, 1998. Staff has considered the proposed revisions to the
Office/Research/Manufacturing districts, and finds that they do not comprise changes or new
information not analyzed in the prior environmental analysis. Additionally, they do not have any
additional significant environmental effects or increase any previously analyzed effects that were
contained within the Comprehensive Plan EIR. The City's environmental consultant for the ZOU
has reviewed the proposed changes and concurs with this conclusion.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Industrial/Manufacturing Districts: Draft Ordinance
Attachment B: May 11,2005 P&TC Staff Report
Attachment C: May 11, 2005 and May 18, 2005 P &TC Minutes
Attachment D: October 4, 2004 City Council Minutes
Attachment E: Chapter 18.64 ofthe Zoning Ordinance
Attachment F: Diagram of Increased Height and Setbacks for Interstitial Space
Attachment G: Map of Office/Research/Manufacturing Districts
COURTESY COPIES
Jean Snider, Stanford Management Company
Ken Kornberg, Kornberg Architects
Bud Mission, Roche
John Igoe, Cirrus Regis/TIBCO
CMR: 312:05 -East ofEI Camino Real (Non-Stanford Lands) Page 5 of6
i 1 . /
NOT YET APPROVED
18.20.010 Purposes
(a) Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) District
[NOT ADOPTED BY THIS ORDINANCE]
(b) Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) District
The ROLM research, office and limited manufacturing
district provides for a limited group of office, research and
manufacturing uses in a manufacturing/research park environment,
where uses requiring larger sites and available natural light
and air can locate. Office uses can be accommodated, but should
not predominate in the district. The ROLM district is primarily
intended for land designated for research and office park use by
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and located east of El Camino
Real.
(c) Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing Subdistrict -
Embarcadero [ROLM(E)]
The research, office and limited manufacturing
subdistrict [ROLM(E)] modifies the site development regulations
of the ROLM research, office and limited manufacturing district
to apply to smaller sites in areas with limited access or with
environmental sensi ti vi ty due to their proximity to the Palo
Alto Baylands in the Embarcardero Road area.
(d) Research Park District [RP]
[NOT ADOPTED BY THIS ORDINANCE]
(e) Research Park Subdistrict 5 [RP(S)]
[NOT ADOPTED BY THIS ORDINANCE]
(f) General Manufacturing District [GM]
The GM general manufacturing district provides for light
manufacturing, research, and commercial service uses. Office
uses are very limited in order to maintain the district as a
desirable location for manufacturing uses. The GM district is
intended for application to land designated for light industrial
use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
18.20.020
051004 syn 0120051
Applicable Regulations
[NOT ADOPTED BY THIS ORDINANCE]
2
I ,
NOT VET APPROVED
with the development standards prescribed for the RM-15
zoning district. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for
mixed use development is 0.3 to1.
(3) ROLM District. Mixed (residential and nonresidential)
development in the ROLM zoning district shall be
permitted, 'subject to determination that the
nonresidential use is allowable in the district and that
the residential component of the development complies
with the development standards. prescribed for the RM-30
zoning district. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for
mixed use development is 0.4 to 1. .
(4) GM District. Mixed use (residential and nonresidential)
development is prohibited in the portion of the GM zoning
district t,hat is located east of San Antonio Road and
north of Charleston Road. Mixed residential and
nonresidential development elsewhere in the GM zoning
district shall be permitted, subject to determination
that the nonresidential use is allowable in the district
and that the residential component of the development
complies with the development standards prescribed for
the RM-30 zoning district. The maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) for mixed use development is 1.0 to 1, provided
that the floor area ratio of the nonresidential uses
shall not exceed 0.5 to 1.
In computing residential densi ties for mixed (residential and
nonresidential) uses, the density calculation for the
residential use shall be based on the entire site, including the
nonresidential portion of the site.
(d) Floor Area Bonus for Child Care Facilities
[NOT ADOPTED BY THIS ORDINANCE]
(e) Height and Floor Area Exceptions for Equipment Storage and
Access in the RP and RP (5). Districts
[NOT ADOPTED BY THIS ORDINANCE]
(f) Limitations on Outdoor Uses and Activities
(1) In the GM district, outdoor sales and display of
merchandise and outdoor eating areas operated
incidental to permitted eating and drinking services
are permitted subject to the following regulations:
(A)
051004 syn 0120051
Outdoor sales and
total site area
8
display
exceeding
shall
the
not
'gross
occupy a
building
,I
I
,·"
.'.
,
(B)
NOT YET APPROVED
General business
September 6, 1984
office uses existing on
(2) The uses specified in subsection (1) may remain as
grandfathered uses provided that those uses:
(A) are located in the GM district;
(B) existed on the specified date;
(C) on that date, were lawful permitted uses or
conditional uses operating subject to a
conditional use permit; and
(D) on that date, were conforming uses.
(c) Permitted Changes
The following regulations shall apply to grandfathered uses
in the GM district, as specified in subsection (b) above:
(1) Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or
replace site improvements on the same site, for
continual use and occupancy by the same use, with the
following provision:
(A) Unless a design enhancement exception is granted
pursuant to Chapter 18.76, remodeling,
improvement or replacement shall not:
(i) result in increased floor area or number of
rooms,
(ii) result in shifting of building footprint
(iii) increase the height, length, building
envelope, or size of the improvement, or
(iv) increase th~ existing degree of
noncompliance.
(2) If a grandfathered use ceases and thereafter remains
discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall
be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a
conforming use.
(3) A grandfathered use 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.
10
051004 syn 0120051
~." .. '" ,".' t .
1 ,I ., ,
4. To return with added provisions for mixed use and residential uses, and for performance
standards regarding noise, lighting, access, etc. for these zones.
5. Review of provisions for "medical office" and "medical research" uses in the Medical
Office and Medical Research (MOR) district to provide incentives to keep medical
offices but without providing a disincentive for maintaining research uses.
DISCUSSION
An ordinance adopting the new Chapter 18.20 and related revised definitions (Chapter 18.04),
and deleting the relevant existing chapters, is provided in Attachment A. Exhibit 1 attached to
the ordinance is a "clean" version of the new Chapter 18.20 (please note that the chapter
numbering has changed since the P&TC and Council's prior review,.due to conflicts with
existing code chapter numbering). A "redlined" version of the Chapter, reflecting the Council's
changes, is enclosed as Attachment B. Attachment C is a "redlined" version ofthe revised
definitions. The October 4, 2004 CMR and Council minutes are included as Attachments D and
E, respectively. A map of the affected zoning districts is enclosed as Attachment F.
The Council's modifications #1-3 above are reflected in the proposed new Chapter. The
discussion below addresses provisions related to Residential Uses and Mixed Use, Performance
Standards, and Medical OfficelMedical Research Uses, as directed by Council items #4 and 5
above.
Residential Uses and Mixed Use
Staffbelieves that the medical office, research, and manufacturing districts are not appropriate
areas for single-family and two-family uses, due to basic incompatibilities between low-density
. homes and uses that typically involve hazardous materials and security concerns, as well as the
incremental effect of replacing the medical office/research/manufacturing uses with residential.
The prqposed Chapter indicates that those low-density residential uses are not permitted.
Existinglow...,density residential uses would be allowed to continue, subject to the provisions for
nonconforming uses.
Multi-family development may be appropriate where it is adjacent to other residential
development or provides a transition from major :roads or residential zones to medical office~
research and manufacturing uses. In the General Manufacturing (GM) district, multi-family
housing may create more extensive conflicts, given the more intense uses in GM and the limited
land area available to accommodate those uses in the City. The draft ordinance maintains the
current code allowance for multi-family residential as a permitted use, however, in all of the
districts under review. Multi-family development would need to comply with the standards of the
RM-30 zoning district, as is currently the case in these zones.
Some concern has been raised, however, that residential uses are replacing research or
manufacturing zoning on some sites, further limiting the available land for research and
manufacturing uses and potentially creating conflicts with existing uses in those zones. Some
recent examples include: a) 75 residential condominiums at 928 East Meadow Drive (LM zone),
b) 75 residential condominiums at 1101 East Meadow Drive/1 OlD E. Meadow Circle (LM zone),
and c) a proposed development of 86 to 135 townhomesat 3270-3290 West Bayshore Road (LM
zone). .
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Alternatives: If the Commission is concerned about the potential for increased residential
displacement of research and manufacturing uses, staff has identified three alternatives to
modify the draft ordinance:
1) Permit multi-family residential only with approval of a conditional use permit. The
conditional use permit review would provide an opportunity, on a case-by-case basis,
to look at the site circumstances to determine if residential use is appropriate, and
under what conditions. Review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would also
be required.
2) Prohibit multi-family residential use in these zones.
3) Prohibit multi-family residential use in the GM zoning district, but allow such use
with a conditional use permit in the remaining districts.
Mixed use (residential/non-residential) development is not accommodated in the draft Chapter,
again assuming an inherent conflict between residential and non-residential uses on these sites. A
mix of non-residential uses (industrial/retail, officelretail~ etc.) is allowed, though it is not
addressed separately from other non-residential uses. Retail and personal service uses would
require a conditional use permit, so any mix of those uses with permitted uses would require a
conditional use permit as well. Anon-residential mixed use project would need to comply with
all of the non-residential limitations of the Chapter, including floor area, site coverage,height,
setbacks, and parking ..
Performance Criteria
Performance standards for industrial and commercial development currently exist in Chapter
18.64 of the Zoning Ordinance. These criteria address lighting, visual, noise, and site access
impaCts in these zones, and are oriented to minimizing impacts to adjacent residential properties.
Staff intends, as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, to upgrade and supplement these criteria,
partiCUlarly in association with consideratiort ofthe commercial zoning districts. Staffwill work
with the ARB to develop the appropriate standards for Commission and Council review. At this
time, however, the proposed Chapter 18.20 simply provides a reference to Chapter 18.64,
pending the future review and revisions to that chapter.
Medical OfficelMedical Research Uses
The only permitted uses within the Medical Office/Medical Research (MOR) district would be
medical offices, medical research, very limited medical support retail or services, and day care
and residential care homes where required by State law. All other allowed uses would require a
conditional use permit, and are quite-limited (private clubs and lodges, schools, convalescent
facilities, research and development, multi·Jamily residential, and hotels).
Staff believes that the limitation on uses is sufficient to assure that medical office and/or medical
research uses predominate, and does not suggest any further incentives for rriedical office
development. A particular staff concern is that, if incentives such as increased floor area or
reduced parking are provided, the incentives could not be revoked if future changes in use occur.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1 we come to the public I will remind you again that if you have a comment that addresses those
2 zones now is the time to do it because when we come back to address all the zones that are east
3 ofEI Camino Real we cannot talk about issues that affect Stanford lands which are the MOR and
4 RP districts. So as you are thinking about the comments that you want to make remember that
5 we are going to be bifurcated.
6
7 So first we will have the presentation from Staff on the districts west of EI Camino Real.
8
9 NEW BUSINESS:
10 Public Hearings.
11
12 Zoning Ordinance Update: Consideration of Revised Chapter 18.24 of the Zoning Ordinance to
13 Amend Provisions of the Office, Research and Light Manufacturing ("Medical Office and
14 Medical Research," "Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing," Research Park," and
15 "General Manufacturing") Districts and Sub-districts, and Related Definitions in Chapter 18.04
16 of the Zoning Ordinance, and Deleting Current Chapters 18.37, 18.55, 18.60, 18.63 and 18.64 of
17 the Current Zoning Ordinance.
18
19 Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant: Thank you. The Council as I think you all know heard this
20 issue last in October of last year. They did provide some very specific direction and made some
21 d~terminations on the ordinance. The first item was that they deleted the limitations on office
22 use in the Research Park zone. You may recall that the Commission had a recommendation to
23 limit office uses to 25% consistent with Stanford's policy. The Council directed that we delete
24 that from the ordinance but that Staff monitor the office use in the Research Park and come back
25 to them if there seems to be some substantial increase in that for future consideration.
26
27 Secondly, they deleted the term 'within a medical office' from the definition of Medical
28 Research so that it does not have to be specifically just a small part of a medical office that
29 medical research can stand on its own.
30
31 Thirdly, we had recommended I don't recall if it was a 50 foot setback for the increase in height
32 of35 to 40 feet to accommodate the biotech interstitial space in particular and the Commission
33 had recommended allowing that increase to 40 feet from 35 but with I believe it was a 50 foot
34 setback. The Council directed that we should have a 150-foot setback from any residential
35 property consistent with some of our other transition requirements that we have that are 150 feet.
36
37 Then a couple of directions. One was to consider possible incentives for medical office in the
38 medical office and medical research zone, which is essentially the office research zone today
39 around the Stanford Hospital Medical Center but not at the expense of medical research. Just to
40 look at whether there were some incentives we would suggest for trying to retain that medical
41 office.
42
43 And lastly to return to them then with recommendations as far as residential and mixed use
44 development in these zones and applicable performance standards.
45
46 So I am going to take you through first those issues as they apply to the lands west ofEl Camino
47 Real, which is essentially the Stanford lands and comprise the medical office and medical
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 7 of 53
1 research zone and the research park zone, which is essentially cotenninous with the Stanford
2 Research Park.
3
4 First as far as residential and mixed use development goes Staff is recommending that single
5 family and two family residential not be pennitted in the zone as we feel it is incompatible and
·6 takes up a lot of space that we need to protect for those kinds of uses. Secondly, that we
7 continue to allow though multi-family use in the zone. As far as residential and commercial
8 mixed use again with concern about compatibility on the same site we have suggested that that
9 mix not be pennitted in these zones. Other non-residential mixed use is essentially already
10 pennitted by the regulations that you have that allow for some retail, personal services and those
11 kinds of uses with conditional use pennits all subject to the maximum floor area ratios and other
12 requirements.
13
14 The increased height as I mentioned the Council did discuss this issue it would have allowed
15 increase in height in the RP, and then we will be talking about the ROLM districts later, to a total
16 of 40 feet rather than 35 feet so a five foot increase. It would be allowed for the use of interstitial
17 space only where that applied. It would still be limited to two habitable floors and there would
18 be a ISO-foot setback from residential properties. We have developed this diagram to help
19 understand what that means. The top row of buildings is residential, it could be a single family,
20 or in this case showing a multi-family building then an industrial or office research building set
21 back from that it would be 35 feet and that you couldn't get up to the 40 foot limit until you were
22 at least 150 feet back. That gives you a little sense of what that scale is relative to building sizes.
23 The bottom row of buildings sort of shows that again with a little more design features to it and
24 the diagram on the right side is just illustrative of how the interstitial space would work which
25 typically is anywhere from seven to nine feet or so although that varies. That space is used again
26 for generally housing mechanical and electrical equipment and various needs of the research and
27 development or biotech industries.
28
29 Perfonnance criteria, we have an existing chapter. It has some perfonnance criteria for industrial
30 and commercial uses. It deals with lighting, visual, noise and site access impacts. Our
31 recommendation tonight is to continue to use that and not delete that at this point and replace it.
32 We are in the process of developing a chapter to replace that will cover all industrial uses, all
33 commercial uses and it would apply as we come forward to you with the commercial zones for
34 that as well in tenns of some enhanced standards for these types of things as well as additional
35 landscape screening and sustainable issues and the kind of things that we discussed a little bit
36 with you in the multi-family chapter. So we would be developing a chapter to replace that 18.64
37 in the Zoning Ordinance.
38
39 The issue of trying to provide incentives for medical office is a difficult one. We understand
40 there is a concern about trying to retain those and we think we have done as much as we can
41 within the ordinance in tenns of allowable uses. You will recall thatwe had a very extensive
42 discussion about in that zone around the hospital basically the two pennitted uses are medical
43 offices and medical research and then any other kind of use that is pennitted there is a
44 conditional use pennit only. So we don't believe that additional incentives are necessary and
45 that if we try to provide zoning incentives which would typically take the fonn of increased floor
46 area or reduced parking or something like that but in addition to the impacts those might have
47 that they would be very hard to enforce in tenns of the use changing in one of those buildings.
48 So if some kind of bonus or whatever were granted for the medical office use and then it
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 . Page 8 oJ53
1 converted to a research and development at some point in time you couldn't very well take the
2 square footage away or make additional requirements there.
3
4 So our suggestion as far as a motion on this portion of the ordinance goes is that the Commission
5 recommend to the Council adoption of the revised definitions in the ordinance and approval of
6 the new Chapter 18.20 as it pertains specifically to the medical office research zone, the research
7 park zone and the research park(5) zone and then deleting the corresponding existing OR, LM
8 and LM(5) districts. Then we will come back in a bit and talk about the lands east ofEI Camino.
9
10 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, before we go to the public are there any specific questions that
11 Commissioners would like to ask Staff now would you like to wait until after we hear from the
12 public? Michael.
13
14 Commissioner Griffin: Curtis, if! understand what you are telling us Council has basically
15 preempted our discussion of these first three items on page one of the Staff Report where it talks
16 about City Council's direction on the following and you have these three items. We cannot
17 revisit these?
18
19 Mr. Williams: I think that is generally correct. Obviously this is still a recommendation from
20 the Commission so I assume that legally you could do that but the Council has made these
21 preliminary determinations pending receipt of the whole ordinance for adoption. I don't know if
22 Don has anything additional. He is nodding so I guess that is the appropriate interpretation.
23
24 Commissioner Griffin: So basically that leaves us to discuss items four and five.
25
26 Mr. Williams: Correct.
27
28 Commissioner Burt: Michael, I would say on that while I am not sure that I have any problem
29 with the Council's recommendations Ijust on a matter of practice my outlook is that we receive
30 Council's input that they have a very strong inclination to want to go in this direction but I don't
31 think that prohibits the Commission from speaking on that subject. Or if we still feel strongly
32 and wish to make new points to the Council that were not made before I think that is an entirely
33 appropriate response of the Commission. Personally, on these particular items I am not sure that
34 I do have those comments but if you do I wouldn't feel restrained from speaking up.
35
36 Vice Chair Packer: For instance we may do so to have those comments when we get to the
37 discussion portion and that would be the time to do so. Right now are there any other technical
38 type questions that you would like to ask Staff? Karen.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: A question about Chapter 18.24 is that the noise?
41
42 Mr. Williams: 64.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. What happens as approve this and we discover that service
45 equipment, air conditioning, the number of kinds of equipmentthat are identified here if we
46 discover that having that kind of equipment because of how much power it has that it does create
47 an impact but we have allowed it on the rooftops as opposed to basements or on the ground what
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 9 of 53
1 happens? It seems to be a little bit of a conflict and it occurred to me as I was reading through
2 this again.
3
4 Mr. Williams: Well, in the interim I think the ARB will review all ofthese sort ofthings so I
5 think they are going to be seeing at least from a visual standpoint that issue. From a noise
6 standpoint these things are generally required to be screened so that noise on a rooftop that is
7 some distance away hopefully would not be an issue. I assume the Noise Ordinance would then
8 come into play.
9
10 Ms. Grote: The Noise Ordinance does apply so any new or relocated equipment has to meet the
11 current noise standards.
12
13 Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects & ZOU: Just to elaborate on that process
14 is what happens when a development application comes in and it is reviewed the equipment is
15 reviewed and typically the Police Department who enforces the Noise Ordinance requires
16 specifications for that equipment so that equipment would meet the Noise Ordinance. Then once
17 the equipment is installed and the building is built they are required to go out and test it to ensure
18 that it meets the Noise Ordinance as well. So that is inherent in the design and development
19 process now and that will continue.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: I will make comments about this later but I see there are some problems
22 given our Noise Ordinance. Then also in the City Council report, the CMR that went to Council
23 October 4, there was something that seemed as though it didn't get addressed at the Council
24 meeting unless I didn't see it here. That is the Staff Report, the CMR, said that Council had
25 previously said that they would not address the spine road issue at that time they would do it at
26 an EIR point of evaluation, a Supplemental EIR for the research park. I was confused about that
27 because an EIR doesn't implement anything. So I was confused about what that was and it is not
28 mentioned here about how to address that. So could that be clarified?
29
30 Ms. Grote: The spine road was not addressed in the EIR that the Council just reviewed and
31 certified at first reading last Monday or May 2. It wasn't included in that because the spine road
32 is currently not on any official Transportation Planning document. Nothing in the Development
33 Agreement prevented a spine road but it didn't include the spine road so it was not part of that
34 Environmental Impact report. Both our City Staff and Stanford have said that should the City
35 Council direct some further exploration of the spine road that we would certainly sit down and
36 talk about that and discuss that.
37
38 Vice Chair Packer: May Ijust say the spine road is really I don't think within the scope ofthe
39 zoning ordinance that we are looking at. We can move on to other questions. That is a specific
40 project and we are looking at an ordinance right now.
41
42 Commissioner Holman: But it would have to do with transportation and access and other things
43 that would affect the zoning standards.
44
45 Vice Chair Packer: It would affect the properties and the use of the properties but it doesn't
46 affect the regulations.
47
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 10 of 53
1 Ms. Grote: Right, in order to have some sort of a regulation that would address a spine road we
2 would need to have the policies in place that call for such a spine road. Currently those policies
3 aren't or alignments aren't noted in our Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element. Certainly,
4 if that is a comment you would like the Council to consider you can make that as an
5 accompanying comment. It is not really addressed in zoning ordinance requirements.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: I had thought that there was a Supplemental EIR that was going to be
8 prepared for the Stanford Research Park separate from the StanfordlMayfield.
9
10 Ms. Grote: No, actually that EIR covered build out of the Stanford Research Park as well as the
11 Mayfield Development Agreement, which covered the ball fields and the relocated square
12 footage and the housing. So it was the build out ofthe park plus the elements of the
13 Development Agreement.
14
15 Vice Chair Packer: Let's talk about this.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: I have a question that is tangentially related to Karen's, which is that
18 recently I paid a visit to the bevelopment Center and I found that I can get a printout of just
19 about any site and it tells me what my developable FAR is it is a rather remarkable program.
20
21 Ms. Grote: In our GIS program.
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: Right. Does that work with the Research Park in terms of individual
24 parcels?
25
26 Ms. Grote: I would. Everything that we have in our GIS system is applicable to the Research
27 Park as well as every parcel in the City.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: So there is a way through GIS of getting a handle on what the maximum
30 build out of the Research Park would be and an offshoot of that would be what the overall build
3 1 out loads would be, correct?
32
33 Ms. Grote: Right we have in the Comprehensive Plan there is about 870,000 square feet left of
34 developable square footage in the Research Park. That is what we analyzed in the EIR that just
35 went through you as a Commission and went through the City Council last week. So we'
36 analyzed the full growth or full potential of the Research Park in that document.
37
38 Commissioner Burt: So it is all defined all. ready.
39.
40 Ms. Grote: Yes.
41
42 Vice Chair Packer: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners on the material that is
43 before us tonight? Ifnot, I only have at this point two cards from the public, are there any other
44 members ofthe public who wish to speak? Now is the time you can bring me the card. Okay, I
45 have two speakers you will have five minutes. The first speaker is Fred Balin if you would come
46 to the microphone and state your name and address.
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 11 of 53
1 Mr. Fred Balin, Palo Alto: Thanks for the five minuets I can talk more slowly. Thank you.
2 Good evening Commissioners I am Fred Balin of College Terrace. Tonight you are to consider a
3 dispensation for biotech structures that would allow a five.;. foot increase in maximum height and
4 an additional 15 feet for rooftop equipment. You are also to evaluate the alternate RM-30
5 residential zoning option. In both cases you must protect residential neighborhoods.
6
7 Regarding biotech new buildings or updated structures with clean rooms and rooftop units that
8 can and do emit chemical vapors and irritating noise should not be permitted facing residential
9 areas. Eight years ago AZA built a clean room and installed rooftop air conditioners at 1501
10 California Avenue. The resultant 2417 out of compliance drone has permeated our neighborhood
11 ever since. We have discussed this matter with Stanford Management Company for several
12 years and they either cannot or will not get their ground lessee to resolve the problem. Please do
13 not allow this to happen again.
14
15 Now to RM-30. During the Mayfield pro·cess it was both a misleading yardstick and a sword of
16 Damocles. The public was repeatedly misinformed that 15 units per acre was a downzone. It
17 was not. Rather the proposed density was part of a negotiated trade in which Stanford received
18 vested replacement commercial square footage in addition to the residential housing. We were
19 also told that Stanford could build 30 residential units per acre although they had never used
20 residential zoning in the Research Park RM-30 lingered in the public consciousness as an
21 implied threat. Tonight you must act to rectify this situation. RM-30 is not appropriate next to a
22 single-family residential neighborhood. It should be removed as an option for all parcels that
23 face California Avenue in Research Park unless the following two conditions are met. There is a
24 front row ofR-l housing and only the R-l housing had direct vehicular driveway access to
25 California Avenue. This is entirely consistent with our Mayfield neighborhood letter petitions
26 the first submitted to you on February 9 with 133 endorsements and a more detailed petition
27 submitted to the City Council last week with 261 endorsements.
28
29 At Council two of our supporters challenged the validity ofthe Mayfield traffic analysis. One
30 area was the trip generation data plots for the Upper California site. For the no project
31 alternative the category selected was single t~nant office yet the two largest buildings, HP and
32 ALZA, are for research and development. For the future residential housing the category chosen
33 was apartments more suitable to an urban setting. This let to claims there would be up to a 40%
34 traffic reduction and no significant neighborhood impacts. Both the intuition and detailed
35 analyses of our endorsers seriously questioned these assertions therefore both elements must be
36 included in any residential zoning option, R-l in the front and vehicular access to California
37 Avenue restricted to those R-l structures. Otherwise the alternate residential zoning option
38 should be removed from Research Park parcel space in California Avenue. Thank you.
39
40 Vice Chair Packer: Thank you. Our next speaker is Joy Ogawa. I think you know the routine,
41 Joy.
42
43 Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Well it is good to know that I can go into the Development Center
44 and find the development potential of any property. I would guess though that the Research Park
45 properties don't reflect the potential 25% FAR shift that could be added to any property in the
46 Research Park that is not on California Avenue.
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 12 of 53
1 It is interesting that we have come full circle with regard to limitation of office use in the
2 Research Park. That started out as a well, you know; let's limit office use in the Research Park,
3 well Stanford already voluntarily does that as part of its policy. Then when you try to
4 incorporate that it turns out that well when they talk about office use they really ... when they
5 talk about research and development definition they include as research and development all
6 office uses for any company that has any research and development as part of its company
7 anywhere in the world even though it is not in the Research Park. So a company could have
8 100% administrative offices in the Research Park that would be counted by Stanford as R&D in
9 its definition. So basically when the City tried to incorporate that it kind of made a farce of the
10 whole thing and so we are here full circle taking that out completely. It is sad that I basically
11 have to say ifthe only option is to try to say that research and development includes 100%
12 administrative office then I think we are much better off not trying to make our code say
13 something ridiculous like that.
14
15 Now, as far as incentives for medical office there again I look back to how these definitions got
16 put into the code in the first place and into the recommended code by Staff. My recollection is
17 that that started off as being Stanford's request and then people got up and said well, you know,
18 we want to be able to protect any kind of medical research that goes on within private medical
19 offices. We want to be sure that those private practitioners can carry out medical research in
20 their offices. So Staff responded and included within the definition of permitted uses that you
21 could have medical research in private medical offices basically in response to Stanford's
22 request. That is what Stanford said they wanted and Staff gave it to them. Then it turns out that
23 is not really what Stanford wanted. Stanford really wants to be able to carry on medical research
24 without any limitations not just in private medical offices but medical research. I mean it is
25 understandable. The medical school is a huge growing thing and clinical research is growing,
26 growing, growing and the medical school can easily take over the entire area and probably will
27 given no limitation. I think that needs to be part of your consideration. If that is part of the
28 inevitable, if that is what is going to happen if you continue to allow medical research to take
29 over that is what is going to happen. It was really interesting that at the Council meeting Staff
30 responded to Council at that time well, there is no indication that that is a problem. Well, two or
31 three weeks later there is a headline in the Daily News saying that the private doctors in the
32 Welch Road area are saying that Stanford is going to try to kick us all out, as soon as they have a
33 chance they are going to kick us all out. To me that is a policy decision. I don't particularly
34 myself use the doctors in the Welch Road area but it is just something that you have to consider.
35 If you want to preserve that area for private medical and dental practitioners then you need to
36 address that. I hope you do and take that into consideration. Thank you.
37
38 Vice Chair Packer: Thank you, Joy.
39
40 Commissioner Griffin: May I ask the first speaker to elaborate on some of his remarks or is it
41 too late?
42
43 Vice Chair Packer: I will let you do that. How long do you want him to elaborate?
44
45 Commissioner Griffin: Just a short time.
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, Michael has a question for you Mr. Balin.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 13 of 53
1 Commissioner Griffin: My question had to do with your first comment about rooftop noise or
2 noise from rooftop equipment and you made mention of a droning noise that now affects the
3 neighborhood. I am presuming that you discussed this with the City Staff or with the Police
4 Department in relation to enforcement of the Noise Ordinance and evidently I am guessing here
5 the level of the noise did not reach the threshold of enforceable limits on the Noise Ordinance.
6
7 Mr. Balin: We have spoken directly with Stanford Management Company and Ramsey Shrido is
8 the person there, my wife and I have been speaking with him for three years. One of the things
9 that Stanford has said is that they own the land they don't own the ground leases. They don't
10 handle the ground leases so they have to work through the tenants there to get something done.
11 They did have somebody come out who was a respected acoustical engineer and did an entire
12 analysis of why it is out of compliance, they admit it is out of compliance, and gave a whole
13 series of recommendations to mitigate it. It has been like pulling teeth because they just don't
14 want to do it or they want to do it in the lease expensive way. So it has been going on for a long
15 time and to Stanford's credit they do keep a dialogue with us and they say well we have made
16 this recommendation, we've said this, now we have to see if they can get the budget approved.
17 In any event the clean room has been there for six years and the noise continues 2417. You can
18 go up there on any quiet evening or day and you can hear it.
19
20 Commissioner Griffin: But it does not exceed or it does not reach the threshold for enforcement?
21
22 Mr. Balin: No, I believe Stanford will tell you that it is out of compliance it is over the
23 threshold. That has been do:cumented.
24
25 Vice Chair Packer: I would like to now bring the matter back to the Commission and to remind
26 the Commissioners that we are here to talk about the ordinance not a whole lot of extraneous
27 matters. Also we can raise issues that apply to both east and west because when we do a motion
28 on the west side it will incorporate all the issues and then we can raise the issues that also apply
29 to the east side we can raise them again so that Phyllis will have the benefit of our comments and
30 remarks. So let's keep that in mind during our discussion. Does somebody want to begin our
31 discussion on the ordinance? Do you want to go through the .. "
32
33 Commissioner Burt: I think I would just like to maybe help Michael clarify the reasons that he
34 was asking the question. The Chair characterized them as extraneous but if I understood them
35 they were a basis for concern on how to judge what we should do in the zoning ordinance as it
36 applies to the other changes on the bio-medica1 uses as similar to ALZA's. Is that correct?
37
38 Commissioner Griffin: That would be correct.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: Well I will begin with item number three under the background, which
41 is incorporating the 150-foot setback and the height of 40 feet. I think they are both very .
42 reasonable in terms of what we are being asked to consider here. I think that perhaps the 150
43 might be increased a little bit but I think that the 150 is workable and I think that it does provide
44 the necessary buffer to the residential neighborhood. I think that what is asked for in terms of
45 the 40 feet versus 35 feet is a reasonable increase for that particular use. They are giving seven
46 to nine feet of interstitial or mezzanine space but only increasing five feet in the actually building
47 height. So I think that that is a very reasonable condition here.
48
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 14 0/53
1 Vice Chair Packer: Do you have a question that you want to ask Staff?
2
3 Commissioner Burt: Yes. Lisa, do you have a sense of the typical depth of the lots that are in
4 the ROLM zone?
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: RP.
7
8 Commissioner Burt: Excuse me, RP, Research Park. That may abut residential areas and
9 consequently if we have the 150 setback does that provide ample space at the front portion of the
10 lot to do the construction?
11
12 Ms. Grote: I think most of them would be able to accommodate a 150-foot setback I am going
13 to refer to Curtis and John if you have any more specifics but they are deep lots, very deep lots.
14
15 Commissioner Burt: I would just add that we don't necessarily have to make every lot amenable
16 to the bio-med applications we just wanted to make sure that there were ample lots to
17 accommodate the growth in that sector.
18
19 I don't need specific numbers but a generalization would be ample.
20
21 Mr. Lusardi: I think we are reasonably comfortable with 150-foot setback. A lot ofthe
22 residential that abuts or is adjacent to the Research Park also has a street separation too. These
23 lots are fairly deep in that regard so I think we are fairly comfortable with that kind of a setback
24 and we can still work with the building height.
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: Generally, Pat, the back portion of the lot is used for parking on those
27 lots.
28
29 Commissioner Burt: It might be.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: That is the way it is laid out anyway.
32
33 Vice Chair Packer: Michael.
34
35 Commissioner Griffin: Iwill address this noise issue again. This is apropos to item number
36 four, which is talking about performance standards regarding noise, lighting and access for the
37 zone. I am empathetic to the difficulty that the speaker discussed with us and that has to do with
38 certain droning background noises that in many cases are inherent to HVAC type equipment. I
39 know that the intent of Staff here was to basically push off that issue to the Noise Ordinance and
40 if we didn't like it I guess it is up to us to bring the Noise Ordinance into the 21 st Century and
41 deal with some of these noise related problems. I personally would like to see something else in
42 the ordinance that had to do with sound attenuation devices that would insure that we would not
43 be creating serious problems for people in the College Terrace neighborhoods relating to this
44 necessary machinery. I invite other Commissioners to tag along with this.
45
46 Vice Chair Packer: I would just like to interject one thing. What is before us is not the
47 performance standards, is that correct? We are not looking at new performance standards at this
48 point. Those are going to come back to us?
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 15 of 53
;\
1
2 Mr. Williams: That is our intent but performance standards are part of the industrial district so I
3 think: it is certainly within your purview to discuss whether this is adequate.
4
5 Vice Chair Packer: So we could have a discussion on what we would like to see when you bring
6 the performance standards back to us. Is that what the Commissioners want to do right now or
7 do we want to have that discussion tonight or do we want to get on with just the portion of the
8 ordinance that is before us to review. We don't have new performance standards to be looking at
9 tonight. Karen.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: To pony onto Commissioner Griffin's comments and also go back to
12 my original question and it does have to do with yes the performance standards are coming back
13 but it sort of a salami thing we have going on here because are we not maybe necessarily creating
14 a monster, I am not quite sure, or are we continuing a monster by allowing large equipment on
15 rooftops as opposed to in basements or on the ground? We really don't have any information
16 that says that it couldn't be in basements because they are saying in basements or rooftops. So
17 because of the size of the equipment, we have ambient noise that affects our community greatly
18 and the more equipment that we have and we are talking on top of 40 foot buildings and the
19 higher it the larger the broadcast. So I think: it is something that is in the scope of what we are
20 discussing tonight because if we adopt this and say we are going to deal with the performance
21 standards later and we have already allowed them to be on rooftops regardless of what the
22 standards are we have an ambience issue here. Also it was mentioned by the speaker about
23 fumes and if these are also issues I' think ifthose are going up into the ether to then I think: that
24 needs to be addressed.
25
26 Vice Chair Packer: I appreciate the concerns about noise and fumes and all that, however, what I
27 don't have in front of us is a document that gives me the technical information that I would need
28 to know in order to make some decisions about this. This isn't in front of us. I personally don't
29 know anything about rooftop equipment and what it does and what is needed. We haven't had
30 that in our Staff Report in order to address this issue with ariything but shooting from the hip. So
31 I don't think that tonight is the time except to say that this is a concern we have but we don't
32 have the facts on which to make any decisions about it.
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to go as a rule of thumb we are asking for a substantial
35 increase in setback to that zone for a very modest height increase is what we are looking at here.
36 So I am just going off the 'cuff here and looking at this and I think that what is being proposed
37 looks reasonable. Technically I think it still needs to be addressed in terms of the performance
38 standards. I think that what is being asked of us here is a very reasonable and very modest
39 proposal.
40
41 Vice Chair Packer: Is anything being changed about the 15 foot? Hasn't that been in the code
42 all this time?
43
44 Mr. Williams: Right. The 15-foot height for equipment has been in the code. Secondly, there is
45 nothing in here that is increasing the amount of equipment you can put on your roof. What it is
46 doing is it is allowing it to be enclosed, which would be a helpful thing as far as noise goes. So
47 that is the difference with that. The five-foot increase I think is from our perspective pretty
48 arguable in that it is first of all set 150 feet back and so I question whether there is any significant
City 0/ Palo Alto May 18. 2005 Page 160/53
"
1 increase in noise or emissions when it is required to be that far away and then it has this potential
2 enclosure around it. What we were planning on doing with the performance standards is EIP the
3 environmental firm that has been helping look at some of the environmental issues on the Zoning
4 Ordinance Update has given us some preliminary information on performance standards, sort of
5 updating some things, and we can certainly go back to them and ask them to specifically try to
6 address that issue and see what can go into the performance standards for those types of
7 concerns.
8
9 Commissioner Burt: I would just like to first comment on the appropriateness of us having a
10 discussion tonight on the potential impact of noise on adj acent neighborhoods as a result of the
11 changes that we are recommending in these structures designed to accommodate biotech
12 buildings. As I think the Commissioner who took maybe the strongest approach in supporting
13 the additional height to accommodate this evolution in what is occurring in the Research Park at
14 the same time I think it is entirely appropriate and the responsibility of the Commission to make
15 sure that we aren't running into unintended negative consequences on adjacent neighborhoods. I
16 feel better hearing some of the comments from Staff on it and I think for that matter the Council
17 identified an issue that we had not recognized the first time we went through and whether there
18 should be some additional setback from the neighborhoods. So I am okay with what I have
19 heard so far but I have to take exception to the Chair repeatedly trying to restrain Commissioners
20 from raising issues or asking questions about interrelated issues. When we are advocating that
21 we accommodate biotech and it may have some consequences that are related to it is entirely
22 appropriate that we explore those potential consequences. The outcome may be that we say it
23 looked like they were adequately addressed or that we only want to raise issues at this time and
24 will await a more in depth discussion at a later time but it also could have been the outcome of
25 this meeting to say, gee, I don't think I can support this additional interstitial space without
26 looking at these performance standards. That could have been a reasonable decision for this
27 Commission. Ijust want to make sure the Commission has the opportunity and is not
28 constrained from appropriate discussions.
29
30 Vice Chair Packer: I don't mean to restrain the discussion Ijust wanted us, we only have three
31 or four hours in an evening to cover a lot of stuff and I believe and I strongly agree with you that
32 we need to have this discussion about this kind of equipment and the performance standards but I
33 would like to have some information in the form of a report on the facts we need to weigh in
34 order to intelligently respond. I assume that that is coming to us later in performance criteria. I
35 also want to point out it was the Commission who recommended to City Council that the five
36 foot increase was appropriate. We did this a couple of years ago and I can't remember if we had
37 a long discussion about the noise impacts at that time but we always understood that the
38 performance criteria relating to noise and fumes and what have you would result from whether it
39 is on a 35 foot building or a 40 foot building would be coming back to us with the recognition of
40 what is the new equipment out there and all. These things probably constantly have to be
41 updated. I would more than welcome a good discussion at one of our meetings on those issues
42 with a good report on what can be done, what kind of equipment is there, what is appropriate and
43 what will make it good for the whole neighborhood.
44
. 45 Commissioner Burt: I think that the point that you are losing is that some of the Commissioners
46 may find that in the absence of that information they cannot make a recommendation one way or
47 the other.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 17 of 53
1 Vice Chair Packer: But we already did make that recommendation to Council.
2
3 Commissioner Burt: We did and we have often, as did Council on this, when the public or others
4 . bring supplemental infonnation that influences their decision-making they reconsider the
5 decision. This is back to us for reconsideration. We are not 100% bound by what we decided a
6 year ago based upon more limited infonnation just like Council added additional requirements
7 for additional setback based on additional public input. That is an entirely appropriate part of the
8 process.
9
10 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: I want to be clear. I think there may be two things getting mixed just a
13 bit for what I am saying anyway. One is I am not opposing the 40 feet. I am supporting the 150-
14 foot setback as Council recognized and recommended and I wish we had caught that. I think we
15 would have. What my concern is is that there seems to be an assumption I think on the part of a
16 lot of us that the current law is okay and because we are not changing that that we are okay. I
17 have raised many, many, many times at this Commission in various aspects of the ZOU my
18 concern about noise. I believe Commissioner Griffin has too. So Ijust don't want to send out a
19 confused message that because it is okay and all we are doing is adding five feet and we were
20 okay with that that my issue should not be raised about the noise and even fumes. My issue is
21 that I think what we have now is broken, I am not sure that looking at the perfonnance standards
22 later in isolation of location of this equipm~nt is going to satisfy correcting existing problems.
23
24 Ms. Grote: Any discussion about changes, proposed changes and recommendations wouldn't
25 necessarily apply and won't actually to existing conditions. So someone who has a piece of
26 equipment now would have it grandfathered. Just so you know that existing conditions are just
27 that.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: I meant existing zoning. That is what I meant by existing conditions.
30 So I maybe misspoke with that. I meant our existing code there is an assumption maybe that our
31 existing code is adequate in protecting our community from noise impacts. I believe some of
32 that has to do with location and so that is why I am comfortable separating these development
33 standards having to do with location without having perfonnance standards presented with that.
34 Again, it is an issue I have raised many, many, many times.
35
36 Vice Chair Packer: Lee.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Staff, John or Curtis. With regard to buildings that
39 are biotech and there might be a non-laboratory or non-equipment-bearing piece of space
40. associated with that building would they be permitted to have that portion that say might be
41 office or support to those labs be located in that 150 setback at a lower height?
42
43 Mr. Williams: Yes, it is just the portion that is above 35 feet that has to be setback 150 feet.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so the point that I am getting at with this question is that the way
46 we currently have this ordinance structured it would encourage the developer to locate
47 supporting office space or lobby spaces or break rooms and those sort of facilities as a buffer to
48 the residential neighborhoods if they wanted to make use of that space. So there is some added
City oj Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 180j53
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
47
48
.. ,
incentive here to locate those portions of the building that are not lab spaces providing some
additional buffer.
Vice Chair Packer: Are there any other comments or questions Commissioners want to make on
the districts west ofEI Camino Real?
Commissioner Lippert: I wanted to talk with regard to research.
Vice Chair Packer: Okay.
I
Commissioner Lippert: I think that there might be a bit of a conflict in there which is that it says
within a medical office allowing medical research but I don't see that there would be a limitation
in terms of how much research can go on in that medical office.
Vice Chair Packer: In the definitions it defined medical research.
Ms. Grote: Page three of Attachment A under 'a' where it says medical research and then also
definition 85 which is right above it. I think that is what you are referring to.
Commissioner Lippert: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Is your question that the medical office includes incidental medical and/or dental
research and that that is not defined? I think what happened at the Council level is that
previously medical research was essentially defined as being within a medical office, a portion of
the medical office. It wasn't real specific about what portion that was. The Council's direction
was to take that phrase out of there and essentially make them two separate entities so that the
medical research can stand completely apart from a medical office building as opposed to the
medical office being the predominant use if you have any research there to accommodate these
other clinical research type efforts.
Commissioner Lippert: I guess my question is or where I am coming from is that I am
concerned that very gradually medical research displacing medical offices by the nature of
having medical research in those offices. So I see one of two ways that we might want to
consider going which is to limit a percentage of floor area could be dedicated to medical research
in a medical office or saying that that office needs to be in continuous medical office use
meaning that they see patients on a continual basis.
Vice Chair Packer: On page five isn't there some description there?
Mr. Williams: The restrictions are only on the medical support, retail and personal services. So
those kinds of uses are restricted in that zone, a pharmacy or something like that but the medical
research versus medical office is not. Now going back what Commissioner Lippert is talking
about was the Commission's recommendation essentially that went forward to the Council
because your definition only allowed the medical research as part of a medical office. The
medical office was kind of the predominant use. The Council's direction has been to take that
out and give the medical research equal footing if you will with medical office. Again, that is
what we responded to and we have written it up that way. It was very specific direction from the
Council.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 19 of 53
1
2 Commissioner Griffin: I had the feeling that they didn't perhaps fully appreciate what we were
3 trying to accomplish and maybe we didn't say it clearly enough. We were voted down at least
4 that is my take on it that they did not want to make that distinction.
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
7
8 Commissioner Burt: Couid Staff review for our benefit the Council's discussion on this? When
9 they went over this first there is apolicy issue at the heart of it which is do we have an interest as
10 a community in attempting to preserve the uses of medical offices by private practitioners in that
11 Welch Road area which has been a very important part of the medical office use in our
12 community. I think the Commission felt that was important, we listened to both Stanford
13 representatives and I think the Lucile Packard Center representatives talking about the need to
14 have complimentary research that was done in conjunction with medical offices. Did the
15 Council discuss that policy issue and say we don't have an interest in preserving medical offices
16 on Welch Road?
17
18 Mr. Williams: My recollection is and I am trying to see ifthere are some specifics in the minutes
19 here from the Council meeting and I am not coming to it right away. My recollection is that they
20 felt it was important to preserve the medical office but I believe that their sense was that the
21 medical research wasn't threatening that.
22
23 Commissioner Burt: Maybe at the time they didn't have that sense as one ofthe Commissioners
24 or a member of the public mentioned it wasn't more than a couple of weeks later that we had a
25 newspaper article highlighting that trend. Just as new information gets presented to the Council
26 that for instance on these setbacks that influenced their decision subsequent to our discussion that
27 we now agree with them. We said that was good information from the public or from the press
28 or from whatever source or from Staff that shed new light on a subject. I think that this may be
29 something that we may want to encourage the Council to reconsider. Now it leaves open the
30 question, did we get it exactly right when we recommended it to Council, and I don't know the
31 answer to that and would be open from Commissioners or I suppose the public hearing is now
32 closed but we might have some knowledgeable people in the audience who might shed light on
33 this.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: You can still ask some questions we didn't close the public hearing.
36
37 Commissioner Burt: I said that, thank you. I would be interested in exploring this topic more
38 because I do think it is a danger to an important service to the community and I think the
39 Commission if they feel strongly they wish to recommend to the Council that the Council
40 reconsider it or that we have a modification that maybe acknowledges what the Council felt was
41 wrong about our recommendation and tries to modify our recommendation in response to that
42 then maybe we could do either of those things.
43
44 Vice Chair Packer: Michael.
45
46 Commissioner Griffin: I read the Council minutes and maybe it is in there but I did not come
47 away from that meeting with ....
48
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 20 of 53
'-'
1 Commissioner Holman: Page 13.
2
3 Commissioner Griffin: It is there? Anyway, I did not come away from that meeting feeling that
4 there was very much discussion on that particular topic and that would be worked out going back
5 and trying to encourage Council to take another look at it.
6
7 I also would like to bring up an adjacent issue here which has to do with what Curtis was talking
8 about we do have a 20% restriction on support services. I am encouraging Commissioners to go
9 to page nine of the draft ordinance and at the top of the page, paragraph B, limitations on medical
10 support services and medical support retail uses. Then it says in paragraph number one, the
11 intent of this limitation is to restrict support services and retail in order to preserve and facilitate
12 space for medical offices and medical research facilities. Then it goes on in the next paragraph
13 to say that they want to restrict these auxiliary functions to 20% of the gross floor area within the
14 district. When you go to the definitions of what are these support services they are
15 administrative offices, billing offices, public relations, training and fundraising. It is not limited
16 to those but those were the ones that they did bring out. There is a part of me that says on the
17 one hand the intent of the ordinance is to encourage the preservation of medical offices as well as
18 medical research and yet we are allowing 20% of the floor area to go to public relations and
19 fundraising and billing offices which in my mind could be handled very efficiently by putting
20 them offsite someplace.
21
22 Vice Chair Packer: I just want to bring back to the Commission's memory there were members
23 from Stanford who came and spoke to us specifically about the public relations and the
24 fundraising and the importance of it being close to Stanford Hospital.
25
26 Commissioner Griffin: I guess I wasn't convinced.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: Which is why, I am just giving the history, I don't have any sort of feelings
29 about it one way or the other but I am just remembering the history. I think we didn't want to
30 have offices there at all but they said we need a little bit because there are some of these ancillary
31 things that go On and it needs to be close to the hospital and so we put it back in .. Then when we
32 did the research we limited it to within the medical offices so we didn't need to have a
33 restriction. So now what I am hearing Commissioners say is that maybe we want to consider
34 some kind of restriction, a percentage or some way, of medical research in order to insure that
35 the medical offices remain. Is that the kind of thing I am hearing?
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: What I want to be very careful of is that medical research doesn't wind
38 up trumping the medical office. Here, we see it in other cases. The ARB for instance has the
39 ability to not regulate speech, what you say, in terms of signage but the volume at which you say
40 it. So big signs are discouraged. In this case what we are saying is research in conjunction with
41 medical office use is appropriate but if all you are going to do is medical research this is the not
42 the appropriate location for it. That's all.
43
44 Vice Chair Packer: Does somebody want to make a little motion on this topic so it gets in there
45 that we want .....
46
47 Commissioner Burt: I think we should relook carefully at what our proposed language to the
.48 Council was before. Why don't we review that and see exactly whatit was that they did not
\
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 21 of 53
1 Commissioner Burt: All right, we have representatives from Stanford here tonight, I see Bill
2 Phillips. Can we ask if Bill has any comments on this subject? Whether they had a strong
3 inclination one way or the other on the use as either the Commission recommended to the
4 Councilor the Council ended up preferring?
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: Okay.
7
8 Mr. Bill Phillips, Stanford: I was listening to the concept of what exactly the Commission
9 recommended to the Council and I think Curtis has been very accurate in what went forward. I
10 think they made a deliberate decision to consider medical research and I think you see it in the
11 language as a permitted use and gave it status equal to medical office. Then because that may
12 have given them a bit but I would say a small bit of concern such that you have they issued this
13 request to try and do the balancing act that would be allowing it in the ordinance but not dis-
14 incenting medical office by providing it in there. I think the come back tonight has been Curtis's
15 explanation about how one would respond to that and how difficult that is and I would agree
16 with it.
17
18 Commissioner Burt: Thank you. So then from what I had heard from Curtis earlier and unless
19 someone has a brighter idea I concur with what he said. It doesn't seem that we can incentivize
20 the one without dis-incenting the other. If that is the case then the Council has presented a
21 quandary. They wanted to incentivize medical office but not at the expense of medical research
22 and they deleted our constraint on the use of medical research. It appears from what Staff has
23 said and the discussions we have had so far that there doesn't look like a way to do both thing the
24 Council requested. In that case, it may be appropriate for us to come back and say we have
25 considered it and unless some proposal comes forth on how to achieve their incentivizing
26 recommendation then we have to make choices. The choice that the Commission previously had
27 made was a constraint on medical research, allowing it but as an incidental adjunct to medical
28 office, as I recall. We reiterate the importance of preserving medical office in that region. Ifwe
29 don't have a recommendation on how we could do both then perhaps we are left with the choice
30 of which of these directions we would want to go with and I think I would support requesting the
31 Council reconsider our original recommendation.
32
33 Vice Chair Packer: Lee.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: I have a thought and I don't want to wordsmith this but there is a way of
36 sort of maybe correcting this or maybe turning it in the right direction. That is here it very
37 specifically says incidental medical and/or dental research within the office is considered part of
38 the office use where it supports client services. Well, client services as we know have a broad
39 implication. It could be supporting the clients that are in Stanford Hospital but the research is
40 done in a medical office on Welch Road down the street. It doesn't tie that to the specific site.
41 What I would say and I am looking at here is maybe where it supports onsite patient services in
42 which it ties the patients, changes it from clients to patients, and ties the patients to the site so
43 that office has to remain open to see patients in order to be able to do the supplemental research.
44
45 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
46
47 Commissioner Holman: I haven not yet spoken to this at all and I am supporting the comments
48 of other Commissioners who have spoken to this. I look at this .as it is a bit of a quandary or
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 23 of 53
1 conundrum. What appears is that when Council made the request of Staff to look at ways to
2 incentivize medical office and the retention of them they didn't know at that point in time that
3 there wasn't a way to do that. I think that is information that we have that we need to consider. I
4 would interpret providing provisions for retention of medical office as a value judgment that the
5 Council has made. That would, in my mind, override the wish to provide flexibility to the use of
6 space. So I would fully support limiting medical research in medical offices .. I don't want to try
7 to come up with the exact words either but I think it should be probably by percentage because I
8 appreciate what Commissioner Lippert brought up and appreciate that you were the first one to
9 bring this issue up and at the same time it could be an office that serves ten clients on site but
10 80% of the facility is used for research. So I think we maybe ought to look at probably a
11 percentage ofthe facility.
12
13 Vice Chair Packer: Maybe we will do is go back to our original recommendation which was
14 clean. That is the sense I am getting. Let's do a quick motion saying that we want to leave the
15 recommendation to CounciL .. well, I shouldn't be making the motion. Does somebody want to
16 do it?
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: Why don't you tell us what you are thinking?
19
20 Vice Chair Packer: That I think what Pat was saying that we want to tell Council that when we
21 get to the full motion on this ordinance one of the things that we are going to say is that we do
22 not agree with the change that they made and you would like them to reconsider our original
23 recommendation in light ofthe information that Staff has presented it would be difficult to setup
24 and incentivize that they recommended because we are concerned about the
25 potential loss of medical offices on Welch Road or in that area. Can somebody make a motion to
26 that effect?
27
. 28 Commissioner Griffin: I would like to add to it this concept of the percentage. In other words, if
29 we have in this draft ordinance a limitation on support services and retail at 20% why can't we
30 come up with a percentage that would more accurately mimic the current situation over there, the
31 current balance on those Welch Road facilities of 60% .. .I don't even want to go there because I
32 don't know what those percentages might be but Staffmight or Bill Phillips might have a better
33 feel for what that percentage really is.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: I think that the 20% might be arbitrary. You picked it based on another
36 use but I have to tell you that research has a lot more to do with what is going on in medical
37 offices.
38
39 Commissioner Burt: I don't think Michael was adv<;.lcating 20%.
40
41. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, fine.
42
43 Commissioner Burt: He was using that as an example that we had used a percentage basis for
44 the other functions. I would have a question for Staff or for experts in the pUblic. What do you
45 think about the feasibility of trying to put a percentage number on this? How do we grapple with
46 this? I think we are all kind of on the same page in terms of what we would like to achieve as
47 the outcome. The question is how can we or what language in the ordinance can we recommend
48 that would capture the intent? I am sure open to anyone's recommendation on it.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 24 of 53
1
2 Mr. Lusardi: I don't think Staff can give you an exact percentage that we know would work or
3 not work. So it would be arbitrary to be honest with you.
4
5 Commissioner Burt: Just to refresh us, I believe it hard to recall exactly from a year ago when
6 we did this 20% on the other use, I believe it was largely in response to the Lucile Packard
7 Center request and we put the 20% figure, I can't remember whether they recommended it but it
8 seemed like a number that would give them sufficient latitude. We weren't trying to peg it but it
9 was a number that was comfortably above the minimum that they thought they needed. I think
10 that is how that percentage came about. That may be the same principle that we would be
11 attempting to follow here. We may not be able to perfect this and pick the exact right number
12 but what we may be able to do is put some constraint that at least prevents all those doctors from
13 getting driven out of there.
14
15 Vice Chair Packer: I see two things our original proposal was not a percentage but had the
16 research going on within medical office so you didn't have to deal with a percent. And you only
17 need a percent if we didn't have that within the medical office criteria. Considering that the
18 percent of office space versus research space in the other part of the Research Park was thrown
19 out by the Council even though I understand the reasoning behind it I would be reluctant to
20 suggest pursuing a percent and maybe just restricting the location of the research as we did
21 originally and that still maintains the doctors' offices and maybe that would work better than
22 trying to deal with arbitrary percents and trying to monitor. You have so many different offices
23 there and I don't know how you would .. .it would just be very cost ineffective to try to
24 implement a percent.
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: I have a slightly different take on this. What we are really entering into
27 here is a dialogue with Council. The Council doesn't really have the ability to sit down at the
28 table with us and have a discussion unless we have an agendized joint meeting. They have acted
29 on this ordinance in making their recommendation and sending it back to us. Now it is our job I
30 think to look at this and to add a little bit more meat to the bones maybe and send it back to them
31 even though there might be something in there that might be contrary to what they have
32 recommended for them to think about. So I don't see it as being adversarial or negative or
33 anything in terms of what they have given us back. So I don't have a problem with us trying to
34 hone this and craft it and shape it into something that we can live with and maybe they will
35 consider.
36
37 Vice Chair Packer: I think that is what we are doing. We either go back to our original
38 recommendation or Staff comes up with something even better. I think Staff understands where
39 we are coming from and should we go with that without trying to be too specific and say it has to
40 be a percent or it has to be some specific words because I don't know what the unintended
41 consequences of limiting it to patients would be or whatever. I don't know enough about the
42 field and how it happens and what kind of clinical work gets done and what the scope of it is and
43 whether they don't only use patients but use others. I don't know.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: I am somewhat offended to see the word client. I think of client in terms
46 of a profit making enterprise and in this case what we are looking at are uses that are really
47 servmg.
48
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 25 of 53
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
47
Vice Chair Packer: Lee would like to make a comment.
!'
Commissioner Lippert: I think that in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance Update we have
gone through and we have made certain uses contingent upon providing the basic uses. I think
that in this case here I don't think that there is any reason why we cannot limit or put a cap or put
something over those research uses that it is contingent upon those patient services or those
medical offices continual existence. I think that that's paramount to this. I know that it is stated
in there but I think it needs to be tied even closer.
Commissioner Burt: So are you proposing an amendment or making a statement?
Commissioner Lippert: I am making a statement. I am not going to try to change it. I am in
support of your motion. I think it is going to have some difficulties at CounCil but that is okay.
Vice Chair Packer: Okay, are we ready to vote on this one?
Commissioner Holman: I would just like to support Commissioner Lippert trying a friendly
amendment with that.
Commissioner Burt: Why do make a good point and then not want to try to include it as an
amendment?
Vice Chair Packer: Karen wants to make an amendment.
Commissioner Holman: I am not going to be able to repeat your exact words so I would hope
that Commissioner Lippert would make that as a friendly amendment. I think you would find
support. You are reluctant to do that apparently.
Commissioner Griffin: Perhaps Commissioner Lippert would propose a friendly amendment
that would offer another method of solving this problem by establishing some sort of a nexus
between research and the medical office services that were being provided to patients onsite.
Commissioner Lippert: Well I tried to do that in my wordsmithing here but Pat has his motion
out there.
Commissione~ Griffin: Commissioner, I don't think they are mutually exclusively necessarily.
You can tack it on ifhe is willing.
Commissioner Burt: I would like to make two comments on that. One is that in our process it is
not objectionable to make either a friendly or an unfriendly amendment to a Commissioner's
motion and Commissioners won't take offense to that. Second, what I am going to suggest is
one possibility it is not something that is customary for the Commission but we are struggling
with this so I want to toss it out. We could present the Council with two options. Since they had
not accepted our original proposal, which we hope, they might accept now or we have an
alternative that Commissioner Lippert is suggesting one possibility is that we could present to the
Council two options for their consideration, Commissioner Lippert's version or the re-adoption
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 27 a/53
'.
1 of our original language. I don't know what the Commission thinks about that approach but
2 since we are searching for a way to find something that the Council will find palatable.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: Maybe this will work, I will give it a stab but as a friendly amendment
5 to the motion what I would recommend is that in addition to re-including the language that was
6 stricken previously we keep the paragraph that says incidental medical and/or dental research
7 within the office is considered part of the medical use where it supports, and then this where I
8 would change it a little bit to say, on site patient services and then it continues with medical office
9 use does not include etc.
10
11 Vice Chair Packer: Do you accept the friendly amendment?
12
13 Commissioner Burt: I will accept that as a friendly amendment and I would sti111ike to hear
14 from the Commission should we go with on proposal to Councilor give them two alternatives. I
15 am open to either. .
16
17 Commissioner Holman: I also would accept the amendment and .....
18
19 Commissioner Burt: I might add that they heard from our record that both of these things are
20 possible so maybe we can just choose one and make sure they understand that we would find
21 either acceptable from our standpoint.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: Right, and I don't think that the friendly amendment is inconsistent
24 with the purpose ofthe main motion obviously or it wouldn't be a friendly amendment. I don't
25 think it is a leap to accept both so I think we should just go forward with the one motion as
26 amended and accepted.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: The amendment considered as an alternative.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: No, no not the amendment considered as an alternative. The
31 amendment was accepted.
32
33 Commissioner Burt: The amendment would be the recommendation of the Commission to the
34 Council.
35
36 Vice Chair Packer: Okay.
37
38 Commissioner Griffin: I misunderstood then. So we are saying now that Lee' amendment
39 would preempt the first?
40
41 Commissioner Burt: It would modify the motion.
42
43 Commissioner Griffin: And it would then present Council with a choice.
44
45 Commissioner Burt: A single option, which is the amended motion that Lee had recommended.
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: Curtis has something.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 28 of 53
1 Mr. Williams: Ijust want to clarify. My understanding is that we would be amending the
2 medical research definition to reinsert the words 'within a medical office' and then we would be
3 amending the medical office definition as Commissioner Lippert suggested to revise it to say
4 on site patient services rather than client.
5
6 Commissioner Burt: Correct.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: Correct.
9
10 Mr. Williams: So that is all part of one motion.
11
12 Commissioner Burt: Yes.
13
14 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Cassel and Bialson absent due to conflicts)
15
16 Vice Chair Packer: Are we all on board now? Are we ready for a vote? All those in favor?
17 (ayes) All those opposed? That pa~ses five to zero with two Commissioners absent because of
18 conflicts.
19
20 Okay we still other items to discuss on these districts on the Stanford lands. Do Commissioners
21 have any further comments on this portion of the Staff Report with regard to this proposal? Pat.
22
23 Commissioner Burt: One of the speakers asserted that an office that a research park use would
24 not be defined as office. I am sorry, if the Council put no constraints on office then it doesn't
25 really matter whether a use that is purely office but fora company that does R&D elsewhere
26 whether that use would be considered to be office. I guess just for my own edification I would
27 like to know maybe from Mr. Phillips is that how Stanford Research Park as a landlord within
28 their own constraints of office use is that how you define things currently?
29
30 Mr. Phillips: The constrain that we impose as a landlord that exists on many of the ground leases
31 with respect to professional office would allow an R&D use that I believe has an R&D functions
32 in the Research Park and I think there are some cases going back to the early days of the
33 Research Park that would include R&D in the Bay Area as well, and how it defines Bay Area I
34 can't recall, but for the most part it says that if on one site a company which is an R&D company
35 in the park and has R&D functions in the park is all office on that site that would be an R&D
36 company.
37
38 Commissioner Burt: Thank you. I have one other question and that has to do with when we
39 started this Zoning Ordinance Update three years ago one of the changes that was just occurring
40 was that we were suddenly facing the first time in decades where office use or R&D use were not
41 significantly higher land value than residential and we had the possibility that we might see some
42 ofthese commercial lands reused for residential purposes. Now we are three almost four years
43 after the Internet bubble burst and we are deeply within a trend in which residential land or use is
44 in most occasions a higher return on investment than commercial. It is flabbergasting that we
45 may be facing too much of a good thing. Some concerns that just weren't part of what was on
46 our radar three years ago are something that we may need to consider today. I think that Staffs
47 recommendation that R-l and R-2 not be allowed in the Research Park or the ROLM district I
48 think is an excellent recommendation. The other question is whether we should place constraints
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 29 of 53
1 on RM-30 abutting R-1 or R-2 neighborhoods in those occasions where they exist. One certainly
2 was addressed just recently with the Mayfield Agreement and there is an agreement on record
. 3 and the Council has adopted that and that is in the ordinance and that is not going to change. I
4 don't know how many other occasions we may have the backside of Barron Park abuts the rear
5 end of some of the RP uses. There may be a few other places within the Research Park where
6 we have that kind of adjacency so I think it is appropriate that we reexamine the transitional
7 zones between R-1 or R-2 neighborhoods and whether potentially RM-30 immediately adjacent
8 to those zones. I would like that discussion to occur. I don't know whether Staff has already
9 considered this and has any recommendations to make or it is up to the Commission to explore.
10
11 Vice Chair Packer: I think these are important discussions to have and I understand from the
12 notes here that the residential portion, the details of that will be deferred to later so that when we
13 are doing the RM-30 zone .. .let me go back. RM-30 development standards will be those that
14 would apply in these RP zones, therefore, when we go to the Zoning Ordinance Update for RM-
15 30 we should certainly look again at the transitional requirements. There are some transitional
16 requirements for setbacks and height for the RM-30 right now in the existing code but as we look
17 into it when we do the update for RM-30remind us what transitional development standards we
18 should have for the sites that abut the various commercial and light manufacturing and research
19 zones that we have.
20
21 Commissioner Burt: If I might say I think that is a good point although when we discussed RM-
22 30 previously we weren't thinking about RM-30 in the commercial areas we were only thinking
23 ofRM-30 where it is specifically an RM-30 zone. This broadens the discussion and if that is the
24 appropriate time to consider this I am comfortable with that.
25
26 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, Karen had her hand up. After Karen gets her thought out I want to
27 ask Commissioners how much time we have on this because it might be good to finish this up
28 and call Phyllis back in and do the west side.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Just a reminder that I support what Commissioner Burt was saying
31 regarding adjacencies and also just as a reminder that a very good planning tenant is that you
32 don't change zoning in the middle of the street so if we can take this back to where we do reflect
33 . what is across the street we will accomplish much greater compatibility as we have in the Comp
34 Plan. That doesn't mean to say that the Research Park is going to be redeveloped and its
35 perimeters as R-1 at the same time I am a strong believer that you don't allow something by
36 zoning that you don't want to have happen. So if we have an opportunity to create better
37 transition and better reflectivity then I think this is the appropriate time to do that. The other
38 thing is that it isn't just the RM-30 that we would be looking at because these zones allow
39 housing. So it isn't just the multi-family zones that we would be looking at to make these
40 changes.
41
42 Vice Chair Packer: These zones now would prohibit the low-density housing and any multi-
43 family housing would be done to the· development standards of the RM-30 district. So that is
·44 what we would be looking at. So when we look at the RM-30 district we should be aware that it
45 could happen anywhere not only in RM-30 zone places but in RP and all the other districts of the
46 mUltiple family.
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 30 of 53
1 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, with that would you like to take a break? Lee what about your
2 thought?
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: No, no we can take a break.
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, keep your thought. Seven minutes.
7
8 Lee had something he wanted to say, he was next.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I just wanted to support what both Pat and Karen said here but I
11 wanted to add another perspective to it which is one of the reasons to limit or not allow the lower
12 density housing is that when we begin to encourage the higher density housing it begins to get us
13 in the direction ofthe job/housing imbalance and getting that righted. That wasn't really said.
14
15 Commissioner Burt: I concur with you and the discussions thatwe had in great depth in the
16 years of the ZOU before you joined the Commission have been consistent with that is why we
17 were in fact enthusiastic about this being a rare opportunity to shift the jobs/housing imbalance
18 not only by adding more housing but potentially conversion of commercial land to residential
19 which is the most significant way that we could address that imbalance. What is the great irony
20 is that events have almost overtaken our advocacy ofthat and it is something that has surprised
21 us enough that we all are needing to take a step back and say okay; let's make sure we get this
22 balance correct.
23
24 Vice Chair Packer: I would like to just point out that I brought the Housing Element from 2002
25 and Program H-3 says encourage the conversion of non-residential lands to residential use to
26 both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and decrease the potential
27 for the creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new housing.
28
29 Commissioner Burt: I don't know whether that was my exact wording or close to it. I was and
30 remain an advocate for that approach. It doesn't mean that we can never have too much of a
31 good thing and that is the point I was wanting to make. There may now be certain ways in which
32 we have to rethink to make sure that these changes that are occurring are being done in the way
33 that we would choose them if we were to look at them again and say okay, what are the trends
34 and how should we manage them.
35
36 Vice Chair Packer: Michael.
37
38 Commissioner Griffin: I support those general comments pretty completely actually. I would
39 like to propose that we consider an addition to our draft ordinance here that would encompass the
40 idea of a transition zone. I am thinking that RM -15 would be an appropria:te way to go. I do
41 realize there are others of us here who might look at even an R-l facing an R-l district but
42 myself! think I am more comfortable with the concept that Curtis has discussed here in his Staff
43 Report, which is trying to avoid having low density housing in a commercial district and rather
44 sticking with an RM-15.
45
46 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 32 of 53
1 Commissioner Holman: I agree that single family and two family should not proliferate in these
2 commercial zones. At the same time this Commission recommended to Council when we were
3 looking at the Stanford Mayfield Agreement that there be consideration given for R-l along the
4 California Avenue edge to reflect the existing development across the street. What I think is
5 appropriate is that we continue the support for that and that we do exactly what Commissioner
6 Griffin mentioned in terms of transition but where we have opportunities to create
7 compatibilities by reflecting the zoning across the street that we implement that and then we
8 transition from there. So I think maybe where we would address this and my question to Staff is
9 sort of as a follow up to where we were earlier to address that in RM-30 I am not certain gets at
10 that point because what we are looking at is in this case RP which has existing allowance for
11 multi-family. So if we wanted to change RP to allow and even encourage single family or two
12 family on the perimeters as it reflects what is across the street not just on California Avenue that
13 it would seem this would be the time to do that and not when we are looking at multi-family but I
14 will leave it to you to comment.
15
16 Mr. Williams: I understand what you are saying. I think there are a couple things. One is we
17 think an appropriate transition is RM-15 even if it is across the street but I think the longer term
18 solution and we have actually looked at this and some diagrams for the California Avenue sites
19· very early on is to use the Village Residential approach on those properties which would allow
20 the flexibility to take an RM -15 type of density and create it in a way that would allow for some
21 single family along the frontage and then a higher density behind that so that it averages out to
22 RM-15. Obviously that product isn't here yet but that would be something that would be
23 allowable within the RM-15 zone and we think that is a better way to be flexible with that than
24 trying to create the potential·for R-l zoning. We also think that that product that single family
25 component most likely will be smaller lots than a 6,000 square foot lot too. So that wouldn't be
26 an R-l necessarily, it may not always be but I think generally it probably would be so that it
27 would more appropriately fit under the flexibility that the Village Residential product would
28 have to do that.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: I am interested in that approach and it sounds like a feasible one. Then
31 since we have this in front of us now what are you suggesting in terms of when we would
32 integrate that into the RP zone for instance?
33
34 Mr. Williams: Well my suggestion was that if! am hearing the direction you want to go that we
35 add a paragraph here where it says RM-30 currently that we add in front ofthat a paragraph
36 saying that any residential development that is within and I am using 150 feet again of a .
37 residential zone be developed per the RM-15 standards and then when Village Residential is
38 developed it will be an allowable development type within the RM-15 zone and could be applied
39 in these situations.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: Then I have something more specific. There is a compatibility issue too
42 which my personal comfort was not satisfied with the RM-15 on California Avenue in the
43 Stanford Mayfield Agreement. So there are issues of compatibility here too. I like the direction
44 that that's headed and if there could be more specificity provided in that that addresses
45 compatibility that would be I think a really good approach.
46
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 33 of 53
1 Mr. Williams: I think the compatibility issue is part and parcel of the Village Residential and I
2 would be hesitant to try to put something in this ordinance to address that. I would prefer to wait
3 and work that in with the Village Residential.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: So could we have like a placeholder?
6
7 Commissioner Griffin: Or use the term Village Residential.
8
9 Vice Chair Packer: Commissioners, I have to remind you that Zariah is concerned when we
10 speak on top of one another so let's try to speak one at a time. Lee had his hand up and then I
11 will come back to you, Michael.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to follow up on Curtis's comment here that the assumptions
14 that we make is that the RM configuration is a block of housing and that is not necessarily the
15 case. There are a lot of really good examples in Palo Alto where RM-15 I think even RM-30 has
16 been developed almost on a model of almost single-family detached units. A really good
17 example of that is Wisteria Lane in Barron Park. Wisteria is right off of El Camino Real and
18 what it does is acts as a transition between the single family residential and the apartment units
19 on that street there. For all practical purposes it has a private drive that looks like a paved street
20 and it has I think it is a dozen individual houses with parking between them and they look like
21 single-family houses. So I think that the Village Residential model will make for a very good
22 application here.
23
24 Vice Chair Packer: Michael.
25
26 Commissioner Griffin: Ijust wondered if we couldn't bring this together by referencing a
27 transition zone ofRM-15 incorporating any future Village Residential zoning models or words to
28 that effect so that you pull them together.
29
30 Vice Chair Packer: Michael, would you like to make that into a motion?
31
32 Commissioner Burt: Did John want to add something?
33
34 Mr. Lusardi: Just a couple of points. I am pretty sure I am correct that there is already a 50-foot
35 setback on California Avenue so you have the transitional element already in place. So to start at
36 that 50 foot if you start with RM-15 I think that is a good transition element there to start with.
37 So what we can do is as Curtis said require RM-15 within 150 feet of any low density residential
38 neighborhood then much like we have written already in the draft ordinance I am using the
39 example where we put in limitations on medical support services where we had an intent
40 statement. The intent here is to provide these kinds of limitations or transitions. We can put that
41 language in there so it is really clear what the purpose of what the Commission is recommending
42 to do and we can even put in the language knowing that we don't have Village Residential yet
43 that Village Residential is encouraged in these areas. So when you get to the Village Residential
44 you will know that you will have to address that kind of physical transition and that contextual
45 issue .. We could put that kind oflanguage in addition to the RM-15.
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
48
City of Palo A Ito May 18,2005 Page 34 of 53
1 Commissioner Burt: John, when you mention the 50 foot setback I am not sure that I would
2 advocate a 50 foot setback if we were having essentially a Village Residential interface. So I
3 would support a street setback somewhat mirroring the opposite side of the street. Our intention
4 is to not have transitions at mid street and if you have a 20 foot setback on the other side of the
5 street ofR-l or R-2 homes then this Village Residential component I would support bringing it
6 closer to the street and then behind that transition upward the density to average out to the RM-
7 15.
8
9 Vice Chair Packer: Soin other words that landscape requirement would not apply if there is
10 housing.
11
12 Commissioner Burt: Right.
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: The way we might want to look at it then is permitting a 20-foot setback
15 when the RM -15 units are developed as'individual detached units. Therefore, they begin to take
16 on a configuration of single family even thought it is not single family.
17
18 Vice Chair Packer: John.
19
20 Mr. Lusardi: Again, the 50-foot setback is on the zoning maps so we would have to change the
21 map for that 50-foot setback. So maybe the direction to go is require the RM-15 within 150 feet
22 of low density residential, leave the 50 foot setback there now because it provides that
23 protection. When the Village Residential is developed we develop it if you are satisfied with it
24 creating a good transitional element in that setback could be reduced then you could direct us to
25 go and change that setback at that point.
26
27 Vice Chair Packer: Commissioners I am getting a sense that we are on the same page on this
28 issue. Do you have one more comment and then maybe someone can craft a motion?
29
30 Commissioner Holman: I do have one more comment to add to the purpose that you stated well,
31 John, is the issue of compatibility. I didn't hear that in the purpose and I would think that this
32 Commission in implementing the Comp Plan would like to have compatibility as part of the
33 purpose ofthat. Also, I am not sure who said it but the transition then you actually could have
34 R-l and then behind that an RM-15 so that you could get the transition that way.
35
36 Vice Chair Packer: I am not hearing the rest of the Commissioners saying that we need an R-l
37 because what is in front of us R-l and R-2 would not be permitted and what we are discussing is
38 having RM-15 encouraging a Village Residential format within the RM-15 and then when we are
39 doing the RM.;.15 and Village Residential districts we will keep that in mind that it could be used
40 in an RP setting. Pat.
41
42 Commissioner Burt: I was willing to take a stab at a motion.
43
44 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, go for it.
45
46 MOTION
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 35 of 53
1 Commissioner Burt: So my motion would be that, and this is really as a placeholder until we
2 have Village Residential come back to us, that on any RP zones that have residential within 150
3 ofR-l or R-2 districts that the zoning for that area be RM-15 and that supplemental, not part of
4 the ordinance but supplemental for the record would be that at the time that we review Village
5 Residential districts we will review the applicability of those design elements to the transition
6 areas between these RM-15 zones and adjacent residential.
7
8 SECOND
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: I'll second that.
11
12 Vice Chair Packer: Do you want to speak to it?
13
14 Commissioner Burt: Well, the only thing I would add is that I do concur that our objective is to
15 4ave a compatibility of design and an approximate compatibility of density at the street interface.
16 That does not in my mind necessarily have to be an R-l or R-2 density to achieve that but it has
17 to have the look and the feel of single family homes that are compatible with the surrounding
18 neighborhoods and that we will address those issues in greater detail when we have the Village
19 Residential and the RM -15 zoning presented to us.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: I think your motion incorporates the concerns and feelings of myself and
22 what I have heard from my colleagues here.
23
24 Vice Chair Packer: Michael, did you want to say something?
25
26 Commissioner Griffin: I was just going to clarify. So your motion does not envision making
27 any specific reference to Village Residential it just will stop at RM-15?
28
29 Commissioner Burt: Well, we have two issues. One is recommendations on zoning ordinance
30 language at this time and my understanding is as far as we can go right now is to recommend that
31 we are essentially down zoning the areas in the RP within 150 feet of residential areas to an RM-
32 15. But we cant' take up the parameters of the Village Residential and include them at this time
33 because they haven't been presented to us but we have a clear understanding that it is our
34 intention to review their applicability to this are, this transition zone, when they come to us.
35 Does that seem correct?
36
37 Mr. Lusardi: Yes and I think the intent statement is certainly doable we can do that. Just to
38 point out again when you get through the RM-15 and the Village Residential I don't think it
39 would be very complicated if you felt that you wanted to be more specific in that industrial area
40 for us to make minor amendments to the new industrial zone.
41
42 Commissioner Burt: I was remiss I did not specifically state that we would like to have the
43 intent statement as previously stated by Mr. Lusardi with the component of compatibility
44 included as part of the motion. If that is acceptable to the seconder I would like to include that in
45 the primary motion.
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: Is there any further discussion or can move to a vote? Curtis do you have
48 something?
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 36 of 53
1
2 Mr. Williams: I don't want to confuse the issue too much but and this could be a separate item
3 but the MOR, Medical OfficelMedical Research zone, is also some part of what you are
4 considering in this half of the discussion. That also allows RM-30. Do you want to take that up
5 separately or do you want to include it? The language in here deals with both of those areas right
6 now.
7
8 Commissioner Burt: I guess it does include that. I am recalling that it was about four years ago
9 that we had a big brew-haha where we in our exuberance for creating housing opportunities we
10 considered rezoning parts of that MOR district for residential. That was appropriately shot down
11 and the sensitivity toward retaining local medical uses was brought to our attention. I hadn't
12 appreciated that under current zoning we didn't prohibit it we just didn't rezone it. So in that
13 area we could still have someone come in and have right to put an RM-30 or possibly RM-15 in
14 the MOR district. So we have a separate question it seems that we really haven't discussed here
15 and I guess I would not want to include it as part ofthis motion. I think it needs additional
16 discussion what do we want to do in the MOR as far as what should be allowed. Perhaps we
17 don't allow any RM in the MOR. So my answer would be thank you for raising that issue and I
18 would reconimend that this motion only apply to the two types of RP districts as was stated in
19 the motion and then we will have to consider what Curtis raised separately.
20
21 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: A quick one here. So we might follow up here with a motion regarding
24 MOR?
25
26 Commissioner Burt: Yes.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: Okay, then regarding the RP zonesI guess sometimes what gets picked
29 out is the motion I appreciate that the purpose or the intention is included as a part of the motion.
30 The Village Residential not being a part of the motion I would rather it be a part of it.
31
32 I would make a friendly amendment that there be a reference added to Village Residential and
33 the intents of it in terms of compatibility be added to the motion.
34
35 Commissioner Burt: So let me just make sure I understand the friendly amendment. It would be
36 to explicitly state that itis the intention of the Commission to review the applicability of Village
37 Residential as a transition use in this RM-15 district or RM-15 allowable use area when Village
38 Residential comes back to us. Does that capture what you are looking for?
39
40 Commissioner Holman: That is probably close enough.
41
42 Commissioner Burt: Okay, if that were your friendly amendment I would accept that.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have a problem with that.
45
46 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Cassel and Bialson absent due to conflicts)
47
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 37 of 53
1 Vice Chair Packer: Are we ready then Commissioners for a vote on this motion? All those in
2 favor of Pat's motion about transitional housing in the RP districts please say aye. (ayes) Any
3 opposed? That passes five in favor and two Commissioners absent because of conflict,
4 Commissioners Cassel and Bialson.
5
6 We can move on to the next issue. You raised the issue about housing. There is so much history
7 back there I don't know or how much can you tell us in like two minutes, it is 9:30, for us to go
8 forward with something really drastic like removing RM-30 from that area I think is maybe a
9 bigger step than we have the information to do.
10
11 Commissioner Burt: Maybe we can get a legal opinion on this.
12
13 Mr. Larkin: The only thing I can offer is if the Commission were to do something that drastic it
14 would require an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.
15
16 Vice Chair Packer: I remember that any time anyone suggested housing those doctors came out
17 in force and I don't even think you need a zoning change. I think life will work itself out.
18
19 Commissioner Burt: Then I would recommend that we simply conclude for the record as this
20 goes to Council that this may be something that they would want to consider and it would require
21 a Comprehensive Plan amendment and that it became apparent to us that this is an issue and one
22 that we cannot address at this time and just raise a flag for them.
23
24 Vice Chair Packer: Are the Commissioners happy with that and agree with that? Do we have a
25 consensus on that position? I don't think we need a motion on it.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: No, I have a different view on that which is that we have seen
28 development of housing along Sandhill Road, which is really the backside of Welch Road. With
29 that we have also seen some additional housing added at the very far west end of Welch Road.
30 So I think that we would want, or at least I would want, to see the door left open in terms of
31 housing there. I don't think it necessarily will negate or remove medical office space at this
32 point in time but I do believe that if someone were to come by I think that those sites could be
33 redeveloped in a way that might be developed in a higher density that would include both the
34 residential and a medical component making use ofthe frontage road on Sandhill as well as
35 Welch Road but the buildings do not have to remain in those configurations.
36
37 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
38
39 Commissioner Holman: I am wondering whether we really should have a motion to give
40 indication of where we land on this. I don't believe there are any residential properties that abut
41 directly. I didn't think there were. Oh, there are? Mr. Phillips is saying yes.
42
43 Vice Chair·Packer: Yes.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: Yes.
46
47 Ms. Grote: I think RM-40 there is a little piece that abuts it.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 38 of 53
1 Commissioner Holman: Okay, but there is no low density. I guess I saw Lisa react when this
2 topic came up a few moments ago so I guess I would like to hear what your concerns might be,
3 Lisa.
4
5 Ms. Grote: About housing on Welch Road?
6
7 Commissioner Holman: About in the MOR zone if we would consider should there be a motion
8 made to Council to consider eliminating the housing opportunity in the MOR zone. You seem
9 like you might have reservations.
10
11 Ms. Grote: No, I didn't. I was just remembering when it was discussed to have housing in that
12 area that it was not well received by the occupants of the buildings then. But no I don't have a
13 recommendation on whether or not you should take out the housing in the MOR district.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: The only point that I am trying to make is that the medical office space
16 can be moved into a higher density configuration. A lot ofthose are low-rise buildings and they
17 may be underutilized in terms of their density. Simply by taking that square footage and
18 consolidating it and putting it into a higher density configuration you can wind up with other
19 pieces of property that could be either redeveloped into more office space, medical office space
20 if there is a demand for it, or high density residential.
21
22 Vice Chair Packer: I agree with Lee, I think we should leave what is there alone, keep the RM-
23 30 as it is now. This is not the last time that the City will look at this ordinance. I am sure it
24 could come back again if the need happens. I would keep it the same. We have already, earlier
25 this evening, expressed our desire to maintain medical offices by limiting the medical research
26 and I think that message will go to Council. Pat.
27
28 Commissioner Burt: I think perhaps two things. One if we are at this point in time absent a
29 more comprehensive review of whether it is possible to integrate those uses the concern that we
30 started with here is that we have allowable use for RM-30 and just as we have seen commercial
31 convert to residential in places that were very surprising to us over the last year as presently
32 zoned that could happen at any time. I would recommend that at a minimum essentially as a
33 placeholder we look at putting the RM-15 overlay within the MOR region. It makes it a lower
34 incentive to convert to residential and that we raise this as an issue to Council without a
35 recommendation to say that this is a separate issue that requires greater consideration on what
36 should be done in the MOR district as far as future allowance for medium density housing as the
37 code would currently allow but it would require a Comp Plan change to do something other than
38 the RM-15 restriction as I understand it.
39
40 Vice Chair Packer: Michael, do you want to weigh in on this?
41
42 Commissioner Griffin: Yes, let's hear what the City Attorney says. I am wondering if we have
43 the ability to do a sense of the Commission type of a document.
44
45 Mr. Larkin: Well, you could certainly make recommendations. The issue comes when there is
46 an elimination of housing in any district. That would require an amendment to the
47 Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan encourages housing in all zones as it is
48 now stated.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 39 of 53
t,
1
2 Commissioner Griffin: But could we not then in fact suggest that very thing in some sort of a
3 sense of the Commission letter or include it within in perhaps just th~ minutes of this meeting?
4
5 Mr. Larkin: It is within the Commission's power or authority to recommend changes to the
6 Comprehensive Plan or to any zoning ordinance. It is preferable to do it certainly if the
7 Commission's recommendation was to reduce or eliminate housing in a particular zone the
8 recommendation could be made with the caveat that the Commission understands that it would
9 require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
10 would have to come up as a separate notice motion because it would require CEQA compliance
11 and other things that we haven't done in preparation for this.
12
13 Vice Chair Packer: Can I ask Don a question? Even a recommendation in this regard has this as
14 such been adequately noticed for us to even make a recommendation?
15
16 Mr. Larkin: The discussion has been adequately noticed and the Commission can certainly make
17 that recommendation but before final action can be taken it would probably need to come back
18 agam.
19
20 Commissioner Burt: Maybe we can cut this. Even though my present sentiments would lean
21 toward what Michael was talking about I don't feel like we have had an adequate opportunity to
22 really consider it and have Staff evaluate it. I think it would be premature, Lee has raised
23 alternatives and those are the kinds of things I think a more thoughtful discussion and
24 consideration should be done before making a recommendation. I do think that we should raise a
25 flag to the Council.
26
27 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: I think we ought to definitely raise the flag as you say, Commissioner
30 Burt, to Council about considering this. There is a value put on the medical offices and I don't
31 want to repeat everything that has been said before certainly but there have been instances of
32 offices converting to housing to an extent that you would have never anticipated and could
33 actually be detrimental to the community. So I just wanted to say that I think Council should
34 take a serious look at this whether we should allow housing in the MOR.
35
36 Just one quick comment too. Ijust want to say something I have been very cognizant of tonight
37 is that City Attorney qnd other Staff have been very helpful in these discussions as they have
38 intetjected, raised their hands, to be value added to our discussions. I can't tell you how much I
39 appreciate that.
40
41 Vice Chair Packer: Thank you.
42
43 Mr. Lusardi: You can make that recommendation to the Council that the Council give Staff that
44 direction and the Council can give Staff that direction but I just want to be very clear that that
45 will not happen until after the Zoning Ordinance is over, the timing of it all. Ijust want to make
46 that clear as far as the workload issue goes.
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 40 of 53
1 Vice Chair Packer: I want to throw my two cents in. I am not going to waive that flag. I am
2 keeping my flag down because I believe that we are guided by the Housing Element and the
3 issue of encouraging the conversion of non-residential lands to residential use. We are guided by
4 the fact that we have had this ability in our zoning ordinance from day one and residences
5 haven't happened in the MOR. There was a threat for a while and it got squashed but I don't
6 think that we should at this point raise that there is a need to eliminate residential at all in that
7 district. I think it would be contrary to Housing Element, which is part of the Comprehensive
8 Plan, and I don't really see the need. It is just to drastic a step so I am not going to waive that
9 flag and I just want to go on record.
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: I want to support Bonnie's comment here. I think it is very important
12 and I want to leave the Commission with a certain integer feeling which is that this is area, the
13 Welch Road/Sandhill parcel that we are talking about here, really has the ability to developer a
14 very, very livable community in terms of having housing, shopping and work all within
15 . proximity of each other. Stanford has already said that Stanford West Housing is really
16 developed, as a way of meeting the housing needs for staff and faculty. It may not be operating
17 as that but the senior component being directly across from shopping and in close proximity to
18 the hospital and now this Welch Road area and the MOR having the ability to be a connection
19 between all of those I think really has the ability to make this into a really very vibrant new
20 neighborhood in Palo Alto.
21
22 Commissioner Burt: Ifwe don't have a consensus to raise a red flag we have comments in the
23 minutes and the Council can hear what we had to say. We do have a separate question of what
24 RM zoning we think should be allowed within the MOR district. That is consistent with what we
25 were just taking up previously in the RP district but that is something that we should be making a
26 recommendation on tonight. So we have that decision to make.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: Do you want to propose that we try the transitional RM-15 for that district?
29
30 Commissioner Burt: My inclination would be to put an RM-15 restriction on the MOR district.
31 So before I make that as a motion I want to get a sense of the Commission.
32
33 Vice Chair Packer: I personally don't think it is necessary. Once you are within 150 feet it
34 might cover the whole district it is such a narrow area and there aren't any low density.
35
36 Commissioner Burt: It is much wider than 150 feet.
37
38 Vice Chair Packer: That could be but I don't know. You may end up with such a small area for
39 the RM-30 that it might not work. Also, there may not be a need because I don't know that there
40 is any low density nearby .. So it maybe just ....
41
.42 Commissioner Burt: Well, we have two different reasons that we might ... I think you are
43 transposing the reason that existed in the RP area. In this case there may be a different
44 motivation for the RM-15 restriction and that is to not create a greater incentive to convert these
45 medical offices to residential because the return on investment for the RM-30 is higher than for
46 the RM-15. It would reduce the incentive to convert those if we had an RM-15 restriction.
47
48 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 41 of 53
1
2 Commissioner Holman: I appreciate the intentions and I know it is to reduce the incentive. My
3 quandary here is that the physical development standards ofRM-15 are not as compatible with
4 the MOR development standards. So it is a quandary. I appreciate the intention I think I would
5 have to have some physical example or examination of how compatibility would play out.
6
7 Vice Chair Packer: Just for a moment, this is a good discussion but it is ten to ten and I don't
8 know that we are going to get to the east side tonight and still be awake. I am concerned because
9 we have the June 6 date to bring this ordinance to the Council. Do we have another option to
10 continue this to another meeting?
11
12 Ms. Grote: You could continue it to a special meeting.
13
14 Vice Chair Packer: A special meeting. I need to stop and do this now because it is ten to ten and
15 then we can continue our discussion.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: The 19th•
18
19 Ms. Grote: That is not a usual meeting night but it is an open Wednesday if you want to
20 continue it to that date.
21
22 Vice Chair Packer: Will that still give you enough time to get the ordinance to Council?
23
24 Mr. Williams: The 18th is next week.
25
26 Vice Chair Packer: It is the 18th that is a Wednesday.
27
28 Mr. Lusardi: If you complete the Stanford side tonight and make a recommendation on that we
29 will start the changes in the ordinance with respect to that. That will give us enough time if you
30 come back next week and give us direction to finish.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: What may also be helpful if especially some of the issues on the housing
33 maybe our discussion on that may be applicable to the west side and Phyllis would have the
34 benefit of our discussions. I don't know ifit is possible to even have our minutes.
35
36 Mr. Larkin: Actually it would be not recommended to do so.
37
38 Vice Chair Packer: Not recommended, that's right. But we may repeat some of our concerns to
39 the extent they may apply to the east. Okay, so is May 18th the day that we would continue this?
40 Is this a date that the Commissioners are available? And Staff?
41
42 So can we continue our discussion but have a motion to continue or do we have to do it at the
43 end? I wanted to continue our discussion on the RM-15 for MOR.
44
45 Mr. Larkin: I think if it is the consensus that it is preferable to continue the second matter after
46 you completed this. You can't get to the east side until we finish the west.
47
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 42 of 53
1 Vice Chair Packer: We will complete the west side tonight and then we will continue the east
2 side to May 18 to a special meeting.
3
4 Mr. Larkin: I think if the Commission is comfortable we can inform the Chair that she can go
5 home.
6
7 Vice Chair Packer: She can't because I am driving her.
8
9 Mr. Larkin: But the motion to continue can't happen until the west side has been completed
10 unless there was a motion to continue the west side as well.
11
12 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, Ijust wanted to know where were we going with that. Now I will
13 bring the discussion back to where we were with the MOR residential issue. Michael.
14
15 Commissioner Griffin: I want to ask Staff to help clarify this now. As it exists today in your
16 recommendation we are at RM-30. Am I saying that correctly?
17
18 Mr. Lusardi: Right.
19
20 Commissioner Griffin: I tend to be empathetic to Commissioner Holman's point of view here
21 that while indeed downsizing would have the desired affect that we have been discussing here
22 this is a tricky are and I am not sure that I am really comfortable with playing with the zoning
23 density for the RM component and I would feel better leaving it as it is and coming back another
24 day if we wish to do further tweaking. So I am saying leave it as is.
25
26 Vice Chair Packer: I am ofthe same inclination to leave it as it is.
27
28 Commissioner Burt: Question. Do we have another day? This is our shot and I agree that I
29 don't feel entirely comfortable feeling like we are rushing into a decision on this either. Curtis
30 raised a good issue and suddenly we realized that was something that we hadn't really been
31 considering and facing for the ramifications but unfortunately l.don't think we have another day.
32 This is our primary shot. This has gone to the Council once, it has come back to us, and this is
33 probably our last shot under the Zoning Ordinance Update to make a decision one way or
34 another on what we recommend to Council.
35
36 Vice Chair Packer: Michael.
37
38 Commissioner Griffin: Okay, I hear that. I am also thinking that the housing that is nearby is
39 not low density, the campus west housing is RM-40 and consequently I am not particularly
40 enthusiastic about down-zoning it in the face of the proximity of this higher zoning.
41
42 Commissioner Burt: In this case in my mind my purpose would not be a transition objective.
43 My purpose would be to try to reduce the likelihood that we would lose the medical office.
44
45 Vice Chair Packer: Ijust want to go around and see what everybody's sense is. Lee.
46
47 Commissioner Lippert: I am in agreement with both Commissioner Holman and Commissioner
48 Griffin in their comments that if there was a Housing Element I would not want to see a lower
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 43 of 53
1 density. It may be inevitable that multi-family housing does trump medical or is developed in
2 conjunction with medical.
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: One more thing and I think Pat I am counting heads and I think we see
5 where this is going.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: I said earlier that I was in a quandary and my quandary didn't have to
8 do with the Housing Element because well Commissioner Burt said something earlier about too
9 much of a good thing and I have framed it sometimes as sometimes being singly focused and to
10 have a healthy vital community we need to be more than singly focused. While housing is so
11 very important and we have a jobslhousing imbalance I think we can also go too far in one
12 direction whether it is housing or whatever that is. Thinking about this and hearing other
13 Commissioner's comments I am persuaded that I think it would be advisable to recommend
14 Council to consider reducing the RM-30 to RM-15. The reason is because it would foster
15 support of the medical offices and also because my concern was about physical compatibility of
16 development but if the potential is less with a lower zoning opportunity I think that
17 incompatibility would be less likely to happen and that the medical offices would stay. So I
18 would actually and I have to come down on one side or the other and I am coming down on the
19 side ofRM-15 being preferable to RM-30.
20
21 Commissioner Burt: Well, first I would like to.make one more quick point too. Out ofthe
22 concern for the Housing Element we just finished changing the zoning in the RP district from
23 RM-30 to RM-15 and we never had this concern in that district. Why is this suddenly an
24 overriding concern here? RM-15 is still moderately dense housing. We are not damaging our
25 hQusing opportunities in any significant way I don't think because partly it has never been, it is
26 not within the Housing Element, identified as an area that has been intended for housing. In fact,
27 four years ago we had the Council very specifically refute a proposal to take those transitional
28 areas, some of those border areas of this district, and rezone them for housing and it was an
29 emphatic no. So the argument that this proposal is inconsistent with the Housing Element first it
30 is still retains the opportunity for housing and second the Council was very clear that this was not
31 an area that they were targeting for housing. .
32
33 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. Pat would you like to make a motion?
34
35 MOTION
36
37 Commissioner Burt: Yes. I will make a motion that the MOR district have an RM-15 limitation
38 on housing that would be allowed within it.
39
40 SECOND
41
42 Commissioner Holman: Second.
43
44 Vice Chair Packer: Would you like to speak to it or do you think you have already done it.
45
46 Commissioner Burt: I think I have covered the ground.
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 44 of 53
1 MOTION FAILS (2-3-0-2, Commissioners Burt and Holman voted yes, Commissioner Griffin,
2 Lippert and Packer voted no and Commissioners Cassel and Bialson absent due to conflict)
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, we will have a vote on Pat's motion. All those in favor? (ayes) I
5 have two in favor. All those opposed? (nays) So Lippert, Packer and Griffin voted nay and
6 Burt and Holman voted aye on the motion so it fails. We also have to absences due to conflicts
7 of interest.
8
9 Okay, are there any other topics we wish to raise on the west districts considering it is ten
10 0' clock and we have to finish this tonight?
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: I would like to get to some resolution of how to deal with the
15 performance standards and the development standc:trds and the compatibility of those given the
16 performance standards are coming back to us later. Understanding that we don't have analyses
17 in front of us that address what the noise impacts or the revised noise ordinance which is a long
18 time coming and overdue in coming but we also have issues of fumes here and something that
19 our noise ordinance has never addressed is ambient noise. So I would just go back to my earlier
20 comments saying that allowing all of these types of equipment on roofs, they are allowed there
21 now, yes, but is that a good thing? I don't know that it is. So allowing it now without that
22 information I would at a minimum suggest that we have opportunity to readdress the
23 development standards for this kind of equipment when the performance standards come back to
24 us rather than approving the development standards now but impacts that are truly not fully
25 disclosed to us at this point.
26
27 Vice Chair Packer: In order to facilitate a resolution of how we feel on this would you like to
28 make that in the form of a motion?
29
30 Commissioner Holman: I would do that.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: That way we can see how it stands.
33
34 MOTION
35
36 Commissioner Holman: Okay. I move that we have opportunity when the performance
37 standards come forward to us for these zones that we are addressing at the moment having to do
38 with lighting, visual, noise, fumes and all the performance standards that we at that same time
39 have opportunity to readdress development standards having to do with placement of such
40 equipment.
41
42 Vice Chair Packer: Is there a second?
43
44 SECOND
45
46 Commissioner Griffin: I will second it.
47
48 Vice Chair Packer: Do you want to speak to it, Karen?
City of Palo A Ito May 18.2005 Page 45 of 53
1
2 Commissioner Holman: I think I really already have. I don't think I need to anymore.
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: Michael.
5
6 Commissioner Griffin: I concur with Commissioner Holman that this is a worthwhile subject to
7 delve into in more detail than we have up until now. I think it has great impacts on residential
8 communities and I support that kind of investigation.
9
10 Vice Chair Packer: John, you had something?
11
12 Mr. Lusardi: A recommendation on the motion is that you might want to add to that motion the
13 reason we don't have the performance standards completed yet is we need to work them through
14 the Architectural Review Board who has the expertise to look at these details. You might want
15 to add to that motion that the Architectural Review Board looks at the placement of the
16 equipment in the context of the performance standards to address noise and odor issues as well.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: I am happy to incorporate that whether or not we also have an
19 environmental consultant that we have had on board. I presume information would be coming
20 from the environmental consultant as well.
21
22 Mr. Larkin: Before we get too much farther rather than making a motion the preferred method
23 would be that you make a request to Staff to explore this as part of the questions because there
24 has been no notice that the performance standards would be addressed at this time. So rather
25 than making a motion a request for Staff to bring forward the proposal would be more
26 appropriate.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: But I am not suggesting that we look at the performance standards at
29 this time though. My motion addresses the development standards that are in front of us.
30
31 Mr. Larkin: If you are asking that it be incorporated in the zoning ordinance then that is different
32 but that is not what I heard. So maybe if you could restate it.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: Okay, I will restate a motion that you have already seconded, what is
35 the process for that?
36
37 Commissioner Burt: Just restate it.
38
39 Commissioner Holman: I would move that when the performance standards corne back to the
40 Planning Commission with input from the environmental consultant. ..
41
42 Mr. Larkin: That is actually the language I am concerned about because the performance
43 standards aren't before you yet so ....
44
45 Commissioner Holman: Let me finish.
46
47 Mr. Larkin: So don't move that when the performance standards come back because we are not
48 talking about the performance standards yet.
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 46 of 53
1
2 Commissioner Burt: How would you recommend that she phrase the intent?
3
4 Mr. Larkin: Well, the recommendation would be to make a request of Staff to come back. So
5 instead of framing it as a motion you can make the same motion but do it as a request of Staff
6 instead of a motion.
7
8 Vice Chair Packer: What I think Karen is concerned about is if we recommend approval of this
9 ordinance with its development standards and it gets approved by Council but then when we look
10 at the performance standards later and say oh my gosh, we have these development standards
11 that we are stuck with because that is approved but because of the performance standards I am
12 not happy with the development standards she would want the opportunity to play with it or go
13 back and reconsider the ordinance.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: You nailed it Commissioner Packer, absolutely.
16
17 Vice Chair Packer: I don't know if I agree with it but I can state it.
18
19 Commissioner Burt: So how can we address that within the context of approval or our
20 recommendations on the ZOU elements before us tonight?
21
22 Mr. Larkin: As long as you are not taking action requesting something specific in the
23 performance standards -it is a chicken and egg dilemma.
24
25 Ms. Grote: Could the motion just then be flipped to say that the Commission would have an
26 opportunity to reevaluate the development standards especially with regard to placement of
27 mechanical equipment once performance standards have come before you and been addressed?
28 Could that motion be made?
29
30 Mr. Larkin: Yes.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: I am happy with that, thank you Lisa.
33
34 Vice Chair Packer: So now that is Karen's motion as done by Lisa and accepted by the
35 seconder. You don't want to speak to it because you have already spoken.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: I think you spoke very well to it.
38
39 Vice Chair Packer: I described to it. Other Commissioners, would you like to weigh in on this?
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: I think it is prudent. I think it is important. I think that it will validate
42 what we are trying to accomplish here more than diminish it.
43
44 Vice Chair Packer: I have a question for Staff. Would the review of the performance standards
45 would that come before the final Zoning Ordinance Update? This set of districts is going to go
46 before Council and get approved and be standalone or is it part of the big picture of the rest of
47 the ZOU? The low density residential was approved and that is done and Ijust wondered at what
City of Palo A Ito May 18,2005 Page 47 of 53
"
1 point would we be coming back to review the development standards and is that going to create
2 an unreasonable delay in getting the whole Zoning Ordinance Update?
3
4 Mr. Lusardi: The answer is is what we are asking the Commission to recommend to the Council
5 is that they adopt the industrial and R&D chapter as a standalone chapter that will become
6 effective with Council's action. The performance standards area separate chapter. It is part of
7 the overall Zoning Ordinance Update so we do need to look at the performance standards. I
8 don't think there is any question about that. What we have here is the performance standards are
9 both industrial and commercial so that is why they are not here with the industrial or by
10 themselves because we also have to look into it But you will be seeing a chapter on
11 performance standards for industrial and commercial and there wUl be an opportunity then to
12 look visit the development standards that you are just recommending on tonight at the same time.
13
14 MOTION PASSED (4-1-0-2, Commissioner Packer voting no and Commissioners Cassel and
15 Bialson absent due to conflicts)
16
17 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, thank you. Are we ready to vote on this? All those in favor of
18 Karen's motion say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say nay. (nay) The reason I say nay is
19 because I think it should be done. It is always a moving target and at some point we have to say
20 it is done. So we have Commissioners Holman, Griffin, Burt and Lippert voting in favor,
21 Commissioner Packer voting against and Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent due to
22 conflict.
23
24 Commissioner Burt: Do we need a motion to address the remainder of our agenda tonight?
25
26 Vice Chair Packer: Yes, are we ready? Would you like to? Let me just ask are there any other
27 issues to bring up or are we ready to go to the motion that would encompass, I just want to make
28 sure we got everything, that would encompass everything else on the west districts?
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: Ijust want to make sure of one thing that I think is pretty important. I
31 will ask this of Staff. With regard to making the differentiation between R&D and office space
32 we still have a cap on the amount of development office space in the total Research Park, do we
33 not?
34
35 Ms. Grote: It is no cap but the Council has asked that Staff monitor it.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Let me tell you what my concern is and the reason why I am
38 raising this at this point. I don't have a problem with R&D having office space associated with it
39 and counting it as R&D space. In fact, I think it is stated that you could actually have a company
40 out there in the Research Park, a rather large company, have all office space and call it R&D.
41 That is not a concern of mine. My concern is certain other offices displacing the R&D
42 component completely and that is one of my big concerns.
43
44 Commissioner Burt: The problem is that the Commission made a recommendation to Council
45 that we have a constraint like that and the Council instead requested that Staff monitor but not
46 constrain the amount of office space. So they refuted our recommendation.
47
City 0/ Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 480/53
)
1 Commissioner Holman: I am happy to reassert Commissioner Lippert's point and the rule is you
2 zone for what you want. I am fully in support of Commissioner Lippert's comment and I
3 understand that Council did make its decision but it doesn't do any harm for us to put it out there
4 again that it is still a concern that at least two of us have.
5
6 Commissioner Burt: Question. What is the frequency that Staff is going to be reporting this?
7
8 Ms. Grote: Annually.
9
10 Commissioner Burt: Is that the same annual as the Sandhill traffic report?
11
12 Ms. Grote: We haven't set a date for when the annual reporting will begin. I am assuming it
13 will be shortly after approval of the revised ordinance.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: You see that is something that could be incorporated into the Planning
16 Commission's annual report and could make sure that it happens.
17
18 Vice Chair Packer: Does anybody want to make a motion on this subject?
19
20 Commissioner Holman: I just have one more comment which is at the moment this may not be
21 the most urgent of concerns but I would say that again to speak to you zone for what you want is
22 that once a trend gains momentum it is that much more difficult to put a restriction in place
23 because the momentum already exists.
24
25 Commissioner Burt: On our previous item where we were looking at the medical office versus
26 medical research the Council had kind of given two directives, which were subsequently found
27 to be incompatible. That made it much more appropriate for us to go back and make a single
28 recommendation to Council. In this case I think I have to lean in the direction even though I
29 supported the Commission originally on the restriction that I am going to be inclined to follow
30 the Council's directive on this. Ifin a year's time we see a trend that we are concerned with I
31 will be supportive of raising a flag at that time and fighting that battle when it comes.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: If! could just ask the question. If a report comes back in a year, two
34 years, three years and there is a trend that we are not in support of and would be in support of
35 taking an action or making a recommendation at that time why not make the recommendation
36 now so that we don't have the concern in the future?
37
38 Commissioner Burt: Well, I guess my answer would be that we don't have the confirmation
39 either of the trend or that it has exceeded the 25% limit that Stanford was putting on and that we
40 were advocating. The other point I would make is that at the time part of our debate on whether
41 to recommend the 25% limit ourselves was a question of whether it was unnecessary given that
42 Stanford has that as a practice of their own. I ended up feeling that if they had it why not include
43 it in our own regulations and that would still be my preference but it reduces how acutely I am
44 concerned over it. For that reason I am not going to support reasserting a recommendation of
45 that restriction to Council.
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: This issue I want to remind Commissioners we had many meetings on this
48 issue. We discussed this a lot amongst ourselves so I don't think we need to re-discuss it at this
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 49 of 53
1 point. Also I think this was well heard in front of City Council and that I guess was maybe prior
2 to public comments and their concerns about how to administer this and there were many reasons
·3 why they decided to strike it. So I am inclined to go with the Council direction. Lee.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Well, again I mentioned .this earlier in the evening which is that this is a
6 way of having a discussion with Council in which they have taken what we have proposed or
7 recommended in the past, have amended it and have kicked it back to us in terms of the next go
8 around. It is a way for us to either reinforce or amend sonie of those ideas. What I am thinking
9 is a way of having sort of a check and balance might be by simply putting in there an annual cap
10 by which the Research Park can't grow more than a certain percentage of office space per year.
11 That way you are able to monitor how quickly this happens and have the ability to then step in
12 and be able to make modifications to the ordinance or the City Council has an opportunity to
13 react to it. But we see how quickly the world turns in terms of LM zones being turned into RM
14 or having RM on it. That is happening very, very quickly. If that had been a negative we would
15 be bailing just like every other crisis that this City has faced. What I am saying is that we have
16 the ability to send a recommendation back to Council that simply says, okay, you want to
17 monitor this well we propose putting a growth cap per year so that if it begins to become a
18 runaway train we have a way of dealing with it.
19
20 Vice Chair Packer: John.
21
22 Mr. Lusardi: If I just could interject just to give you a little background as to why the Council
23 took the action they took is first of all the 25% restriction on office was born out of the dot.com
24 boom really when there was a real fear that office would overtake everything including
25 commercial uses. The housing today is a different world with that respect to the market. The
26 housing market is extremely strong in the city. l don't think it is a good comparison of how the
27 office market would be in that context. Secondly, Stanford already had this kind of an oversight
28 and cap that they maintain. They have never exceeded the 25% cap. I think they are at 19%
29 right now. So we feel that the annual monitoring gives us enough insight or enough to raise the
30 flag ifit is happening. Thirdly, we would much rather take I think the position of building in
31 incentives like we did for R&D and biotech in order to protect. Then I think lastly to really be
32 honest the 25% cap restriction I think created a fear about R&D companies coming into the
33 Research Park and facing further limitations on how much office they are going to have. So I
34 think there was a fear about Stanford's ability to market itself as a good R&D park as well.
35
36 Commissioner Burt: I would just like to add one other item that was part of our discussion a year
37 or so ago when we reviewed this. One of the reasons for being concerned about restricting office
38 was that the greater density of occupancy that exists in office versus R&D. It is all the traffic
39 impacts and other impacts were greater with office. What we came to recognize at the time is
40 that software is virtually indistinguishable from office in terms of density. Even though the·
41 software is properly categorized as R&D the practical impact is indistinguishable so capping the
42 office doesn't do anything to necessarily address the concerns on the traffic impacts given that
43 we have a strong trend toward greater software as well. So in terms of that objective of trying to
44 cap office in order to mitigate traffic impacts it really doesn't serve that purpose. That was
45 another reason that it was somewhat of a borderline decision I think for myself and others on the
46 Commission at the time. Putting all those factors together that is why in this case I am inclined
47 to go along with the Council's recommendation and let's look at the monitoring.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 50 of 53
1 Vice Chair Packer: Do you want to make that motion? It is 20 after ten.
2
3 Commissioner Burt: Okay, I will make a motion. I guess in fairness if fellow Commissioners
4 would -rather than me try and ramrod through the main motion if fellow Commissioners still
5 want to make another motion we should give an up or down opportunity on it.
6
7 Vice Chair Packer: On the office limitation?
8
9 Commissioner Burt: Yes.
10
11 Vice Chair Packer: Does anybody want to do that or do you think our discussion would be
12 sufficient.
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: I will let it go.
15
16 MOTION
17
18 Commissioner Burt: Okay so then I would like to make an overriding motion that incorporates
19 all the previous motions that have been voted on by the Commission tonight and includes them
20 within a recommendation to Council that we approve the portions ofthe proposed ordinance first
21 adopting the revised definitions in Chapter 18.04, second adopting all provisions of the new
22 Chapter 18.20 which are office, research and manufacturing districts pertinent to medical office
23 and medical research park districts andthe research park five sub-district and then finally
24 deleting the current Chapter 18.37 which is office research district, the current Chapter 18.60
25 which is limited industrial/research park district and the current Chapter 18.63 which is limited
26 industrial site combining district.
27
28 SECOND
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. Do you want to speak to your motion?
33
34 Commissioner Burt: No, thank you.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: The lease said the better.
37
38 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Cassel and Bialson absent due to conflicts)
39
40 Vice Chair Packer: Are there any comments from Commissioners on Pat's motion? I hear none
41 are we ready for a vote? All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? None and we have two
42 abstentions so we have five, zero and two absences. Well Commissioner Holman, Griffin,
43 Packer, Burt and Lippert voted yes.
44
45 Thank you very much Commissioners.
46
47 Commissioner Holman: One other comment please. Just a quick thank you to Staff because as I
48 mentioned earlier in addition to appreciating very much your informational input earlier I also
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 51 of 53
1
2 UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
3 Public Hearings.
4
5 Zoning Ordinance Update: Office, Research and Manufacturing Districts. Planning and
6 . Transportation Commission review and recommendation to the City Council for:
7
8 A. Adopting all provisions of the new Chapter 18.20 (Office, Research and Manufacturing
9 Districts) pertinent to the Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) District, the
10 Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing Sub-district -Embarcadero (ROLM-E), and the
11 General Manufacturing (GM) District; and
12
13 B. Deleting the current Chapter 18.55 (General Manufacturing (GM) District), the current
14 Chapter 18.57 (General Manufacturing Combining (GM:.B) District), the current Chapter 18.60
15 (Limited IndustriallResearch Park (LM) District), and the current Chapter 18.63 (Limited
16 Industrial Site Combining (3,5) District).
17
18 Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant: We are discussing the three districts that were mentioned by
19 the Chair. These are all east of El Camino Real the Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing
20 Districts and then a sub-district of that which is generally over off of Embarcadero Road and
21 General Manufacturing District. The issues that we are bringing to you that are those that remain
22 unresolved after Council has sent this back to the Commission I think there are three of them.
23 The first one is residential and the extent to which residential uses are allowed in these zones.
24 Our Staff recommendation is that single family and two family residential not be permitted, that
25 multi-family residential use that is located within 150 feet of a low density residential zone be
26 allowed at an RM-15 density limitation and that otherwise when beyond 150 from a low density
27 . residential zone that developed occurred at RM-30 standards. It will also include a purpose
28 statement indicating that it is important to provide this kind of transition from the low-density
29 area to the higher density and that Village Residential may provide an opportunity for that kind
30 of transition.
31
32 We do want to point out that there is in terms of considering residential in these zones there is a
33 specific Comprehensive Plan policy L-47 about the East Meadow Circle area that says consider
34 the East Meadow Circle area as a potential site for higher density housing. It provides a
35 transition between housing and nearby industrial development. I think you know that there is
36 residential development ongoing there now.
37
38 Mixed uses, Staff sort of reconsidered where we were with that after last week's meeting in that
39 it appears that if we are going to accommodate residential uses within the districts that the
40 Commission was supportive of that and that perhaps some mixed use was appropriate as well.
41 So our suggestions would be to essentially carryover our existing mixed-use provisions, which
42 do allow for mixed use in these zones but they are pretty restrictive as far as floor area ratios go.
43 So unlike some of the commercial zones that we have, CN and CS, where you get kind of a
44 considerable bonus for mixed use that isn't really the case here. So in the Research, Office and
45 Limited Manufacturing zone, which correspond closely to the LM zone right now, there would
46 be a .4: 1 floor area ratio. That is the floor area ratio whether you do mixed use or whether you
47 do all industrial or research type use. In the Embarcadero area the FARis going to be .3: 1 and
48 we are carrying that forward again. It probably doesn't encourage mixed use but it would be
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 3 0/58
"
1 allowed subject to those constraints. The GM zone provides that the non-residential.5:1 may
2 increase under mixed use to 1: 1 but the non-residential can't ever go any higher than .5: 1. So
3 that provision is also carried over here or we are recommended that it would be. It is not
4 reflected currently in the ordinance before you.
5
6 Similar to what we just talked about with the residential recommendations we would try to
7 provide a transition for the first 150 feet ofRM-15 when adjacent to low-density residential
8 zones. We also made a note here that industrial and commercial mixed use is also has some
9 possibility that you could have different types of non-residential uses mixed however, there is a
10 conditional use permit required for retail or personal services in these zones. So there is sort of
11 an extra hoop to get through for those.
12
13 The third issue is the increased height for biotech R&D. Again, we have talked about this pretty
14 extensively. This would apply in this case to the ROLM and ROLM-E districts as going from 30
15 feet up to 40-feet but only in those cases where interstitial space is provided for mechanical and
16 other equipment needs. It is still limited to two habitable floors and it would require a minimum
17 150 setback from any residential zone. This is again the diagram that is in your packet that
18 shows that relationship with an existing multi family building next door to an industrial building
19 and 150 away the increased height of 40 feet.
20
21 Lastly the performance criteria as we discussed last week is the existing Chapter 18.64 which
22 provides some general guidelines and requirements for lighting, visual impacts, noise and site
23 access would be retained at this point but we are working on making revisions to that and they
24 will address not only the industrial areas but also the commercial zones too and provide
25 performance criteria for those. Our recommendation is that we develop that separate chapter and
26 bring that back to you at a later time.
27
28 So our recommendation overall to you is to on this portion and these specific districts to
29 recommend to the Council adoption of this 18.20 incorporating these districts and deleting the
30 preexisting districts in those areas. Then with the ordinance in front of you with the changes we
·31 have talked about with the mixed use would have to be written in there specifically too. We
32 have actually given you the language attached to your handout to be plugged into the ordinance.
33 I can answer any questions.
34
35 Vice Chair Packer: Thank-you, Curtis. I first want to ask Commissioners does everybody have a
36 copy of the proposed draft language that was emailed to us I believe today or yesterday? Thank
37 you. Before we go to the public for their comments do Commissioners have questions of Staff?
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: I do.
40
41 Vice Chair Packer: Lee does.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: The question I have pertains to your PowerPoint presentation, third
44 panel on Comp Plan Policy L-47, consider the East Meadow Circle area as a potential site for
45 higher density housing that provides a transition between housing and nearby industrial
46 development. The operative word here is higher density housing yet in the GM what you are
47 proposing is that we when it abuts the, or is 150 feet from a residential area we are basically
48 down zoning to 15 units per acre versus 30 units per acre. So isn't that antithetical to the policy?
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 4 of 58
"
1
2 Mr. Williams: It is low-density adjacency that triggers the buffer. I understand that is coming
3 down for now but I think it is an adjacency. We also have Comp Plan policies about making
4 transitions and adjacencies and that kind of thing. So we felt to be consistent with some
5 direction we had from last week that that was an appropriate transition and still allows for most
6 of the area to have RM-30 zoning. I think what we wanted to point out from that is there was
7 some anticipation in the Comp Plan that some of these industrial zoned properties would
8 accommodate residential use because coming into last week's meeting we sort of had that
9 question. Is that out there and is that really a desirable area to have residential? That Comp Plan
10 policy is one that points in that direction.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Just in looking at the site there right now there is General
13 Manufacturing, the GM zone that is currently there. It is already at a higher density than what
14 the RM -15 would be, correct?
15
16 Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: The GM is developed at.5 and RM-15 depending.
17
18 Mr. Williams: Yes, the density overlay right now if you went to residential in the GM is RM-30
19 and same with LM. The area around East Meadow Circle is LM right now for the most part but
20 either way you are right. But again, we are sort of balancing the need to accommodate some of
21 that higher density housing with the transition from residential areas. So that is a policy question
22 for the Commission.
23
24 Vice Chair Packer: I think when it comes back to us for discussion that should be an item we
25 can discuss.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, well, I was just asking questions for clarification.
28
29 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, I am just saying that I am sure we will be talking about it in our
30 discussion. Pat, did you have a question?
31
32 Commissioner Burt: A couple and I can wait until later in case Staffwants to stew on this one
33 but the question that Lee raised regarding Policy L-47 as I read it I am not clear on what Policy
34 L-47 is referring to when they say higher density housing. Is it higher density than the adjacent
35 residential, which is essentially R-l, or is it higher than what else? If the existing zoning allows
36 for RM-30 are we saying that L-47 is implying higher than RM-30? So it is a little bit
37 ambiguous but I guess as I think about those two interpretations of what higher might be
38 referring to I don't think it is referring to higher than RM-30 so then I am assuming they are
39 referring to higher than adjacent residential but maybe Staff could comment on that later.
40
41 Then second on the ROLM-E zone, which is the east Embarcadero area, and that being in the
42 Baylands Area is the height limit there 35 feet? And consequently does that mean that this 40-
43 foot allowance would not apply there? The 40-foot basically for the biotech.
44
45 Mr. Williams: No, it is the same standard basically 35 feet and it could go to 40 feet ifit met
46 those various conditions.
47
48 Commissioner Burt: I am referring to the Baylands Master Plan. Doesn't it have a height limit?
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 5 of 58
1
, .
2 Mr. Williams: That is a good question. I don't know.
3
4 Ms. Grote: It does but this isn't part ofthe Baylands Master Plan this is the old or former GM
5 zone and former LM zone. So they are not in the Baylands. It is adjacent to the Baylands.
6
7 Commissioner Burt: The ROLM-E that is in this red on ~)Ur map that is at the back of the May
8 11 handout is what I was referring to and I believe that one of the slides I think it is slide number
9 five says increased height in ROLM and ROLM-E district to a maximum of 40 feet. My
10 question is whether that runs contrary to the restrictions of the Baylands Master Plan. If it does
11 then should we just make it clear that that 40-foot limit does not apply in the ROLM -E zone?
12
13 Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects & ZOU: That is again a Commission
14 recommendation if you want to limit the building height to what is required under the master
15 plan in that area. Your other option is you could do what we have done with low density
16 residential. You could create a 150-foot setback from the Baylands area and the designated
17 Baylands area for a 40-foot height too. We will check to see if the master plan 35-foot height
18 trumps the Zoning Ordinance heights.
19
20 Commissioner Burt: I am pretty sure it does so if Staff is recommending a change to the
21 Baylands Master Plan then we need to ~ave it laid out.
22
23 Mr. Lusardi: I don't think we would go that far. I don't think we see R&D or biotech that
24 critical in that area for that 40-foot height.
25
26 Commissioner Burt: I was assuming that you were not and if that is the case then we may want
27 to look at simply excluding that zone from that allowance.
28
29 Mr. Lusardi: Right. I think we can do that if that is necessary.
30
31 Vice Chair Packer: Good questions. Any other questions? Phyllis.
32
33 Chair Cassel: One minor question. Automatic teller machines incidental to permitted use are not
34 included in the ROLM and ROLM-E zones and that is something that keeps people from running
35 around in cars. I didn't understand why.
36
37 Mr. Williams: I don't think there is a good reason why and I think we should make those
38 permitted in all the zones. It was a carryover it is in the existing ordinance that in the long list of
39 uses it says accessory uses generally in all the zones and then it specifically says ATMs in the
40 GM zone. So ATMs show up here as permitted uses but they are really accessory. As long as
41 they are accessory to other uses then they ought to be allowed in all the zones. So we would
42 suggest that we make it a permitted accessory use in all the zones.
43
44 Vice Chair Packer: However, we cannot address the zones west of El Camino at this point.
45
46 Mr. Williams: Right.
47
City of PaLo ALto May 18,2005 Page 6 of 58
"
1 Vice Chair Packer: But you can do whatever you want in your Staff Report to City Council.
2 Karen.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: A Clarification on that about the ATMs. I agree with Chair Cassel
5 about keeping people from running around but also going back to the ROLM-E I am not really
6 sure that if they are exterior, I am talking about the look and how the Baylands for the site and
7 design review area, and I am not really sure that those physical developments are very
8· compatible with the Baylands Master Plan. So just that cautionary in that zone.
9
10 Then the other is on the handout can Staff clarify on the back it is talking about, for number three
11 and number four, for any portion of a site used for residential development that is located within
12 150 feet and then four, any portion of a site used for residential development that is located
13 within in 150 feet and the difference is RM-15 and RM-30. Is that language totally what is
14 intended? Is it only residential that is intended?
15
16 Mr. Williams: Portion of any site used for residential, yes, that is all that is intended. We do
17 have some other restrictions on height with 150 feet and then within 40 feet I think in some
18 zones for non-residential. We haven't an added anything to that for non-residential we just
19 discussed the residential area and having that kind of transition to those multi-family. That is not
20 a height issue it is an intensity issue so that would be comparable in the non-residential to having
21 a lesser FAR.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: So I guess I am a little bit confuses about why it just states specifically
24 only residential development because if it is mixed use I am not quite sure why it focuses on the
25 residential. I. am missing something.
26
27 Mr. Williams: This is just for the portion of the site used for residential. The rest of the site
28 already has non-residential development standards for it. So I am not sure what we would say
29 for the non-residential, it is not an RM-15 or RM-30 issue for the non-residential. That is what
30 we did last week with it. This is just reflecting essentially what was done last for an all-
31 residential project and being sure that also applies if there is a residential component of a mixed-
32 use project.
33
34 Commissioner Holman: So if this were for mixed use there would most likely be a residential
35 component. So in that case then these RM-15 or RM-30 regulations would kick into place.
36
37 Vice Chair Packer: I have a question also on the proposal to limit the residential density to RM-
38 15 when it is within 150 feet of a low residential density area. I am looking at that map the blue
39 area that is GM and the ROLM area that is East Meadow Circle and the East Bayshore.
40 Especially on East Charleston that is an arterial and I wonder if the RM-15 facing Charleston in
41 that more dense near Fabian did you look at the impact of the RM-15 when we are talking about
42 having higher density on arterials? We talked about the RM-15 in a different context when we
43 were talking about west ofEl Camino. This RM-15 now is different in different areas.
44
45 Mr. Williams: If your question is is that RM-15 there affecting this residential component on
46 GM property?
47
City of Palo A Ito May /8, 2005 Page 7 of 58
1 Commissioner Burt: Interesting. I heard it alluded to a number oftimes of a 35-foot height limit
2 out there.
3
4 Ms. Grote: We can keep looking.
5
6 Commissioner Burt: Ask Virginia I am sure she will know.
7
8 Ms. Grote: I actually got this out of her office but we will keep looking and double-check that.
9
10 Vice Chair Packer: I think Karen had her hand up.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: I am going to go back to numbers three and four on the handout. Last
13 week our motion and we changed our motion somewhat to include this it wasn't a flat RM-15 it
14 was RM-15 focused on Village Residential to accomplish compatibility. So I am a little
15 concerned about just saying a strict RM -15 because that doesn't reflect what our motion was or
16 our intention.
17
18 Mr. Williams: You are right and I think we might have said something in here about the purpose
19 statement and trying to tie Village Residential in but we did say the actual regulation was RM-15
20 and then with a purpose statement that said it is the intent of this to provide transitions and to
21 where pO'ssible use Village Residential to provide the flexibility for that or something along those
22 lines. So we would want to add thathere too and I am sorry that was intended to be worked in
23 here as well. My understanding was that it was not that within 150 feet it is RM-15 Village
24 Residential because we don't have that right now but it was kind of a purpose or an intent
25 statement that was wrapped into that that hopefully guided things in that direction once we have
26 the specific product.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: How I understood the Staff comments about Village Residential and its
29 future development was that the front would be reflecting any transition areas and for
30 compatibility purposes the front would be developed more like an R-l type or single family type
31 development and then at the back part of that property then there would be a reckoning with the
32 RM-15 density. So that is how I thought we and that's why I thought we included specifically
33 Village Residential.
34
35 Vice Chair Packer: Ijust want to follow up on that. Some of these sites back up to residential
36 instead of fronting residential and so I think that needs to be taken into consideration. We are
37 getting into a discussion phase so I want to check myself in that regard and then just keep it at
38 questions and then go to the public. Lee.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: I want to ask a couple of questions about the Park Boulevard GM and
41 that that area along Portage is supposed to be amortized to become. residential. So why are we
42 looking at changing the rules there if we are looking at basically within the next, in am counting
43 down properly it is probably ten to 15 years that site is going to revert 0 multi-family residential.
44 Am I correct? Park Boulevard bounded by Portage where Fry's is located.
45
46 Mr. Lusardi: You are talking about the Fry's site amortized.
47
48 Ms. Grote: Yes, there is 2019 is the date that the Fry's.
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 9 of 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
47
Mr. Lusardi: We are not changing what is there in the GM we are recommending that the RM-
30 stay in the GM as an appropriate permitted land use and what we are putting back in that we
took out is to allow a mixed use residential/non-residential as well in the GM zone. So we are
not really changing what is there.
Commissioner Lippert: But if that is the case why not go to an even higher density?
Mr. Lusardi: Well, I think the way Staff views this and we have explained this to the property
owners as well out there is Staff views that GM area right now as kind of a holding place until
we get our pedestrian transit oriented development zone there. We see that as probably more an
appropriate land use for that area but again we don't have that in place. When we have that in
place then it will be a question as to whether the City or the applicant wants to initiate.
Ms. Grote: The site is zoned RM-30.
Commissioner Lippert: Well right here.
Vice Chair Packer: That is not the site it is south ofthat.
Commissioner Lippert: No, it shows Park Boulevard and I see you have everything from -it
looks to me as though you have everything from Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway south to
Portage.
Vice Chair Packer: I believe Portage is in between that and Lambert.
Commissioner Burt: Is that the Agilent site?
Commissioner Lippert: So that is just the Agilent site?
Ms. Grote: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Commissioner Lippert: End of story. Okay, thank you for clarifying that.
Vice Chair Packer: Are there any more Commission questions? I have one. I am not trying to
do anything about last week but last week we made some recommendations regarding the
definition of medical research and those changes would apply to the zones we are talking about
today. The question is if the Commissioners decide that we want something different with
regard to medical research for these zones can we discuss that today with regard to the east of EI
Camino zones?
Mr. Larkin: The Commission can't make any changes to the definitions that were passed last
week but if the Commission wants to carve out exemptions for the zones on the east side ofEI
Camino that would be something that could be discussed today. So in other words the
definitions are what is going to the Council as the Planning and Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 10 of 58
1 recommendations but if there was a desire to create an exemption to allow a different medical
2 research use on the east side of El Camino then the Commission could do that.
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: Thank you.
5
6 Commissioner Burt: Question.
7
8 Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
9
10 Commissioner Burt: So is it correct that in those ROLM-E zones for instance that a pure
11 medical research function would not be allowed? .
12
13 Mr. Larkin: That was the way that the Commission defined that.
14
15 Commissioner Burt: Okay, because when we discussed definitions last week it was purely in the
16 context of the MOR zone and we had no discussion that they would apply to other zones.
17 Frankly, I had an assumption that it was only in the context of the MOR zone.
18
19 Mr. Larkin: I think we tried to make that point but we may not have made it clearly enough.
20
/ 21 Vice Chair Packer: Phyllis.
22
23 Chair Cassel: But my understanding is you can craft an exemption for the more restrictive
24 language for the LM district.
25
26 Mr. Larkin: That is correct. We could do that.
27
28 Chair Cassel: Or something that would indicate that that particular district. ..
29
30 Mr. Larkin: We could do it but not withstanding that definition these uses could be permitted.
31
32 Chair Cassel: Then we will have to craft it somehow later after the public hearing.
33
34 Mr. Larkin: Yes.
35
36 Vice Chair Packer: Are Commissioners ready to go to the public? Then we can come back to
37 our discussion. Do we have any cards? I do see a rriember of the public here. We have one
38 speaker, Sally Probst. You have five minutes.
39
40 Ms. Sally Probst; Palo Alto: I can understand the value of reevaluating our entire zoning code
41 and of clarifying and reorganizing but I regret very much the change. I have always understood
42 that housing was a permitted application for any zone in Palo Alto. That was without the
43 restrictions that you are now putting in oflimiting it in certain places to the 15 limit and I think
44 that we will regret in the future these kinds of restrictions and limits. There will be projects
45 come in, there will be developments proposed where you mayor at least I will very certainly
46 regret the restrictions. So I would like to suggest that you back off and continue to allow
47 housing at various densities more than 15 even in some sort of conjunction or relationship to
48 single family zoning. There may be a lot of changes in Palo Alto in the future.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 11 oj58
1
. .
2 I also want to call your attention to the Transportation Oriented District moves that the MTC is
3 taking and there will be a lot of possibilities even in Palo Alto for TOD developments. If our
4 restrictions interfere or add to their restrictions we may be acing ourselves out of using MTC
5 money. So I would like to strongly urge that you do not limit the zoning that is in relationship to
6 single family that you allow multi-family zoning of higher density and that you let the particular
7 proposal, the particular development, determine whether it is compatible or not. I think you have
8 the possibility of setbacks. You have neighborhoods where there may not be much opposition to
9 multi-family. I, myself, lived in a single family zone in another city where we had multi-family
10 right next door and it was really high density and there was absolutely no objection because it
11 was well designed. I would like to recommend that you allow for future changes and future
12 design and not put restrictions on at the moment so that we can not only say housing is pennitted
13 in any zone in Palo Alto but a variety of housing and a multi-family zoning is possible in any
14 zone in Palo Alto except for single family. Thank you.
15
16 Vice Chair Packer: Thank you, Sally. There are no more cards from the public I believe we can
17 close the public hearing at this time and bring it back to the Commission for discussion.
18
19 So that we can "move along and talk about one subject matter at a time why don't we go in the
20 order oftlie PowerPoint and start with our discussion about the residential issues that are being
21 proposed by Staff. The first bullet point was single family and two family residential not
22 permitted in these zones. Phyllis.
23
24 Chair Cassel: I think it is appropriate in the sense that these are intended to be heavier intense
25 uses and if you are going to allow RM-15 and RM-30 that would be the direction that we should
26 be going in rather than a low density section in this area.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: To make it easier for Staff should be just have little motions for each one or
29 do it all at once.
30
31 Mr. Larkin: We have actually prepared a motion that should probably be the one that it is based
32 on but obviously the Commission can modify that.
33
34 Vice Chair Packer: Then I will just keep track of how we are doing on each ofthe bullet points
35 and where we have a disagreement or a different recommendation from what you prepared for
36 when we do the motion.
37
38 Mr. Larkin: And where the Commission is deviating from what Staff recommendations are then
39 it might be appropriate to make subsidiary motions.
40
41 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. Do we have other comments? Pat.
42
43 Commissioner Burt: Iwould just like to point o~t for the record that in doing this we not only
44 have recognized that these zones are not appropriate or as appropriate for R-l and R-2 housing
45 but we have by eliminating that as an option We have increased the housing opportunities so that
46 these lands would not get gobbled up by R-l and R-2 when RM-15 and RM-30 are more
47 appropriate. So I think that it actually increased the housing opportunities in the most
48 appropriate areas.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 12 of 58
1
2 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: Staff said that you had written motions.
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: It is a general motion that is just A and B.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: I don't have it.
9
10 Vice Chair Packer: It was just make sure we separated out the east from the west.
11 Commissioners, can we move on to the next bullet so that we can move through this evening
12 unless you have a comment on the single family or two family recommendations.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: I do following up on the ... no it is the next bullet. I'm sorry.
15
16 Vice Chair Packer: Okay.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: Before we get into the multi-family residential I think we need to dissect
19 and try to construe or divine the definition in Comp Plan Policy L-46, what is meant by higher
20 density housing and the context in which that is meant.
21
22 Vice Chair Packer: I can respond to that a little bit. When I was on the Comp Plan Advisory
23 Committee I remember we were sitting around at a table and somebody suggested this looks like
24 a good place for high-density housing and we said yes, sure. That's what it was. It wasn't
25 anything more analytical than that.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: I think that Pat has raised a significant point, which is in relationship to
28 is it higher in relationship to the abutting property, or is it higher than what is allowed? I think
29 that is what we need to come to terms with because what we are saying here is we are actually
30 voting on a lower density, the RM-15, within 150 feet of the adjacent residential.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: I think the question is do we agree with the Staff suggestion that in these
33 zones, east ofEI Camino, that the RM-15 transitional area is a good idea. I think that is the
34 question that is before us.
35
36 Ms. Grote: There is a little bit of text here in the Comprehensive Plan that I can read to you.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: That would be great.
39
40 Ms. Grote: It says the East Meadow Circle is adjacent to single-family residential neighbors on
41 the north and west. If major redevelopment occurs in this area it could provide a location for
42 additional housing including a component of neighborhood commercial use would benefit
43 residents of existing homes in the area as well as new homes. Presently the nearest commercial
44 center is Charleston Center more than a mile away.
45
46 So it doesn't say that it would be higher density than what the GM component or the RM-30
47 would be it says it is a place for additional housing. Now, I would think we want a transition,
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 13 of 58
, .
'.
1 which is what we based our recommendation on and a transition from the single family that is
2 there into a higher density.
3
4 Chair Cassel: My understanding at the time was you were thinking in terms of there isn't any
5 housing there now at that time and there were a lot of empty buildings in that space and it
6 seemed like a place where that might transition out of a light industrial that was not thriving into
7 a higher density than single family residential housing. I don't think that the term implied any
8 particular numbers. I don't know that when we look back and said this is RM-30 now that could
9 be there but rather that we should focus on this greater opportunity there.
10
11 Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
12
13 Commissioner Burt: Well, I believe that for a couple of reasons the intention is to refer to higher
14 than adjacent housing which is low density. One because of kind of the context of the text that
15 accompanied the policy. Second do we have other than Transit Oriented Development which
16 this would not be do we have higher density than the RM-30?
17
18 Vice Chair Packer: RM-40.
19
20 Commissioner Burt: RM-40, okay. Then finally I would like to support Lee's point that it is not
21 just a question of whether we want RM -15 there or not but our decision should be guided by the
22 Comprehensive Plan policies. So this issue is completely valid in my mind that we have that
23 understanding of what was the intent of the Comp Plan and that be the context in which to hold
24 the discussion and not leapfrog over the Comp Plan and just say we are just deciding what we
25 want here. So I agree that we should be trying to get our best understanding of what the intent of
26 the Comp Plan is and then hold our discussion.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: I am going to raise a different matter and that is everything is balance.
31 As the Comp Plan is a balance and sometimes even has conflicting goals we are faced currently
32 with potentially conflicting goals because there has been a fair amount of development either
33 being proposed or approved for housing in the ROLM zone and in the GM as well actually.
34 There has been some discussion about are we losing valuable commercial space to housing
35 where again if we are singly focused on either commercial or on housing we might be headed
36 down not a very sustainable path here. So I am just going to put out there for purposes of
37· discussion and consideration that do we want to in some way protect some percentage of perhaps
38 the ROLM as a commercial development. These areas of commercial that we have here
39 are the lower rent. They just don't bring the rents that say commercial on University or El
40 Camino brings and those businesses that are there typically support other businesses in town. It
41 is a very, very valuable type of use that proliferates those areas. Not 100% but it does proliferate
42 those areas. So I think we ought to be considering that when we talk about housing in these
43 zones.
44
45 Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
46
47 Commissioner Burt: Question. In our discussion right now is this referring to the GM zone as
48 well as the ROLM?
City of Palo A Ito May 18,2005 Page 14 of 58
1
2 Vice Chair Packer: Yes.
3
.'
4 Commissioner Burt: Okay. Then following along the issue that Karen raised we have three
5 different areas ofGM zoning although two of them abut one another. What I would like to focus
6 on are the two that are on either side of San Antonio Road. Even though they have historically
7 been both zoned the same way they have considerably different uses and I think future
8 directions. The ones along Fabian which were Ford and now Loral and as Loral has been
9 moving out we have a number of other uses and major projects that are going through there
10 converting those to medium and high density residential and other public facility uses there.
11 That side of San Antonio does abut other residential. The other side is a purely industrial area.
12 It is older industrial buildings that are smaller industrial buildings owned by a variety of property
13 owners where as Ford Aerospace used to have manufacturing that was not compatible with being
14 adjacent to residential my understanding is most ofthat has moved away and consequently the
15 areas along Fabian are much more appropriate for higher density housing. Those on the other
16 side are old, pure hardcore industrial. They are real GM zoned and GM uses. I don't think we
17 want to locate housing next to companies that are high users of hazardous materials that are
18 scattered throughout there. We have two plating shops in that area. We have various other
19 facilities that are very incompatible with housing, with children and those kinds of uses. I think
20 we need to look at differentiating those two. Whether at this particular time this is the quandary
21 we have gotten in where we have said we are not talking about particular areas of land in the
22 zoning but it gets it to be a real chicken and egg problem because how do we hold a discussion of
23 what we want to allow in a particular zone when you have two different areas zoned the same but
24 they are really different functions, different compatibilities for housing and different future
25 directions. It is going to be real hard to take that area that is on the southeast side of San Antonio
26 and convert it over time because there are just so many small independent property owners doing
27 such a variety of manufacturing there. So I think we need to reconsider that.
28
29 Vice Chair Packer: I would like to take an opportunity to respond. A couple of things to keep in
30 mind the ability to build housing on these zones have existed since the Zoning Ordinance was in
31 place. It is the economics and the needs of whatever that determine whether housing is going to
32 go there or not. Second, our existing development standards for RM-30 do have, if! remember
33 correctly, do have restrictions in them for when higher density abuts lower density housing in
34 terms of daylight planes. Also when we had begun to look at the new zoning code, the updated
35 zoning for RM-30 and RM-40 and RM-15 and we have been looking at the suggestions for the
36 kinds of daylight planes and the transitions that this kind of housing would have to incorporate in
37 their development standards when they are near different uses. So when we look at those
38 development standards for the RM-30 going forward we have to be thinking ofifthis is going to
39 happen in a GM zone, ifit is going to happen adjacent to facilities that produce hazardous waste.
40 They are probably ways in the development standards for the RM-30 zones that we could
41 . address the issues that you are bringing up now. So that may be one approach to this rather than
42 getting rid of the housing possibility. Who knows what is going to happen in 30 years because
43 what we are doing today is probably going to be unchanged more or less until the next Zoning
44 Ordinance Update. So that may be a place where we can look at the development standards for
45 RM-30, keep in mind that it is not going to be in a vacuum, the form code is contemplating what
46 happens if it is next to this or that and how should things look. So that may be a way of dealing
47 with some ofthe concerns that you raise. I don't know what is going to happen. I understand
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 15 of 58
, .
1 what you are saying about the two different kinds of zones and the changes but I think that may
2 be a way to address it. Pat.
3
4 Commissioner Burt: Conceivably you could address it that way but first I would like to say that
5 I don't think the fact that we sometime historically on a global basis said that all areas of the city
6 can permit housing should necessary govern whether when we stare at it right now we all think
7 that is a good idea. That is why we are doing a Zoning Ordinance Update is to look and think
8 clearly, take a step back and say wait a minute is this grossly out ofline? I think high density
9 housing on the northwest side of San Antonio there in that GM zone is a real good trend. I think
10 the notion of putting it in that pure industrial area that is surrounded by nothing but commercial
11 that is if you understand the types of businesses that are there it is not a good location for
12 housing and you can't transform if you have 100 different property owners there which is
13 probably pretty close to what we have at least 50 I would say being able to do some kind of a
14 significant transformation of that area with so many small property owners is highly unlikely. So
15 what you would have is somebody who would say by right I can put RM-30 housing in there
16' right next to a completely incompatible use and that is not good planning in my book to put
17 incompatible functions against one another. I don't think that is the best way for us to achieve
18 our housing goals. So I would strongly advocate that. Just like the Chair I have 28 years in
19 manufacturing business and we have areas up and down the peninsula that are ones that have
20 light manufacturing where we can have high density housing interspersed with R&D or light
21 manufacturing or office use and they are pretty compatible. We have some areas of the
22 peninsula where they are completely Incompatible and this is one of them.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I have a slightly different take on it which is that if you look at the
25 ROLM and the GM zones in that area they are in the flood plane. The flood plan is going to
26 dictate that whatever these buildings are if they get demolished and rebuilt or they exceed 50%
27 of the replacement value those buildings are going to have to be raised up. They are going to
28 have to be up out of the flood plane. So what you are going to wind up with is ground floor
29 parking with the building on the second floor. It is not conducive to manufacturing having
30 manufacturing on the second floor. It is hard to get materials up there and shipping and
31 receiving becomes a major component in trying to make those buildings work. Plus you get into
32 the whole issue of FAR and density where the ground floor winds up being used significantly for
33 counting as floor area so you can only build half as much building there. So if those sites do get
34 redeveloped they are going to have to be redeveloped as something different. So the
35 redevelopment is real easy to do in terms of housing because you can actually increase your FAR
36 and you can put your covered parking under the buildings, you are allowed to do that. Am I
37 correct in this direction that I am going or am I making some wild assumptions here?
38
39 Mr. Lusardi: Well you are correct that the buildings are in the flood zone and they are a lot of
40 old buildings so if they are redeveloped they will have to meet the flood zone standards. I don't
41 think I can say what use that would necessarily generate with the increased height of that
42 building.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: But basically the buildings they way are would wind up going away.
45
46 Ms. Grote: And sometimes underground parking is difficult in the flood plane.
47
I
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 16 of 58
"
1 Commissioner Lippert: No, you would never be able to do underground parking because you
2 would have to build a dam.
3
4 Ms. Grote: I thought I heard you say parking would be underground.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: No, under the building, which counts as FAR.
7
8 Ms. Grote: Right.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: So half your FAR is being used in covered parking.
11
12 Vice Chair Packer: Karen had her hand up.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: Two or three things. One if housing has been allowed for 30 years and
15 hasn't been developed in that way to me that isnot a reason to still allow housing where the uses
16 are incompatible because my rule of thumb is don't allow something by zoning that you don't
17 want to have happen. I think in some of these areas housing and some ofthe uses that are
18 allowed is a built-in conflict and I don't think it is prudent. Just looking at one ofthe housing
19 projects that has come to us the housing is in a flood plaIie and the parking is at grade and
20 commercial uses could also park at grade. It might or might not get as much FAR but if you own
21 the property and you want to keep it commercial or you want to develop it as housing you are
22 going to do what you want to do and maximize it for whatever use you want that is allowed in
23 the best way you can. Again, one of the housing projects we saw the parking was at grade so I
24 am not sure that the limited development that we have seen come through here I am not sure that
25 would indicate that it would just be housing or appropriate for housing because of parking
26 underneath the building.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: I have a question for Staff with regard to what regulations exist outside the
29 zoning code that would make it difficult for housing to be built right next to a plating plant for
30 example. Are there issues that a developer would face today ifhe wanted to build next to Pat's
31 factory?
32
33 Mr. Williams: I will let John add to this but the thing that immediately comes to mind for me is
34 the hazardous materials issue and that is far from being an insignificant issue. There are studies
35 and studies that have to go on and getting financing in those situations is a very difficult task.· I
36 don't know as far as other fire or building issues.
37
38 Mr. Lusardi: Curtis is right. It is typically what the fire code, exiting, and those kinds of issues
39 that dictate and it would also generate those adjacent uses if they were using a hazardous
40 chemical to come up with an evacuation plan for the area in the event of a spill. So it generates
41 more burden on the adjacent industrial use than it does on the residential use. The second thing
42 it does is it tends to transition more into residential neighborhood than the industrial use. The
43 industrial uses don't want to be neighbors to the residential it is just often too difficult for them.
44 So it is not just a building or fire code issue it is also a land pattern that you start to generate in
45 those areas when you introduce residential into heavy industrial areas.
46
47 Commissioner Burt: I think John is getting on one of the important points which is if housing is
48 built there then it creates tremendous liability issues for the existing users of the land. They
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 17 of 58
, .
1 essentially get driven out because of those liability burdens and they are very significant in that
2 sort of circumstance. So if one of the things that we think is a proper balance for the city as a
3 whole is to have a few remaining GM zones then they should be able to be functioning GM
4 zones. Ifwe intersperse housing within a true GM zone you are not going to have both. They
5 are incompatible uses. So that should be a conscious decision if we went to say that we want to
6 rid our city of GM zones then we should make that as a conscious decision and not backdoor it.
7
8 Vice Chair Packer: Phyllis has had her hand up for awhile.
9
10 Chair Cassel: I have two very conflicting comments to make. One is that I believe when we
11 were discussing the Comp Plan this is an area we had hoped would act as a germinating area for
12 business, for industrial type,business, because there were so many little ones in there, little sites
13 in comparison.
14
15 Vice Chair Packer: Would you clarify what the "this" is for the minutes?
16
17 Chair Cassel: I am sorry, the GM area that is southeast of the GM district or southeast of San
18 Antonio Road. The other is of course that if housing was the opposite, that is if housing wanted
19 to go in there, if things didn't work and housing wanted to go in there they would have to deal
20 with these issues. So then they would be making the choice to be in that district and to build up.
21 Over time things change the way have changed in some of the other districts you would then
22 make it available to do housing and this way you are restricting it. They are exact opposite I
23 understand but in terms ofthrowing things out on the table this was an area that we identified
24 with the intent of being a small industrial starter area.
25
26 Vice Chair Packer: Don has a comment.
27
28 Mr. Larkin: I know I said this before and I just want to remind the Commission that the
29 discussion that you are having is entirely appropriate but it would require a modification to the
30 Housing Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan so be mindful ofthat.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: I also had a question for you. We are talking about permitted uses in one
33 zone. I don't know how we unless we gave these two zones a different name how we could have
34 one use on one side of the street and a different use on the other side of the street. We would
35 have to be asking Staff to restructure this map and the names ofthe districts thatwe have been
36 talking about for the past two or three years. Is there any comment from Staff on that?
37
38 Mr. Williams: Well, I would just say I don't see there is any reason why you couldn't write in,
39 we do a lot of places such and such is not applicable. Take for instance the Charleston and
40 Midtown commercial areas where we have written in some special language under CN that these
41 different regulations apply. It is still a CN zone.
42
43 Vice Chair Packer: Okay.
44
45 Vice Chair Packer: To me we could do the same thing for those portions of the GM zone. I was
46 just asking Don and I would like to get clarification as far as a general plan amendment because
47 the general plan says that our industrial zones accommodate or should accommodate housing.
48 What I am hearing is not a suggestion that there not be any housing allowed in the industrial
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 18 of 58
1 zone or even in the GM zone it is just 'a portion of the GM zone that might be off limits for some
2 very good health and safety reasons perhaps and incompatible land use reasons. But the bulk of
3 the GM zone would still be available for housing ..
4
5 Mr. Larkin: I don't have it in front of me so I may be misreading it but my understanding is that
6 the document that was submitted to the state says that we allow housing in all areas of the city.
7 It actually says we allow housing everywhere in the city and it is entirely appropriate if we want
8 to change that but we would need to do an amendment.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to point out something which is that and this goes back to
11 what Pat was talking about is that probably one of the most polluting sites in Palo Alto was
12 successfully turned into a very high density multi-family housing and that was the Peninsula
13 Creamery site which its polluting product was whey. So there are opportunities to take gross
14 polluters or toxic sites and remediated them and make them into appropriate housing.
15
16 Vice Chair Packer: I would like to go back to the comment that I said so it isn't misinterpreted.
17 I didn't mean to say that because the housing has been allowed for the last 30 years that that is
18 the reason for us to continue it. What I was saying is that even though the housing was allowed
19 the market forces or the other forces -it did not happen. So it is just an historical fact that we
20 should be aware of. If we do keep it in there mayor may not be the forces that would cause the
21 housing to happen. Just because we keep it in and don't change something that has been around
22 for a long time doesn't necessarily mean that housing will automatically happen. It will happen,
23 if it does happen, when the time is right, when the physical conditions are right or the economics
24 are right otherwise it may not continue to happen. I do realize and I have heard a lot that housing
25 is right now today there is a better return on investment than other types of uses. We hear that.
26 Don't know that is true for every type of parcel or that it is universally true. The issues that Lee
27 raises with regard to the physical restrictions, the flood plane and the disincentives in terms of
28 building for the future when the manufacturing buildings become obsolete or when everything it
29 outsourced somewhere else and with globalization, if we have eliminated housing and there is
30 nothing else that can be put there we may have zoned for vacant land. So by keeping something
31 in that hasn't hurt, hasn't caused housing to happen, you are allowing flexibility for whatever
32 could happen in the future in the next 30 years. So that is something we should think about
33 before we jump to what would be as somewhat drastic as to remove housing from that particular
34 area. Although I am perfectly sympathetic with the comments that are made I just don't know if
35 it would be the best planning thing to do for the future. Karen had her hand up.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: I am going to touch on something else that we haven't specifically
38 addressed and that is our sales tax base. I am a little more concerned about more than just the
39 southeast of San Antonio and Charleston intersection or that quadrant there because there are
40 areas here in the ROLM and in the GM zone that front on San Antonio and Charleston Road.
41 There are some pretty high sales tax producers there and again it is not the highest rents that are
42 charged but we do have an auto dealership there, there is a marine supply there, a tile shop all
43 manner of those kinds of businesses and given where the market is, and we can't predict where
44 the market is going to be now. Ten years ago or six years ago would we have said that housing
45 would be replacing office anywhere in town? I don't think so but it is now. So I think we need
46 to keep an eye on the economic vitality and the sustainability ofthis community and where we
47 would allow housing. I remember the City's Economic Development Planner talking about the
48 very, very strong important of this GM zone in the San Antonio/Charleston area that those do
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 19 of 58
.'
1 support other Qusinesses in town. For some businesses to be here they need to have that kind of
2 support. So it is a balance that we have to recommend.
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: Lee wants to speak and with your permission I would like to respond to that.
5 Another way to attract economic vitality is through more retail, which is supported by more
6 people living there. So you could also argue that if you have higher density housing you would
7 support more of a consumer oriented retail in the area which would generate perhaps more sales
8 tax than is happening now. We don't have the economic studies in front of us but I think you
9 could also argue that housing could also result in economic vitality as well. So put that into your
10 thoughts to ponder as you consider this.
11
12 MOTION
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: What I was thinking is that we are almost ready to take action on this,
15 the multi-family residential use permitted at RM-15 standards within 150 feet oflow density
16 residential. I think it should be taken out and that it could be handled through development
17 regulations in terms of setbacks and daylight plane.
18
19 Vice Chair Packer: I agree with you.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: That is a motion.
22
23 Vice Chair Packer: Oh, Lee is making a motion that we not accept Staffs recommendation with
24 regard to the RM -15 requirement for residential development within 150 feet of a low residential
25 density zone.
26
27 Chair Cassel: For all three zones?
28
29 Vice Chair Packer: The question is for ROLM, ROLM-E and OM?
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: For the ROLM and the OM.
32
33 Vice Chair Packer: And the ROLM-E? It doesn't apply to the ROLM-E.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: No.
36
37 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, so Lee's motion is for ROLM and OM. Do we have a second?
38
39 SECOND
40
41 Chair Cassel: I will second.
42
43 Vice Chair Packer: Phyllis seconded. Would you like to speak to your motion?
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I will qualify that just by saying that I think that the development
46 regulations can handle that whole issue of encroachment on the single family adj acent
47 neighborhoods through development regulations in terms of setbacks and daylight plane. So I
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 20 of 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
47
48
don't see a need for that I would prefer having the higher density. I think that there is much
more opportunity there.
Vice Chair Packer: Phyllis, would you like to speak to your second?
Chair Cassel: Yes. As I look at the district there are very limited numbers of single-family areas
immediately adjacent to it. There is a creek that runs along behind this GM district. It is the
Santa Clara Valley Water District that runs down through there so there is some setback already
in that district and then there will be some additional setback normally adjusted to it. The area is
required to have Architectural Review Board review and I believe there were some compatibility
words that we used in the previous motion that could probably be added to this if that would be
agreeable with the maker so that there would be compatibility to the single family neighborhood
behind should be considered.
Commissioner Lippert: Sounds good to me.
Vice Chair Packer: Are there other Commissioners who would like to speak on this motion?
Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I guess I am feeling the need to remind the Commission that this is
counter what we recommended last week for west ofEl Camino. So I am a little confused by
that. I still have concerns about the loss potentially of some of the businesses here that I think
are vital as I spoke to earlier. The built-in incompatibilities of some of the housing or some
places where housing can be developed and also the potential loss of retail sales tax generators.
So I will not be supporting the motion.
Vice Chair Packer: Pat, do you have any comments?
Commissioner Burt: First a question or clarification from Staff. The creek that Phyllis referred
to does that immediately abut the 'GM zone on the northwest side of San Antonio?
Mr. Williams: Yes. It abuts the properties along Fabian that backup to the residential it is
between there those properties and the residential backyards.
Commissioner Burt: What are the Water District setback requirements?
Mr. Williams: I don't know. John or Lisa, do you know?
. .
Ms. Grote: It is typically 20 to 25 feet but I can check. It is from the top of the bank usually.
Mr. Larkin: The Water District is in the process of revising their ordinances as well so the
setback may increase.
"
Commissioner Holman: I think what is being considered is 20 feet. I am not lOO% up to date on
that but I think it is 20 feet.
Commissioner Burt: The properties that abut both that border of the GM zone and then the
border of the adjacent ROLM zone, is Staff clear on those? I believe that on the ROLM zone
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 21 of 58
, .
1 that those are R-l properties that abut but I am not so sure if that is the case on the GM zone
2 across the creek. Are those also R-l?
3
4 Mr. Williams: I believe they are also R-l properties. I looked at the map this afternoon and that
5 is what I recall.
6
7 Commissioner Burt: So it is interesting and ironic too. As I think about it a lot of these are
8 single-family homes, Eichlers that several of the members of this Commission have voted to
9 have single story overlays and here we are allowing RM-30 immediately adjacent to those
10 properties. So I have been struggling and thinking about whether it is appropriate to have a
11 different concept from what we had last week for the RP zone. We look at the Comp Plan and
12 all of the different policies and elements that talk about transitions and compatibility I think
13 having this sort oftransition is much more consistent with the Comp Plan. It still allows the
14 RM-30 in those areas. For instance along Fabian we have some very high-density residential
15 going in there. On East Meadow Circle it would still allow RM-30 in all sorts of those areas but
16 just those properties immediately adjacent to R-l would have some consideration. It would still
17 go up to RM-15 I am not talking about prohibiting moderate density there I am just saying in
18 those borders and transitional areas that we respect that kind of thing. I think I would like to
19 remind the Corinnission of a lesson that we need to make sure we are learning. That is if we
20 want to promote housing in the community we have to be sensitive to not ramming it down the
21 throats of people who are impacted by it. We just saw what we thought was a fairly moderate
22 proposal by the Commission on granny units which would have far less impact in my mind on
23 the quality oflife ofR-l residents than having an RM-30 development immediately adjacent to
24 them and as a result of community outcry the Council shot down the Planning Commission and
25 Staffs recommendation. I think right now we are corning back with something that could have a
26 greater outcry than that. Then it ends up also if we aren't thinking these things through
27 adequately and we are just following on one objective which is increase the housing supply and
28 ignoring the other parts oftheComp Plan and ignoring some of the concerns of the community I·
29 think ultimately it starts undermining the credibility of the Commission because we are just not
30 getting it.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, my tum to speak. I hear what you are saying and I know you are
33 trying to convince me otherwise but I will tell you why I am going to support the motion. One,
34 there is always ARB review of any of these units there has to be and compatibility and
35 transitions and daylight planes will be taken into account. Two, what we were looking at last
36 week was the potential of buildings facing R-l. In these situations none of the streets that go
37 through these areas face an R-l, they just back up there are fences and backyards. Also the·
38 existing buildings many of them are two story and the residents are used to having these big ugly
39 looking buildings that they can see. I live near there so I know what it is like. Third, it was very
40 interesting the Environmental Impact Report that many of us read with regard to Mayfield
41 showed to us how housing produces less trips than workforce buildings. So the ramming things
42 down people's throat I think there is a perception that housing is going to create more traffic but
43 the study shows that the opposite is the case. That is just an education process. Additionally,
44 what we are doing here is not changing anything. We are not changing the code at all we are just
45 contiiming what has been in existence we are not saying all of a sudden there is going to be
46 housing here. Of course we know there is a lot of interest in housing coming through and the
47 Architectural Review Board is looking at these things and making sure that they will be nice. I
48 am not aware that they are coming in as dense as they could in fact they are a little bit less dense
City oj Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 22 of 58
1 because maybe there is a better market for these higher end units. So I don't think it is going to
2 create a horrible thing if we don't have an RM-15 restriction. This is going to be just fine for
3 these two areas, the ROLM and the OM so I will support the motion.
4
5 Karen, do you have one more thing?
6
7 Coinmissioner Holman: Yes, just one more comment because a couple of mentions have been of
8 ARB review. If an RM-30 is allowed and the development centers ofRM-30 the ARB can work
9 towards compatibility and mush around the mass but they cannot reduce. They have not within
10 their authority any ability to reduce the FAR or the density. So we are relying on something here
11 that is a limited capability of review.
12
13 Vice Chair Packer: I think the parking requirements; the daylight plane requirements and all the
14 marketable size of units will reduce the density.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: That is not ARB.
17
18 Vice Chair Packer: I understand but the development standards and all these other factors end up
19 meaning that you can't always build to the highest density. It just doesn't happen. That is just a
20 maximum it is not a requirement that they build 30 units. We have seen that countless times
21 over and over again that things cannot be built just because it says so in the code because there
22 are all these other constraints. Phyllis.
23
24 Chair Cassel: The only thing to remember is that there already is a reasonable setback in these
25 areas that are already zoned RM-30. We are not increasing the density of the zone in this area so
26 that people who are in these single-family units are familiar with what is there already. The
27 other is that most of this area has some kind of a Water District setback, not all of it but most it
28 has some kind ofa Water District setback already. I think we do need to look at or include in
29 this a note for compatibility in this area but it does come within much of this area are 100 foot
30 setbacks just because of the distance across the creek plus the setbacks.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
33
34 Commissioner Burt: First if Phyllis alluded to a note if it is the intention to have compatibility as
35 part of the motion, even though I won't be supporting the motion, I think it would be appropriate
36 to include that. Second, the setback along the waterway we just had clarified that on the ROLM
37 side and the OM side it is only a 20-foot setback.
38
39 Chair Cassel: Well, this isfrom the residential water on the property on the other side of the
40 creek, this ISO-foot setback not from the edge of the property ofthe LM property. Your
41 ordinance reads that this will be ISO-foot setback from the residential portion or the R-1 portion.
42 So you've got the creek plus that.
43
44 Commissioner Burt: Well, then that would mean that if we included the RM-15 restriction as we
45 did in the RP zones then the effective setback from the edge ofthe commercial properties would
46 be less than 150 feet because we already have some of that setback taken up by the creek. So the
47 practical impact of applying the same guidelines that we did in the RP zone would not mean that
48 the residential property would have 150 feet of developable space that could not go to RM -30 it
City of Palo A Ito May 18,2005 Page 23 of 58
, .
1 might be closer to 100 feet. The other points I wanted to make are that Bonnie alluded to traffic
2 impact in terms that I certainly didn't make that as one of the points so if you were responding to
3 me that wasn't what I had said. Then also Bonnie had said that in our RP zone decision last
4 week we were only dealing with transitions at street face but that is not correct. The south
5 border of the RP zone, which abuts Barron Park, is not a street face impact that is a rear setback
6 impact. Then Bonnie had also talked about somehow that because we aren't always able to build
7 to the highest density that that somehow would mean that that changed this consideration. They
8 can build to RM-30 based upon this without any setback requirement of a transition to an R-l
9 zone and that is the issue before us. I agree with Karen that Bonnie had made the point earlier
10 that ARB could take care of those issues but they can't, it is not within their purview to address
11 impacts on the housing density or the FAR. So those are reasons why I think that the guideline
12 that we had last week was a good consideration and in fact was consistent with what was
13 developed for the Mayfield Agreement which went through a lot of good public process, was a
14 good compromise, where we kind of aired everything and said what are the issues if we do have
15 this kind of housing density adjacent to R-l districts, A whole bunch of stuff came up that we
16 had never really thought through before. The City hadn't thought through it and the Staff hadn't
17 thought through it and the Commission hadn't thought through it norhad the Council. At the
18 end of that certain considerations were recognized of what was appropriate in transitions. What
19 we ended up adopting for the RP district was essential what was wrestled with and came out with
20 an appropriate compromise for that Mayfield development. It ended up being something that
21 allowed a lot of housing development to occur under that Mayfield Agreement with a
22 compromise that seemed to be fairly compatible to both housing advocates and the community as
23 a whole.
24
25 Vice Chair Packer: I just want to be careful that we don't talk about that here. I understand what
26 you want to say I just want to remind you of that.
27
28 Commissioner Burt: I don't think you are correct and maybe the City Attorney can comment on
29 whether I can refer to the Mayfield Agreement as a way in which the City and the community
30 had wrestled with these sorts of similar issues and whether that can shed light on our discussion
31 here tonight.
32
33 Mr. Larkin: We have to be careful that we are not revisiting decisions that have already been
34 made. You can cite that as a model the only caveat being that it is a development agreement and
35 not zoning standards so that it is a little bit different issue but you can talk about it in terms of the
36 design.
37
38 Commissioner Burt: That's right.
39
40 Vice Chair Packer: I understand that I just wanted to , ...
41
42 Commissioner Burt: You made the point but I believe it is an incorrect point.
43
44 MOTION PASSED (3-2-2-0, Commissioners Lippert, Cassel and Packer voting for,
45 Commissioner Burt and Holman against and Commissioners Griffin and Bialson absent)
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: I think we have discussed this quite enough. I think we know what our
48 positions are. I think we are probably ready for a vote. These are issues that are complex and we
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 24 of 58
1 have many valid viewpoints, a lot of these ideas are valid but then at the end of the day we have
2 to come up with a decision of what we think is best. So I think I would like to call the question
3 and have a vote at his point. All those in favor of Lee's motion, do I need to repeat it for the
4 sake of the Staff, which is to not adopt the Staff recommendation that there be a limit to RM-15
5 density for residential development ifit is within 150 feet ofan RE, R-l or R-2 or RMD zone in
6 the OM and ROLM districts with the addition that there be some language or direction to the
7 ARB that when these are reviewed that they consider compatibility with those low density
8 residential districts. Have a captured your motion correctly? All those in favor of Lee's motion
9 say aye. (ayes) that is Commissioner Lippert, Cassel and Packer in favor. All those opposed?
10 (nays) That is Commissioners Burt and Holman against. The motion carries.
11
12 Now in doing that motion does that in essence, I am asking Commissioners do you feel
13 comfortable in so doing we accept or not accept the RM-30 development? Allowing RM-30
14 housing in these zones? There was some discussion earlier about why we should not allow
15 housing so I want to know where we are going in that area. Have we incorporated that or we
16 have taken out the RM-15 and we still have left the RM-30 so we-still do need to discuss whether
17 or not and where that is appropriate and take into consideration Comprehensive Plan
18 requirements. Curtis, did you want to say something?
19
20 Mr. Williams: No, I think there is RM-30 and then if you have a separate motion on where that
21 would apply like we talked about some portion of OM if there is a motion on that and then we
22 need to understand what that means for the ROLM-E portion too.
23
24 Vice Chair Packer: . Yes, and unless we have something additional from what was said we did
25 have a long discussion on the pros and cons of housing in different places. So if somebody is
26 ready to make a motion in that area we could still talk to it but just to move things along. We
27 have lots of hands up.
28
29 Chair Cassel: The ROLM-E doesn't have any single family residential near it and it zoned RM-
30 30 now and so it is just leaving that as it is it didn't need that other piece added to it because
31 there isn't any residential near it anyway.
32
33 Vice Chair Packer: Does that Staffs understand that Lee's motion did not have to include
34 ROLM-E because it wasn't applicable? Lee.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: The point I wanted to bring up about the ROLM-E, which I think is very
37 important, is its adjacency to the Baylands. When you look at that site the Baylands actually had
38 come up to Embarcadero Road at one point and then they holed it in and they built on top of it.
39 My concern is that it is number one a flood plane so redevelopment in that area is incredibly
40 difficult but by encouraging or having standards to allow for housing in that area what you
41 basically have done is you have allowed for redevelopment of that area. I don't know if we want
42 to encourage or promote opportunities for redevelopment of that area. What in fact I am
43 thinking of is that these buildings are amortized over a certain period of time, they are going to
44 be paid for, they are going to reach the end of their usefullifecyc1e and maybe there might be a
45 way where these properties and their development could be transferred to other parts of the city
46 and those sites could go away and it could be reverted back to Baylands. At the very least I
47 don't want to see an intensification of the land use in that area. So I purposely left out in my
48 motion the RM-30 applying to that area because I don't want to see a higher density of housing
City of Palo A Ito May 18,2005 Page 25 of 58
1 in that area because it is going to rise to the highest and best use and somebody is going to build
2 housing there and we are going to be stuck with it adjacent to the Baylands for the next 50 years.
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: Let's have our discussion and then focus on the ROLM-E for the next few
5 minutes. So if Commissioners have any comments go ahead.
6
7 Commissioner Burt: Well I actually have somewhat of the opposite viewpoint of those lands.
8 Up and down the peninsula we have seen a lot of housing developed east of Bayshore basically.
9 Palo Alto is about the only city that I can think of or one of the few that doesn't have it. We
10 have light manufacturing that is permitted there would it be better to have residential or at least
11 allow that opportunity for residential there? I lean toward that that is a good opportunity. As a
12 physical distance it is relatively close to the Edgewood Center, it has a pedestrian overpass near
13 there, ideally we would like to have some greater neighborhood serving retail that would locate
14 there on a small amount if it evolved toward more housing and that might happen as part of a
15 mixed use but with prospective redevelopment of the Edgewood Center I know that housing
16 there would help compliment the vitality of that center and I think that housing down there
17 would be a good opportunity for housing. Most of the commercial buildings that are down there
18 are older grade B commercial buildings that are in fact ripe for one form of redevelopment or
19 another. Unlike this GM zone that we were talking about that I think should remain dedicated to
20 manufacturing I think this LM zone is one that is an excellent candidate for evolution toward
21 housing.
22
23 Vice Chair Packer: Can I ask you, this little GM zone right up there in the north would your
24 discussion apply to that little GM zone up there?
25 Commissioner Burt: It was interesting too I don't have an answer to that. I should start by
26 saying. One of those properties we have talked about having a vital use as a landscaping supply
27 area that has really a city serving purpose that has a real community value that other one that
28 looks like it is next to the post office I just hadn't appreciated that that was zoned GM. So I
29 don't really have an answer. Is that were the International School is? Okay, so that is on the GM
30 zone. So we put a school there. That is another use that I think we need to be considering and
31 that particular circumstance, this points out that we have GM and then we have GM because here
32 we have a location where it is zoned GM and there is no GM adjacent to it. It was an acceptable
33 use to put a school there but putting a school down in a true manufacturing area surrounded by
34 hazardous materials which might be considered is a bad idea. So I think we have real differences
35 in what were our GM zones 20 or 30 years ago and what today are in reality GM zones. So I
36 don't have a good answer for you on that question but I think it illustrates an issue that we have
37 to face.
38
39 Vice Chair Packer: Karen, I think you have a comment on the ROLM-E housing issue.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: Yes, and I fall somewhere in between Commissioners Lippert and Burt.
42 I would love to see that revert to I can't exactly say revert to marshland because it is fill. The
43 marsh in the bay used to come up to my understanding up to 101 thus Bayshore Freeway. That
44 was before I lived here but that is what I understand. So there is also the issue of how long they
45 are going to stay? Who knows? How long are they going to be able to stay? Who knows?
46 Again we have another sales tax issue because there are auto dealerships along Embarcadero
47 Road too.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18. 2005 Page 26 oj58
1 Commissioner Lippert: We are not dealing with the auto dealers.
2
3 Commissioner Holman: That's right. Are all of those PCs? I know a couple of them are. Are
4 all three of them PCs?
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: I think so.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then I take that off the table then. I do agree with
9 Commissioner Lippert that I would hate to see an intensification of use along especially
10 Embarcadero Road. So maybe we could consider within 150 feet of Embarcadero Road or
11 something of that nature that they are not the RM-30 or some lower density housing if we have
12 housing there at all. I have less trouble with housing along East Bayshore. I certainly have less
13 trouble with it there. There are development issues, as Commissioner Lippert would know. I
14 wouldn't want to see RM-30 allowed in that whole ROLM-E either.
15
16 Vice Chair Packer: Phyllis, do you want to weigh in on this one?
17
18 Chair Cassel: Well City Council Monday night said they didn't think there was a wide range of
19 things when looking at the low density. All they were looking at were issues of instead of just
20 having rental units why didn't we allow two units with different owners, condominium type
21 ownership on R-2 lots. Why didn't we think of this? So when I think about the Bayshore area,
22 every time I think about it I think how can we get more of that land back into the open space.
23 How does it come back? How do you bring some of it back? My understanding is that much of
24 the area east of Ross Road in Midtown is also on fill and we are not going to take that back. We
25 plowed down on 101. I have one question for you. The spine that runs out towards the bay that
26 was not fill, right?
27
28 Commissioner Burt: Which spine are you referring to?
29
30 Chair Cassel: As.you take Embarcadero Road, along Embarcadero Road that is not fill, right?
31
32 Commissioner Burt: The entire area east of 101 is fill. Can I comment on a couple these things?
33 First under the concept of looking for opportunities to transform some of the area in that east of
34 Bayshore zone into natural habitat I think there are two significant opportunities for that in the
35 future. One is should the county not retain the airport site that is public facility land and that
36 would be an opportunity for other uses which could include transformation of some ofthat into
37 natural habitat. That is definitely part of what is going on in county discussions depending on
38 what happens on the Moffett Field becoming a general aviation airfield.
39
40 Second, is the discussion the Staff is pursuing right now on the golf course which is 180 acres of
41 land that was developed not as natural habitat and that golf courses today are being designed and
42 developed using native vegetation which has a variety of opportunities plus being incorporated
43 as portions of the flood plane. So there are some tremendous opportunities there. I think the
44 notion of taking land that is in private hands right now that is developed and is worth three or
45 four million dollars an acre as privately owned land and envisioning that somehow we are going
46 to buy that back or zone it so that they can't develop there which we talked about, we have had
47 all these references to takings over the years, that is the only thing that is clearly black and white
48 in taking. You can't make it un-developable without compensation. It is just a nonstarter. That
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 27 of 58
1 is not going to happen. So the notion of doing that I think isn't something that we should even
2 have on the field. There are a lot of other valid aspects to this. What sorts of better transitions
3 we should have between what is developed there and the open space areas. Maybe somewhat
4 contrary to what Karen had suggested I would be more concerned with the transition of the
5 Baylands Park area, the backside of those properties and the development density there and all of
6 the development guidelines that would make it a more compatible transition to the actual open
7 space lands than I would right along Embarcadero Road per se.
8
9 Then finally we were talking about the auto dealerships. Although the auto dealerships currently
10 are PCs the land that is the former Scott's Seafood site and Ming's and the other properties that
11 run along East Bayshore there I believe Staff can confirm for us but they are part of what is now
12 in the mix of discussions of where might we create opportunities for expanded auto dealerships.
13 That is not something that we can necessarily take up tonight but I think we should be conscious
14 that even though they are not presently auto dealerships that is something that is being discussed
15 under the Mayor's retail committee and the City Manager and the Director of Planning are all
16 deeply involved in that discussion right now so we shouldn't dismiss that as a potential.
17
18 Vice Chair Packer: I would like to weigh in also on the proposal I think of whether or not we
19 should have RM-30. I would not want to change the existing zoning. I would like to keep the
20 RM-30 possibility because we don't know what is going to happen in the future. Sure it would
21 be nice if everything reverted to natural land but then where would we live? I just think we just
22 have to have that in there. If it comes about that there are other factors and people decide that
23 there should not be housing out there the City Council can issue a moratorium on building or
24 whatever if they want to protect the lands. There are other ways that you could keep that area
25 from developing if that became what the community really wants. But right now in order to not
26 to have to have a change in the Comprehensive Plan in order to just keep the status quo and
27 maybe there will be auto dealerships there that will come into play that will postpone any
28 housing development for awhile ifthat is what the community decides that is fine. But to take
29 away the housing opportunity no, I don't think would be wise. We don't have any good reason
30 despite what you say about it would be nice ifit reverted to all parkland. I don't think that is
31 going to happen because it is either going to be commercial or an auto row or it is going to be
32 something else. It is not going to become parkland or revert to its natural state whatever it was,
33 water I guess before it was filled in. So I think we should keep the RM-30 as a permitted use.
34 That doesn't mean it is going to happen overnight, it is probably not going to happen in another
35 20 years. And then if the community wants to do something later with not having development
36 they can do so but let's not take it away now there is no compelling reason to do so. Lee.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Well, at the very least as I said previously I would be inclined to leave it
39 alone and leave it as what it is and not change a single thing about it. Not increase the density,
40 not change any of the regulations, just allow it to be what it is and not move. I would like to cite
41 a couple of examples though in which developed area has been taken and recently redeveloped
42 into natural habitat again. Those are Bear Island up in Redwood City taking that island moving
43 the office buildings off of the island and restoring that to a natural habitat. Taking the theaters
44 along Bayshore and moving them into Downtown Redwood City and most recently taking the
45 salt flats out in the lower bay and restoring that all to natural habitat. I dare anybody to say that
46 15 years ago they would ever imagine that those would have been possible to have happen. I
47 think that there is an opportunity here by saying gee, we can't take away people's development
48 rights but what we can do is keep them very narrow and keep them what they are at the least and
City oj Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 28 oJ 58
1 then over time those areas might just redevelop and revert back to more open space and more
2 natural habitat. We have two areas that the citizens of this community really value. One is the
3 foothills' open space the other one is the Bayshore open space. We can never have enough of
4 either one.
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: I am sympathetic to your sentiments. However, the Comprehensive Plan
7 doesn't direct us in that direction. Ifin the next Comprehensive Plan that is the sense of the
8 community that we want that area to revert back that can happen. What we do tonight or what·
9 City Council does. in accepting this on the ordinance will not prevent that from happening if that
10 is the will of the community. That is all I am saying. For us to take it away now I believe would
11 require a change in the Comprehensive Plan.
12
13 Comniissioner Lippert: I didn't say take anything away. I am saying leave it alone and let it be
14 what it is.
15
16 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. I agree. I think it is lovely what happened to Bear Island.
17
18 Chair Cassel: Did you want to leave it alone?
19
20 Commissioner Burt: I am in favor ofleaving it alone. Just for the record the theaters in
21 Redwood City are I believe planned to become auto dealerships. The salt flats were not
22 developed, I am very familiar with the Cargill Development Agreement, they were not
23· commercially developed other than as salt marsh. Bear Island I don't know ifthere were
24 commercial buildings that represented less than a percent of that. So I think we don't have really
25 that pattern of conversion of developed land reverting to natural habitat but I do think we have
26 these other opportunities that I cited before.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: I would like to point out it is a little after nine o'clock I am sure some of us
29 would like a break. However, have we discussed this particular issue enough that we can have a
30 vote on it? I know there are lots ofthings we can say but have we discussed it enough for the
31 sake of having a vote on whether or not to maintain RM-30 in the ROLM-E district.
32
33 MOTION
34
35 Commissioner Burt: I will make that motion.
36
37 Vice Chair Packer: Pat, you are making a motion that we maintain the RM-30 density in the
38 ROLM-E district, is that the essence of your motion?
39
40 Commissioner Burt: That is correct.
41
42 SECOND
43
44 Vice Chair Packer: Do we have a second? I will second.
45
46 I think you have spoken to it, right?
47
48 Commissioner Burt: I don't need to speak any more to it.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 29 of 58
'.
1
2 Vice Chair Packer: I don't think I need to speak to it anymore. Anybody else want to speak on
3 the motion?
4
5 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
6
7 Commissioner Holman: I want to make a substitute motion because I basically concur with
8 Commissioner Lippert's original comments about not intensifying the development out there. So
9 I am going to make a motion that we eliminate RM-30 and retain RM-15.
10
11 SECOND
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
14
15 Vice Chair Packer: Do you wan to speak to your motion?
16
17 Commissioner Holman: I just think this is an environmentally sensitive area and we are at a tim~
18 when housing development is quite attractive from an economic standpoint. While it doesn't
19 eliminate there is no taking involved it doesn't eliminate the potential for development it does at
20 least lessen the potential for greater development. I think it is a prudent and practical thing to do.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: I agree with that and on top of that I also think that the land use is going
23 to rise to the highest and best use and probably the RM-30 is going to encourage the
24 redevelopment of sites whereas the RM-15 will discourage redevelopment of those sites.
25
26 Vice Chair Packer: I have a question for the attorney. If this were to pass would it require a
27 change in the Comprehensive Plan?
28
29 Mr. Larkin: No, because we would still be allowing housing.
30
31 Vice Chair Packer: Thank you. Pat.
32
33 Commissioner Burt: Well I am open to considering that but I guess I don't feel comfortable
34 tonight making that decision and I know that we have on the horizon the update of the Baylands
35 Master Plan. My sense personally is that I would like to look at that change in the context of
36 when we review the Baylands Master Plan and do a more thoughtful consideration of what
37 would be appropriate for housing should it be out there. So I would like to ask Staff
38 procedurally if we were tonight to not make any changes to the existing allowable uses would
39 there then be an opportunity when the Baylands Master Plan is reviewed to reconsider that and
40 whether there should be a reduction in the allowable housing density based upon whatever gets
41 adopted with the Baylands Master Plan.
42 Mr. Lusardi: When you consider the Baylands Master Plan and make a recommendation to the
43 Council on how that master plan should look and be implemented you can also if you want
44 request that the Councilor that the Commission initiate a zoning change or amendment to that
45 ROLM-E zone at that time as well.
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: Karen.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 . Page 30 of 58
1 Commissioner Holman: What is the schedule on, I know it has been moved out a couple of
2 times, what is the schedule on the Baylands Master Plan coming to us?
3
4 Ms. Grote: There isn't a schedule at this point because it was put on hold in order to take on
5 other assignments having to do with the auto dealerships and some of the other work that has
6 come our way recently. So there is no schedule.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: The reason I am asking is because it is a good point that Commissioner
9 Burt makes is it appropriate for us to make recommendations on ROLM-E. That is why I was
10 asking what the timeframe was. John, you are confident that we could make any
11 recommendations to revise ROLM-E once the Baylands Master Plan comes to us? Is it not kind
12 of double work then that we would be doing?
13
14 Ms. Grote: It would be parallel work. You would be amending the ROLM-E to correspond with
15 whatever changes were made as a result of the Master Plan. It wouldn't take a lot in terms of the
16 zoning ordinance modification. The real work would be within the context of the Baylands Plan ..
17
18 Commissioner Holman: Politically or because of property owners being there is it unwise to be
19 doing this twice?
20
21 Ms. Grote: You will be doing it with the Baylands Master Plan anyway. You will have a
22 property owner involved in notification and they are going to be reviewing whatever
23 recommendations and discussions you have. So it would be a parallel document of change.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: I would still just say that I think it is prudent for reasons I stated earlier
26 I think it is prudent if we are going to act on this tonight to recommend the RM-15.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: Phyllis, do you want to speak on this motion?
29
30 Chair Cassel: I am going to support the substitute motion. I am usually in favor of increasing
31 density of housing. I am not really excited about putting housing out in this area. I am not
32 excited about putting auto dealerships out here either and I may have no control over that but the
33 Master Plan isn't coming back to us for awhile. While I think it needs to and I think it is
34 important that it does I think it is important that we look at what areas can be reverted and what
35 areas can't be reverted because I agree with Pat although I said ideally we would take this back
36. and tum it into its natural habitat I agree with Pat there are private land uses that we aren't going
37 to take away at this time and that is not in our prerogative on the other hand beginning to look at
38 spaces where we can bring it back over time I think is really important and these transitions into
39 that area are important. I think it lowers the - I am excited about higher density housing in a lot
40 of places it is not in this area and it is not in the foothills. I guess that is one of the thing I have
41 been so excited about with coming to Palo Alto is working at keeping this area that has so much
42 open space in Baylands and thatit keeps its hills from being developed with high intensity uses
43 and I stand pretty strongly in favor of high intensity uses between 101 and 280 but this is not art
44 area that I have wanted to see housing all along. I actually think that the lower intensity
45 industrial turns off most of its lights and most of its activity at least for the weekend where
46 housing keeps it going and going and going. So it is a different kind of use and brings more
47 people into the area more consistently over times. So I would rather go for the RM-15 at this
48 time.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 31 of 58
1
2 Vice Chair Packer: Well, I think I will support it too. I think it is a good compromise for that
3 area. We would still have housing if it ever happens and people want to do it it might be kind of
4 like the houses that Foster City has you could get something nice if that is what you wanted to go
5 in that area. So for some of the reasons that Pat said that housing could be economically viable
6 for that area and RM-15 density would still provide that vitality. So even though I usually
7 support higher density housing there are good places for higher density housing and bad places
8 for it so I will support the substitute motion. Have we had enough discussion?
9
10 Chair Cassel: I guess there is one more comment and that is the fact that I am disappointed that
11 the Master Plan has been d~layed. There are other major issues out in that area and I know the
12 Staff can't change the direction they get from City Council but we have had other issues out in
13 that area that people are working on, we have waste and compost area issues, what are we going
14 to do with the recycling that we have and all those issues go with the Master Plan out in the
15 Baylands area and it is an important piece of real estate for the City and the balance of which
16 needs to be looked at here.
17
18 Vice Chair Packer: Pat, one more thing and then we can have a vote?
19
20 Commissioner Burt: Yes. I am struggling with this but because I think it is very possible that
21 when we do have the Master Plan I may support RM-15 but I don't think I have a basis yet to
22 arrive at that conclusion. I think about the Scott's Seafood site that the Commission supported a
23 pretty monolithic building or was proposed to be a monolithic building and yet we are saying we
24 wouldn't support RM-30 housing in that location and to me that is somewhat of a contradiction.
25 So I think also if at the time we get the Baylands Master Plan if we were to at that time conclude
26 that there are areas here or all of this area that RM-30 is appropriate we might have a harder time
27 zoning it back up to RM-30 if we reduce that now to RM-15. So for the reason that I would like
28 to keep that decision open until we have better information I won't support the substitute motion
29 although I think I am in the minority position on that.
30
31 MOTION PASSED (4-1-2-0, Commissioner Burt voted nay, Commissioners Griffin and Bialson
32 absent)
33
34 Vice Chair Packer: I think we are ready for a vote. Thank you everybody for your comments.
35 All those in favor of Karen's substitute motion, which is to allow as a permitted use RM-15
36 density in the ROLM-E zone and not higher than that, all those in favor say aye. (ayes) That is
37 Commissioner Lippert, Cassel, Packer and Holman. All those opposed say nay. (nay) By a
38 process of elimination Commissioner Burt votes nay. So the motion passes four to one.
39
40 This is a good time and a very necessary time to take a seven-minute break. We will return.
41
42 I think we want to call the meeting back to order. I have a question for the Commissioners as to
43 whether you think we have addressed the issue of the appropriate residential density in the GM
44 zones. I am not sure it is very clear what densities we want to use. It is currently proposed right
45 now on the basis of our previous motion RM-30 would allowed in theGM zone however there
46 was some discussion about maybe a portion of the GM zone should have something different.
47 So if somebody wants to make a motion with regard to residential multi-family density in the
48 GM zone let's do so. Pat.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 32 of 58
1
2 MOTION
3
4 Commissioner Burt: I would like to make a motion that I think might continue to allow it in the
5 zone but address the concerns that I had raised and I think are ones that really need to be
6 addressed. Let me try and take a stab at verbiage and I may need Staffs assistance on this. My
7 motion would be that the RM-30 housing still be an allowed use in the GM zones but that it be
8 conditioned on the addition of that housing not resulting in adjacent manufacturing uses
9 subsequently constituting nuisances or other significant liabilities being imposed on the existing
10 manufacturing uses in those zones. I don't know if Staff can rephrase the intent of my motion in
11 a better way than I have been able to capture it there and whether the City Attorney has any
12 comments on whether that is a condition that we can impose in a reasonable way.
13
14 Mr. Williams: I want to just mention a couple of things and then tum it over to Don. One option
15 that comes to mind that might do that or at least a portion of it is using a use permit instead of
16 making it a permitted use so that you have some discretion to look at the residential use. The
17 other and really I would defer to Don on this whether it is possible, I have seen some almost like
18 disclosure requirements that residential property owners acknowledge that there is an industrial
19 use riext door and that they are not complaining about that or something to that affect. It doesn't
20 sound to me like a real good way to go and I don't know how enforceable those things are.
21
22 Mr. Larkin: They are difficult to enforce because a nuisance is a nuisance and you can't say it is
23 not because it is there and coming to the nuisance is not a defense to a nuisance claim no matter
24 how much disclosure there is, however, I think Curtis's suggestion that a conditional use permit
25 could in effect create the same or go along way towards meeting your intent particularly ifthere
26 is a policy statement associated with it that residential uses adjacent to for example H-7
27 occupancies is discouraged.
28
29 Commissioner Burt: Then I would like to take a stab at modifying the language of my motion.
30 The housing in the GM zone well I guess I have a problem because I really don't intend for this
31 to be for all GM zones. So I would say in the GM zone that is southeast of San Antonio that
32 housing be a conditional use and that it, now I am forgetting Don's exact wording but that it not
33 be permitted in proximity to any H occupancies. Not just H-7 because I don't know if you know
34 that H-l and H-2 are downgraded so that you can have some pretty hazardous materials in H-l
35 and H-2.
36
37 Mr. Larkin: I was just using it as an example.
38
39 Commissioner Burt: Okay. So in any H occupancies that it not be a use permitted in the vicinity
40 ofH occupancies. I think adjacent is too limiting. I would say 150 feet of any H occupancies.
41
42 Vice Chair Packer: Pat, could you just describe what an H occupancy is?
43
44 Commissioner Burt: It is hazardous materials.
45
46 SECOND
47
48 Commissioner Lippert: Second.
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 33 of 58
1 Chair Cassel: I was going to comment on the original motion since that failed. The motion on
2 the floor is to allow RM-30 in the GM districts with the exception of this area making it a
3 conditional use permit unless it is within 150 feet.
4
5 Commissioner Burt: I believe it was that it would not be allowed within 150 feet of any H
6 occupancy and that it be a conditional use permit anywhere in that particular GM zone.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: So basically the H occupancy would have to vacate and be gone before
9 any housing could be built there.
10
11 Chair Cassel: So you wouldn't be able to build housing next to it.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: Right.
14
15 Commissioner Burt: Right. Wouldn't build housing within 150 feet of an H occupancy.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: But a developer could theoretically go in and buy them out and say.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: That is right. That is exactly right.
20
21 Vice Chair Packer: But that is okay because if you buyout the H occupancy then you are not
22 hurting the residents.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: Correct and you are not hurting the business either.
25
26 Chair Cassel: I will do a motion. But I am supporting it not because I want to go more
27 towards Karen direction I am coming this direction a little bit to see how that goes. I will
28 disagree with Karen's comment about recycling uses next to residential. I know of a situation in
29 another city in which a recycling use is going to be part of a mixed use with residential. So it is
30 not necessarily not a combination that can't work. So I think that you can combine a lot of
31 different things and make them work. While I am concerned about the GM zone being GM
32 certainly on the other side of San Antonio that area is converting to a significant amount of non-
33 residential and we have passed that through this area and we have a school over there that is
34 coming in and we in fact have a school in the middle of the LM district right now that has gone
35 under a conditional use permit and no one around it seems to be aware of it although they must
36 have received some kind of notice. So I think we just are familiar with how many times things
37 move. I have worked in other cities, as you know I collect blood, and we are invited out to many
38 different buildings all over the peninsula north and south and we go into a number of these
39 different buildings and you would be surprised where there are churches and where there are
40 schools and where they are in industrial areas. They are quite varied all over the place and they
41 mix quite well in most cases. People are moving schools there, they are moving private schools
42 there because they can get there without a lot of hassle and they don't need all the requirements
43 that the city schools or public schools need. So I think we get more variety and they are all quite
44 fine. But I will support your motion.
45
46 Vice Chair Packer: Lee.
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page350/58
1 Those are the densities that we are recommending. So with those densities have a mixed
2 residential and non-residential use with the floor area ratios that are reflected in Staffs
3 recommended language. Do I have that right? That is what we are going to discuss now. Could
4 we have a motion on Staffs recommendation as Ijust explained it and then we can discuss it?
5 Phyllis is waiving her hand.
6
7 Chair Cassel: I was going to give you the motion.
8
9 Vice Chair Packer: Phyllis is going to give me the motion.
10
11 MOTION
12
13 Chair Cassel: I was going to move the Staff recommendation so that we have on the table the
14 issues before us.
15
16 SECOND
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
19
20 Chair Cassel: Thank you.
21
22 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. Do you want to speak to the motion?
23
24 Chair Cassel: Well, it is going to reflect the changes we made this evening. It is going to allow
25 some mixed use in the proportion that we have been anticipating. I think that is all I wanted to
26 say at the moment.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: Lee.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: I it looks just fine and I don't really have anything else to say.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: Anyone else? Pat.
33
34 Commissioner Burt: Question for Staff. In the areas such as around Fabian and East Meadow
35 where we are having a very strong transformation from what was either ROLM or GM to pretty
36 high density housing and we have virtually no commercial retail in that area where people just
37 have to drive for any service are there some measures that we could take here that would either
38 mandate or incentivize for neighborhood serving retail to be part of these developments?
39
40 Mr. Lusardi: Well if the Commission recalls when we presented the multi-family district to the
41 Commission we recommended that for the RM-30 and RM-40 if you have developments of 50
42 units or more you could put in retail with a CUP and that retail would be exempt from FAR. I
43 think that is an incentive. We talked to ARB about that and ARB feels that is a good incentive
44 and they encourage that in the RM-30 and RM-40 zones. One of the questions that came up
45, subsequent to that is what if you had two adjacent properties developed by the same developer
46 and one was 15 units and the other was 25 units neither one of those would qualify under that so
47 you want us to craft some language that would take that a step further that you could have two
48 adjacent developments of 50 units or more total that you would still have that retail opportunity.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 37 of 58
1 That was raised by one of the ARB members as well. I think that provisions that we presented to
2 you in the RM-30 would apply here and would work in that kind of an incentive.
3
4 Commissioner Burt: When you say they would apply you mean they could but they are not part
5 of?
6
7 Mr. Lusardi: They are not part of the RM-320 yet. So when you approve the RM-30 they would
8 then apply to RM-30 development in these zones but they right now. So you could put it in if
9 you wanted to in the industrial zone.
10
11 Commissioner Burt: So we would we need to have that as an amendment to the motion that if
12 there were RM-30 density developments then those guidelines would apply. How would we
13 make sure that that was incorporated in this district or that density residential development that
14 would occur in a different district from an RM-30 district?
15
16 Mr. Williams: I don't think so because we are referring back to complying with the standards of
17 the RM-30 district and that is one of the standards of it. It is not a use issue it is one ofthe
18 development standards or it will be one of the development standards.
19
20 Commissioner Burt: So it goes with the development being RM-30 as opposed to the district
21 being RM-30?
22
23 Mr. Williams: Right. What we are saying here is that for that residential portion of this project
24 that the standards of the RM-30 district apply.
25
26 Commissioner Burt: Okay.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: Lee.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: In the matrix that we have on page four it says here that retail services as
31 well as eating and drinking services are allowed in the GM and ROLM and the ROLM-E
32 districts with a conditional use permit.
33
34 Mr. Williams: That's right but they are not incentivized in terms of mixed use to bring them in.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: Well couldn't we simply just say that a conditional use permit is not
37 required for retail?
38
39 Mr. Williams: The reason why we have a conditional use permit in there is because we don't
40 want those zones to become retail and service commercial zones and that potential is there and
41 . did have quite a bit of discussion early on about these districts in terms of requiring the use
42 permit so that there is some control over how extensive retail and service businesses.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: So we want it but we don't want it.
45
46 Mr. Williams: We want some of it but we don't want all of it.
47
48 Ms. Grote: We want it to be service oriented to the ....
City oj Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page380J58
1
2 Commissioner Burt: So the conditions that you have established for a conditional use are spelled
3 out already and they are ones that are not intended to discourage it but simply to place certain
4 boundaries on it. Is that correct?
5
6 Mr. Lusardi: That is correct and to establish the types of uses that would be neighborhood
7 serving within that area and not vehicle serving. So that is the intent Qf the conditional use
8 permit as well.
9
10 Commissioner Burt: Good.
11
12 Vice Chair Packer: Karen, you had a question.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: Does the CUP focus on neighborhood serving or services? It doesn't
15 does it?
16
17 Mr. Lusardi: Well within the RM-30 zone that retail focuses on neighborhood services.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: Right but within the mixed use? That doesn't does it?
20
21 Mr. Williams: No it isn't specific about that. We are just assuming that when you are looking at
22 it you are looking at the compatibility with the zone that it is in. That would not be compatible
23 to have an industrial zone that is all retail. So that is one of the criteria that you are going to look
24 at in terms of making findings for a use permit that it is compatible with the zone and not having
25 adverse impacts and those kinds of things. So if it is necessary we could add something in there
26 that those services are retail and be oriented toward serving the local area and the neighborhood
27 or something along those lines but it is also the businesses in this case, primarily the businesses
28 in this case.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Right, then additionally because mixed use hasn't come to us. Mixed
31 use is being developed, right? That is why we don't have development standards for mixed use
32 in front of us.
33
34 Mr. Williams: Our hope is to eventually have development standards for mixed use that don't
35 have to reference back to RM-15, RM-30 that kind of thing it is sort of standalone development
36 standards, which are anticipated with the commercial zones.
37
38 CommissIoner Holman: Then the other comment having to do with that is in the GM district we
39 have talked about how we are concerned about losing some of the existing businesses in the GM
40 zones. Two things, one is the mixed use in the GM zone is a development of one to one floor
41 area ratio so I am thinking we are putting more pressure on redevelopmentofthose. Then also if
42 there was a conditional usepermit put on housing per the previous motion regarding multi-
43 family in the GM zones I would think that that we would want to put at least that condition on
44 mixed use in the same zones.
45
46 Ms. Grote: GM having the one to one floor area ratio, .5 of that would be the non-residential
47 portion that is the same FAR they have now if they don't have a mixed use. So it doesn't put
City of Palo A Ito May 18,2005 Page 39 of 58
1 additional pressure on the overall zone. You wouldn't necessarily lose the industrial use it would
2 just be an additional .5 for housing. You would still retain your .5 for industrial.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: I would suggest though that it is an incentive to redevelop and you are
5 going to lose the existing businesses when that happens.
6
7 Ms. Grote: You wouldn't get more than .5 for the housing though.
8
9 Commissioner Holman: I understand that, I understand but whenever there is a pressure to
10 redevelop which a one to one FAR as opposed to a .5 FAR causes some development incentive
11 pressure.
12 \
13 Ms. Grote: That could be but it would be an incentive to add housing to an existing industrial
14 base not to delete that industrial base or lose that industrial base because you wouldn't get the
15 one to one FAR for just housing.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: I am certainly clear on that. It is just that it puts pressure to redevelop
18 and you are going to lose the businesses that now serve the broader commercial community.
19 Because when you redevelop you don't retain businesses that are there, almost never.
20
21 Vice Chair Packer: Well let' s not have that conversation.
22
23 Ms. Grote: They may change.
24
25 Mr. Williams: I also want to point out this is what exists right now in our code, the one to one.
26 We have the mixed use provision.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: I know. I know.
29
30 Mr. Williams: And it is not happening that way.
31
32 Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
33
34 Commissioner Burt: Ijust have to say that this whole notion of having a mixed use project of
35 manufacturing and residential in the same use could only be considered by folks who have never
36 been in manufacturing. It is just not realistic and it is not a good idea either.
37
38 Ms. Grote: And it is probably not the heavy manufacturing uses but the more research and
39 development related.
40
41 Commissioner Burt: Well we have LM districts but if we have a GM district, we only have a
42 few ofthose in the city, and we really only have one of them that is a functioning GM district. I
43 just think this is just absurd that we are conceiving of this kind of mixed use.
44
45 Ms. Grote: The GM zone does allow research and development and so that is a possibility now.
46 So even if you didn't allow or didn't recommend having housing combined with that you might
47 see a change of those heavier manufacturing uses to research and development even without
48 housing.
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 40 of 58
1
2 Commissioner Burt: Right, but with those small parcels you are not going to have a wholesale
3 transformation at once. So you are going to have a manufacturing use even if it is not an H
4 occupancy next door to prospectively a residential use and that is just asking for great problems
5 for the residents and great problems for the manufacturers. This is a bad idea.
6
7 Chair Cassel: In the GM area?
8
9 Commissioner Burt: Yes, a true GM area. You have real manufacturing. We only have a little
10 bit of that left in our whole city.
11
12 Chair Cassel: Are you making an amendment?
13
14 Commissioner Burt: I tried earlier you guys wouldn't go for it.
15
16 Vice Chair Packer: We have one motion on the floor right now. It is the motion that Phyllis
17 made which is what I was just trying to restate the Staff recommendation. Pat, do you want to
18 make a substitute motion to eliminate the GM zone from this proposal about mixed use or are
19 just saying you are not going to support the entire motion?
20
21 Commissioner Burt: I guess I would like to suggest a friendly amendment that we eliminate the
22 residential component for mixed use within the GM zone in the GM zone that is south of San
23 Antonio.
24
25 Chair Cassel: I will accept that.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that as well.
28
29 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, does anybody else want to speak to the motion that is on the floor as
30 amended to exclude the residential portion from the mixed use in the GM zone southeast of San
31 Antonio Road? Karen.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Clarification. So you are not eliminating the one to one FAR there
34 could be other kinds of mixed use but not residential mixed use. Is that the intention of your
35 amendment?
36
37 Commissioner Burt: Yes. We already ...
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: It says here non-residential not more than .5 to one. So ifit was office
40 and retail you still couldn't exceed the .5 to one
41
42 Commissioner Holman: So why would we just not be allowing mixed use in that particular GM
43 zone?
44
45 Commissioner Burt: Iguess it is the same thing isn't it? Is that correct what Karen is saying?
46 My motion is the same thing as not allowing mixed use in that GM zone. Is that correct?
47
48 Mr. Williams: Right, right. This section is speaking to residential and non-residential mix.
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 41 of 58
1
2 Commissioner Burt: So it would be more clear to simply say as Karen stated that we wouldnot
3 allow mixed use in that particular GM zone and maybe that's a better way to phrase this motion.
4
5 Vice Chair Packer: Is that accepted by the maker ofthe motion?
6
7 Chair Cassel: Yes, that is what I presumed it was saying.
8
9 Commissioner Lippert: Unless it was housing and manufacturing.
10
11 Vice Chair Packer: Does the seconder accept the change?
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: Yes.
14
15 MOTION PASSED (4-1-2-0, Commissioner Holman voted nay, Commissioners Griffin and
16 Bialson absent)
17
18 Vice Chair Packer: Have we had enough discussion? It is almost ten o'clock. I think we have
19 gotten a lot of our ideas out on the table on this one. Do you think we are ready for a vote?
20 Okay. All those in favor of Phyllis'S motion as amended by Pat and I am not going to restate it
21 again please say aye. (ayes) Anybody opposed?
22
23 Commissioner Holman: I am going to vote nay just because I support this to the extent that it
24 goes but I do not support it because I don't think it goes far enough. So for that purpose I vote
25 nay.
26
27 . Vice Chair Packer: So this motion carries four to one with Commissioner Lippert, Burt, Cassel
28 and Packer voting yes and Commissioner Holman voting no.· Thank you.
29
30 What is our next one?
31
32 Mr. Williams: Building height to 40 feet in ROLM and ROLM-E.
33
34 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, so this is a separate recommendation to have a maximum of 40 feet to
35 allow for the interstitial space, which is essentially to allow more ducting and all that kind of
36 stuff, which is needed for the new technologies that are coming to us. Do we have a motion to
37 discuss the recommendation on this height? Any comments?
38
39 MOTION
40
41 Commissioner Holman: I will make a motion and I am going to do this piecemeal. I will make a
42 motion that we not allow the 40-foot height in the ROLM-E that we maintain the 35-foot.
43
44 SECOND
45
46 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
47
48 Vice Chair Packer: Does your motion include that we do allow it in the other districts?
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 42 of 58
1
2 Commissioner Holman: No, it does not.
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: You are just speaking to ROLM-E.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Yes. The reason I am moving that is certainly reflective of our previous
7 conversations and the motion that passed about not intensifying development in the Baylands
8 area and also there are issues of view lines from the Baylands per the Comp Plan and I don't
9 think I need to speak to it any more than that.
10
11 Vice Chair' Packer: Lee.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: I am just going to say the same reasons that I wasn't in support of
14 adding any new incentives or relaxing at all the regulations in the ROLM-E area. I don't think
15 that we should be promoting redevelopment and so I am definitely against it.
16
17. Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
18
19 Commissioner Burt: I support it for the reasons that Karen cited on compatibility with the
20 Baylands and the view lines. I would like to add that as we discussed when we had the Scott's
21 Seafood site that because this is in a flood plane building height is measured from the base that is
22 elevated to rise above the flood plane so we actually end up having buildings that are 40 feet if
23 we have a 35 foot height limit we have buildings that are 40 feet above what is actually the
24 surrounding ground. So if we had a 40-foot height building it would in fact be 45 feet plus
25 allowable equipment on the roof so getting up to 50 feet there in the Baylands. So I very much
26 support this. When we look at the Baylands Master Plan we might find it needs to even be a
27 little more restrictive because of the flood plane elevation ofthe building.
28
29 Vice Chair Packer: Phyllis.
30
31 Chair Cassel: No comments. Take the vote.
32
33 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Griffin and Bialson absent)
34
35 Vice Chair Packer: We are okay? We are ready for a vote? All those in favor of Karen's
36 motion which is not to have a 40 foot maximum height in the ROLM-E district please say aye.
37 (ayes) I believe that passes unanimously.
38
39 Commissioner Holman: The motion is meaning to maintain the 35-foot maximum.
40
41 Vice Chair Packer: May I point out it is 35 feet as well as 25 feet within 40 feet of a residential
42 zone. Okay, so we are not proposing to make any changes to the Staff recommendations on
43 heights in any of the other districts. Is that my understanding and we don't need any other
44 motions because our general motion will incorporate them?
45
46 Commissioner Holman: That wasn't the intention of my motion.
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 43 of 58
1 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, that is what I was asking. I was asking are there further motions with
2 regard to height.
3
4 Commissioner Burt: We need to take up the ROLM district. All we did was address the ROLM-
5 E district.
6
7 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. Do you want to do each district by itself?
8
9 Chair Cassel: There are only two. We did one now let's do the other.
10
11 Mr. Williams: GM has a 50-foot height limit already.
12
13 MOTION
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: I will move that we not increase the height in the ROLM district either.
16 I was glad to see that Karen had broken out her motion just for the ROLM -E because I don't
17 know if we will have support on the ROLM district. I would like to see that height limit
18 maintained.
19
20 SECOND
21
22 Commissioner Holman: I will second.
23
24· Vice Chair Packer: Okay, Pat did you have a question?
25
26 CommissionerBurt: I have a question I just didn't know whether the maker and the seconder
27 wanted to speak.
28
29 Vice Chair Packer: I'm sorry I am jumping the gun. Lee has made a motion, Karen has
30 seconded it and now Lee needs to speak to his motion.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: I believe that the height limitation there adjacent to residential and
33 potentially multi-family residential so that height limitation should be maintained. I don't think
34 that we need for a higher massing in that area especially with it falling under what is basically
35 single story residential neighborhood that has a view of the Baylands.
36
37 Vice Chair Packer: Karen, would you like to speak to your second?
38
39 Commissioner Holman: I think Commissioner Lippert spoke well to it. The other thing is we
40 also have again this issue of flood plane and where height is measured from.
41
42 Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
43
44 Commissioner Burt: Well, I agree with the maker and seconder. I had one question. How does
45 this biotech height apply within the GM district?
46
47 Mr. Williams: The GM district already has a 50-foot height limit so it is moot.
48
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 44 of 58
1 Commissioner Burt: That's right. Great.
2
3 Chair Cassel: I had a question. Is there demand for biotech in the LM or ROLM district? Is that
4 an anticipated use in that area?
5
6 Mr. Williams: We think there is some interest in that but it is obviously primarily in the research
7 park area. This is not where we have had when we have had focus groups I don't know that we
8 have had anybody attend from - I think we did have some attendees but I don't think they were
9 necessarily biotech users I think they came for information purposes.
10
11 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Griffin and Bialson absent)
12
13 Vice Chair Packer: Are we ready for a vote then? All those in favor of Lee's motion to keep the
14 height limits to 35 and 25 feet in the ROLM district please say aye. (ayes) That again passes
15 unanimously. Good job.
16
17 Okay, I would like to raise a question. It isn't in the Staff recommendations but it is related to
18 this biotech area and that is last week we made some refinements to medical research definition
19 with regard to medical offices and we were focusing on the MOR district. However, what we
20 did do was change the definitions for all these districts. So I understand that we can recommend
21 that there be exceptions made so that medical research that isn't necessarily associated with a
22 medical office and its patients can happen in these districts where medical research is a permitted
23 use which I believe is not ever district just some. It is in ROLM and ROLM-E but not in GM.
24 So if this something the Commission wants to pursue I would entertain a motion. Curtis.
25
26 Mr. Williams: I just want to clarify that if what you would like to do is to allow medical
27 research that is not within a medical office then we can do that be either footnoting the table to
28 that effect in these other zones or we could maybe put an additional paragraph down under the
29 table where we have some discussion about some of the other uses and differences about the
30 other uses and just say the same thing.
31
32 Mr. Larkin: The way that it could be phrased in the footnote that Curtis is talking about is not
33 withstanding Section 18.04.030 paragraph 95A and it would be something like medical research
34 is allowed outside of a medical office use in the ROLM and ROLM-E zones or whichever zones
35 it is that we are proposing to allow medical research.
36
37 Vice Chair Packer: Phyllis.
38
39 MOTION
40
41 Chair Cassel: May I so move? I don't think I could repeat it.
42
43 SECOND
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that and I won't repeat it either.
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: Pat.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 45 of 58
1 Commissioner Burt: I support the motion but I have a question. Why would we want to prohibit
2 medical research from the GM zones?
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: I don't know it just wasn't in here.
5
6 Commissioner Burt: Is it permitted?
7
8 Mr. Williams: Research and development is permitted and medical office is not permitted.
9
10 Commissioner Burt: Medical office is not permitted but medical research would be.
11
12 Mr. Williams: Correct, as a research and development.
13
14 Commissioner Burt: So this motion though does it cover or we don't need to do anything to
15 include the GM zone in the allowance that we have just made here?
16
17 Vice Chair Packer: I don't see a P on the medical research line.
18
19 Mr. Williams: It is not. I was saying the research and development is permitted in the GM zone
20 medical offices and medical research is not listed as permitted uses. So I guess it is a sort of fine
21 line between medical research and research and development.
22
23 Commissioner Burt: Why don't we just clarify it ifthe Commission believes that it should he a
24 permitted use in the GM zone andlor add it to this clarification.
25
26 Mr. Larkin: I think I can shed some light. We allow biomedical and pharmaceutical research as
27 it is currently drafted in the GM zone but not medical research, which is testing and those things
28 that are included in the definition of clinical trials. So it is basically taking the human element
29 out.
30
31 Commissioner Burt: So when we' say medical research we are only referring to research on
32 patients. Isn't there medical research that would go beyond that?
33
34 Mr. Larkin: There is but that is not included in the definitions that were passed. When we refer
35 to medical research in the Zoning Ordinance we are talking about primarily clinical trial research
36 not including things that use large quantities of hazardous waste. So we have exempted out a lot
37 of things that might in the real world be considered medical research but we are not considering
38 medical research for the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. So we do allow those sorts of things
39 in the GM zone.
40
41 Commissioner Burt: Okay. So it sounds like the sorts of things that I was concerned with are in
42 fact allowed in the GM zone as the definitions are currently written. Great.
43
44 Chair Cassel: So it would just be making this change so that medical research would be allowed
45 with the definition as the attorney has defined in the medical research area or the ROLM and the
46 ROLM-E areas. Did you want me to speak to that at all?
47
48 Vice Chair Packer: If you would like.
City of Palo A Ito May 18,2005 Page 46 of 58
1
2 Chair Cassel: The only comment I have to make is I don't think you want to force someone who
3 would like to do the medical research to have a medical office with the associated traffic into that
4 area. I think it is very difficult to differentiate.·
5
6 Vice Chair Packer: Who seconded, Lee? Do you want to speak to your second?
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to go back to the reason why I made the motion for the MOR
9 zone.
10
11 Vice Chair Packer: You can't talk about that.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: I can use that as my reason.
14
15 Vice Chair Packer: Is that okay? Just checking.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: The reason was to preserve those specific uses in the MOR zone not to
18 prohibit those medical and research uses.
19
20 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Griffin and Bialson absent)
21
22 Vice Chair Packer: So we have any further discussion on this or can we go to a vote? All those
23 in favor of Phyllis's motion regarding the definition of medical research in the ROLM-E and
24 ROLM zones say aye. (ayes) All those against?
25
26 Commissioner Holman: I didn't understand that it included the ROLM-E.
27
28 Chair Cassel: It did.
29
30 Vice Chair Packer: It did. So have you decided on your vote?
31
32 Commissioner Holman: Clarifying question. Is there a way of knowing how much toxicity or
33 hazards?
34
35 Chair Cassel: It would have to meet all the other requirements.
36
37 Mr. Williams: It is less than research and development, which is already allowed in that zone.
38
39 Vice Chair Packer: It is in the definition.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: Okay, yea.
42
43 Vice Chair Packer: So we have a unanimous vote of five to zero in favor of that motion.
44
45 Where are we? There is one other, ATM machines.
46
47 Mr. Williams: We got that early on. We will add that as a permitted.
48
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 47 of 58
1 unobtrusive and some ofthem they stick out like a sore thumb. So are there ways in which we
2 cannot allow the ones that stick out like a sore thumb?
3
4 Mr. Lusardi: They would be subject to ARB review and it could be a Stafflevel ARB review.
5 The thing about ATM machines is you can't put them behind the building where you have a
6 security issue. So they are going to have to be put in a secure area and be lit. So you are going
7 to have to accept that. .
8
9 Commissioner Burt: John, if I might make an example if I could interrupt here. There are
10 examples for instance I think on California Avenue there is one that is both on the California
11 Avenue side and tucked behind. There is one over on Hamilton and they have one that is in a
12 partial recess on I don't know whether it is Cowper and then another one that is in their parking
13 lot. So there are ways right in this town where we have ones that essentially are behind the
14 building or the side of the building and they are not prominent and that is what I am hoping we
15 can address.
16
17 Mr. Lusardi: No I agree with you and probably the best way to address that is if we could corne
18 up with a standard that says the ATM machines can only be accessible on the private site not on
19 the public sidewalk where they would typically want to put them as close to the public sidewalk
20 or on the face of the building that is on the public sidewalk. So if you want us to do that they
21 would all have to be accessed solely onsite.
22
23 Commissioner Burt: There are some other architectural guidelines whether it is for Staff level or
24 ARB that would I think address what concerns that I think a number of the Commissioners have.
25 I think having them on private site is a step in the right direction but I don't think it goes as far as
26 we are hoping.
27
28 Mr. Lusardi: My suggestion would be that concurring with your recommendation on allowing
29 the ATMs that you also direct Staff to address that issue in the performance standards and we
30 corne up with some kind of performance standards when we corne back to you for ATM
3 1 machines as well as everything else.
32
33 Commissioner Burt: So then I would like to suggest a friendly amendment that we request Staff
34 to corne back with performance standards on ATMs so that they are not obtrusive.
35
36 Chair Cassel: I would be delighted to accept your friendly amendment.
37
38 Vice Chair Packer: Do you want to speak to your?
39
40 Chair Cassel: I think I spoke to the motion. This is a common use.
41
42 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I just want to say as a former member of the ARB ATM machines
43 are among the highest, are the most difficult to get around state regulation. They are very
44 regulated by state standards and among the first is lighting. High intensity lighting on at
45 nighttime hours, all evening and it creates a very difficult situation with regard to the ATM and
46 the adjacent property owners as well because the light is dictated in state regulations as to what
47 areas have to be illuminated and even though you want to try to have cutoff at the property line
48 with these state standards it is not easily achievable, number one. Number two, they really do
City of Palo A Ito May /8, 2005 Page 49 of 58
1 Commissioner Holman: What are the lighting requirements for interior? That is part of my
2 point. Are there lighting requirements forinterior or only open during hours of business?
3
4 Commissioner Burt: That seems to be the way they are, right? Well, an interior ATM I mean
5 you close the store.
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: No, no, no, Citibank has interior ATMs and they work particularly well
8 which they vestibule their ATM machines and in fact one of the examples I use is that Wells
9 Fargo had proposed an exterior ATM for their private serVices bank building. The ARB had
10 reviewed that and said no you can't do that here but what you can do is have a vestibule ATM
11 machine and they said no we don't want that we want our presence on the street.
12
13 Commissioner Burt: Either way ....
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: It is far less restrictive if you have it vestibuled because the light can be
16 internal to the vestibule.
17
18 Vice Chair Packer: Can we just leave this ,as a CUP in the performance standards and the issues
19 of exterior and interior can be discussed later?
20
21 Commissioner Burt: I am not sure. I am not seeing any reason why we should place conditional
22 use on an interior ATM.
23
24 Vice Chair Packer: Right.
25
26 Commissioner Burt: So if the maker of the motion wanted to clarify that the intention was to
27 make exterior ATMs conditional uses and permitted uses on interior. Is that correct, Phyllis?
28
29 Chair Cassel: That's fine. Our buildings around this area have a lot of external space and a lot
30 of spaces that go directly outside. We don't have a lot of interior walls in a lot of these
31 businesses too.
32
33 Vice Chair Packer: Commissioners, I it is 25 after ten. I think we have three people who agreed
34 upon a motion. I know there are a lot things we could say but I really would like to get moving.
35 Is it really critical to the vote? We have three people who are on board with the motion but if
36 you have to get your point said.
37
38 Commissioner, Holman: Two things. One is interior doesn't necessarily, I asked the question
39 but then I also asked the question about what the requirements were for interior. Commissioner
40 Lippert addressed part of that like the vestibule it can be open 24-hours a day and there would be
41 lighting associated with that. I don't know if performance standards are going to address that
42 kind oflighting because you could have still a vestibule that acts as a beacon in the Baylands. So
43 that is one. The other is I would offer up a friendly amendment that ATMs not be allowed in the
44 ROLM-E district because there are too many unknowns I think having to do with this.
45
46 Chair Cassel: No, I won't accept that. There are areas of those that are along the road. I don't
47 expect to have a whole lot of these showing up in that area. It just seems like if a business
48 wanted to do one then it should be a permitted use. I am happy to have it be permitted inside
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 51 of 58
1 with a conditional use permit and I am happy to have the design guidelines go with it because I
2 think that that can bring it into the same color kinds of issues. I have seen these with lights, they
3 don't have to be, I know the state has to have lighting but these are directed down lights, they
4 have to be out so the police can see them but I have seen them so they are discreet and I just
5 didn't think this would be an all-night issue.
6
7 Vice Chair Packer: Lee, can it be short, please?
8
9 Commissioner Lippert: I want to clarify one comment or question that Karen had asked which is
10 that intemallighting the ARB does not have the ability to regulate at all only exterior lighting
11 that is the first thing I wanted to clarify. I could come onboard with the motion if you could
12 entertain another amendment, which would be that the review of the exterior ATM machines is
13 done by the ARB and is not considered a minor.
14
15 MOTION PASSED (4-1-2-0, Commissioner Holman voted nay, Commissioners Griffin and
16 Bialson absent)
17
18 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. I think we have a motion that would allow ATMs in the ROLM and
19 ROLM-E districts if they are exterior they will only be allowed under conditional use permit and
20 subject to a major review by ARB if they are interior they will be permitted uses. Have I
21 captured the motion? Okay. All those in favor of that motion please say aye. (ayes) All those
22 opposed? (nay)
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Because of the E.
25
26 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, Karen voted no because she didn't want then in ROLM-E. So that
27 motion passed four to one with Commissioners Lippert, Burt, Cassel and Packer voting yea and
28 Karen voting nay. Thank you.
29
30 Now the next is the Staff recommendation to continue to use the existing performance standards
31 chapter which 18.64 regarding lighting, visual and noise and site access criteria and will be
32 developing a separate chapter addressing those issues in the future. Last week we requested the
33 opportunity to revisit the development standards that we would be approving in tonight's motion
34 in regard to these districts after we have had a chance to review the performance standards
35 chapter.
36
37 MOTION
38
39 Commissioner Holman: I will move that.
40
41 Vice Chair Packer: Okay, Karen has moved that. Do we have a second?
42
43 SECOND
44
45 Commissioner Burt: Yes.
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: Pat has seconded. Do we need discussion on this? It is 10:30.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 52 of 58
1 Commissioner Burt: Another time.
2
3 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Griffin and Bialson absent)
4
5 Vice Chair Packer: Okay. All those in favor of Karen's motion please say aye. (ayes) That
6 passes unanimously. Thank you.
7
8 Unless we have some other issues regarding these districts I would like to entertain a motion on
9 the whole package, which will incorporate by reference all the other motions that we have had
10 regarding Staffs recommendation.
11
12 MOTION
13
14 Chair Cassel: I will make the motion that east ofEl Camino Real we recommend to the Council
15 approval of portions of the proposed ordinance adopting all provisions ofthe new Chapter 18.20
16 Office, Research and Light Manufacturing Districts pertinent to the Research, Office and Light
17 Manufacturing, ROLM, District and the Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing Sub-
18 district -Embarcadero, ROLM-E, and the General Manufacturing, GM, district and deleting the
19 current Chapter 18.55 General Manufacturing (GM) District, the current Chapter 18.57 General
20 Manufacturing Combining (GM-B) District, the current Chapter 18.60 Limited
21 Industrial/Research Park (LM) District, and the current Chapter 18.63 Limited Industrial Site
22 Combining (3,5) District plus the amendments that we have made earlier.
23
24 SECOND
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
27
28 Vice Chair Packer: I hope there is not discussion. Is there any discussion?
29
30 Commissioner Holman: One quick question. I am sorry. We did talk quite a bit about the H
31 sites earlier especially in the southerly most GM zones and I am just wondering as a use did we
32 want to continue to allow schools, public or private, as a conditional use permit in those CUP
33 zones because of the hazardous conditions potentially.
34
35 Commissioner Burt: If I might I am trying to recall what occasion there was it was maybe under
36 LM that we had discussed at one time a differentiation between trade-schools which would be
37 schools for adults that would be perhaps more appropriate in that kind of district and schools that
38 could permit children. As it is written right now it would allow either type of school, is that
39 correct?
40
41 Mr. Williams: I think so with a use permit either type of school.
42
43 MOTION
44
45 Commissioner Burt: So then I would like to make a motion that we permit trade schools for
46 adults in the GM district and not allow schools for children that are non-trade-schools, K through
47 12 schools within the GM districts.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 53 of 58
1 SECOND
2
3 Commissioner Holman: Second.
4
5 Vice Chair Packer: Are you making this as an amendment to Phyllis's motion so she doesn't
6 have to reread it again because it is including all the amendments?
7
8 Commissioner Burt: Yes.
9
10 Vice Chair Packer: So that will make the process faster. So your motion is to not allow K
11 through 12 private or public schools only in the GM.
12
13 Commissioner Burt: Yes.
14
15 Vice Chair Packer: I am wondering if that is going to affect the proposal that is currently under
16 review for the Jewish High School.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: It is approved. It is in the LM.
19
20 Chair Cassel: No, it is in the GM.
21
22 Ms. Grote: It only went through a building permit it doesn't at this point need a CUP or any
23 other discretionary approvals. I believe it has either already received its building permit for
24 interior changes or will shortly.
25
26 Commissioner Burt: I would just like to add as comment on the motion that 1 think that is a good
27 example ofthe point I was making earlier that when we come back to drawing the lines of our
28 district that area along Fabian perhaps should no longer should be considered a GM district. I
29 think we are going to have some reconsideration of the boundaries of the GM district. We have
30 facts on the ground taking over the reality of what these districts are and how they should zoned.
31 I think as a matter of policy we shouldn't have K through 12 schools in GM districts and at the
32 same time I think there are some portions of our GM districts that should be reconsidered in the
33 future for zoning. In fact a lot ofK through 12 but under a different zoning district.
34
35 Vice Chair Packer: Don.
36
37 Mr. Larkin: I think the Commission also needs to recognize at least under the current state of the
38 law which is subject to change the City is limited on how it conditions and how it can not allow
39 certain uses by religious institutions in any zone.
40
41 Commissioner Burt: Does that include schools?
42
43 Mr. Larkin: That would include a religious use including for example religious schools, Sunday
44 schools.
45
46 Commissioner Burt: That is the only exception and that is driven by?
47
48 Mr. Larkin: Federal law.
City of Palo A Ito May 18, 2005 Page 54 of 58
1
2 Commissioner Burt: Okay, so we would recognize that the only exception to this would be
3 superceding federal law .
4
5 Vice Chair Packer: Okay so that motion is on the table. Did we have a second for it?
6
7 Commissioner Holman: I did.
8
9 Vice Chair Packer: Did you speak to it already?
10
11 Commissioner Burt: Yes.
12
13 Commissioner Holman: I think it has been spoken to.
14
15 Chair Cassel: I will speak against it based on the fact that the types of schools that are moving
16 into these areas are in fact religious schools and institutions that our public schools are not
17 moving into those areas because they can't get enough land to meet the requirements for public
18 schools. Private schools are the ones that are moving in there and they are moving in there as
19 religious schools and so it is null and void essentially by the fact of what is moving there on the
20 ground we can't prohibit.
21
22 Commissioner Burt: I guess my answer ....
23
24 Vice Chair Packer: Wait, one person at a time. Pat.
25
26 Commissioner Burt: My answer would be ifit is a bad idea then I think it is a good idea to not
27 permit it per zoning. The fact that we can't-change federal law shouldn't prevent us from going
28 as far as we can to do a correct thing.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to say that the International School is one example which
31 is as far as I am aware not a religious institution.
32
33 Vice Chair Packer: I am going to vote against it because I think it will work itself out. One we
34 can't do is religious schools. Two schools will probably use common sense and not want to
35 locate next to a really hazardous place and consider other uses like southeast of San Antonio
36 such as the Media Center to which many, many teenagers go. They have camps there. There is
37 lots of stuff going on there. So there are certain things that are going to happen and we will just
38 have to rely on people's common sense not to locate these things. There is only so much we can
39 regulate and the federal government prohibits that. So I appreciate the dangers that you want to
40 protect the children from I just don't know that it is really necessary and that this is the best way
41 to go about it. Maybe there is a better way.
42
43 Commissioner Burt: What would that better way be?
44
45 Vice Chair Packer: Well, if we can't prohibit the religious private schools anyway and we are
46 not going to prohibit places where children are going to go such as the Media Center that.
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 55 of 58
1 Commissioner Burt: I guess I don't follow the rationale then. Ifwe cannot perfectly address this
2 issue then we should address itin no way at all.
3
4 Vice Chair Packer: Well, that's okay. Those are the reasons why I am ,going to vote against it.
5 It may not be logical but it is the way that I am expressing myself. Are we ready for a vote on
6 Pat's motion, which is to prohibit schools for K through 12 to the extent federal law allows in the
7 GM? Maybe pre-schools?
8
9 Commissioner Burt: That is correct. I am sorry so up to lih grade.
10
11 Vice Chair Packer: So up to 12th grade in all the GM zoned areas.
12
13 Commissioner Burt: The seconder would have to accept that.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: I would accept that, sure.
16
17 MOTION FAILED (2-3-2-0, Commissioner Burt and Holman voting for, Commissioners
18 Lippert, Cassel and Packer voting against, and Commissioners Griffin and Bialson absent)
19
20 Vice Chair Packer: All those in favor of Pat's motion say aye. (ayes) Pat and Karen voted yea.
21 All those opposed? (nays) That was Commissioner Lippert, Cassel and Packer voting nay so
22 that motion fails.
23
24 I was asking was the amendment to the main motion which is now on the floor and which I
25 would like to ask Commissioners to vote on. All those in favor of the main motion, which is the
26 motion about all of what we did tonight, please say aye. (ayes) All those opposed?
27
28 Commissioner Holman: Clarification. Not all of us supported all of the amendments and that
29 varied among us. So if you support this main motion with all of our amendments and some of us
30 voted against some and some of us voted for some of those amendments.
31
32 Mr. Lusardi: The minutes will reflect your individual votes on individual items and we could
33 also do what we did with the R-1 is we will provide an attachment to the Council which listed
34 the individual items and how the Commission voted on these individual items.
35
36 Chair Cassel: May I speak to that? I don't think this is the time for that argument. It is an
37 ongoing discussion we have but when we make a motion for a main motion I win some items
38 and I lose some items. Then when I get to the main motion I accept the fact that I win some and
39 I lose some. You are going to vote against it if the majority of what you think is against it and if
40 you think the majority of what is for it you vote for it. Sometimes you vote against it for other
41 reasons but that is the fact of the matter on a complicated item like this. You are going to vote
42 for some items and against some items along the way and hopefully there are enough of us who
43 will say I didn't win all of those items but I will vote for the whole motion. That is what I am
44 doing. I didn't win everything I am voting for the whole motion. We are in the middle of the
45 motion to boot. We can't discuss this in the middle of the vote.
46
47 Commissioner Lippert: As the seconder of the motion the main substance of the motion is that
48 we are basically saying that we are substituting or we are changing substantively the definitions
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 56 of 58
1 of one zone and another zone that we are basically accepting that we are rewriting this chapter
2 and that we are updating the ordinance. That is the substance of this motion not the detail that
3 we have already voted on.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: But the motion incorporated all of our amendments.
6
7 Chair Cassel: I am going to call the question.
8
9 Commissioner Burt: Let's have a reasonable discussion.
10
11 Vice Chair Packer: I will let you talk for two more minutes on this and then we will call the
12 question.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: I think it is a significant point because I have seen before when items go
15 to the Council that for very practical reasons this is not a criticism for very practical reasons the
16 presentation then in the Staff Report is until you read the nuts and bolts that the Commission
17 recommends this. But indeed we have not all recommended all of this. So I think it is a very
18 important point.
19
20 Vice Chair Packer: I will point out our electoral process. Not all people voted for the president
21 but he became the president so it is majority rules.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: It is not the same at all.
24
25 Vice Chair Packer: The reason we have a vote is we recommend as a body based on a majority
26 what goes as our advice to Council. And, yes, we will have dissenting votes and that is reflected
27 in the minutes and each of us has an opportunity as we do now speak in the public forum as to
28 what our positions are but I believe that we are selected as a Commission to recommend as a
29 Commission not to make recommendations as seven individual members otherwise we wouldn't
30 bother with motions and votes. I would like to call the question now.
31
32 Commissioner Burt: You spoke extensively on that and then other Commissioners are
33 prohibited from doing so.
34
35 Vice Chair Packer: I would like to have Commissioners show some respect for the Chair and for
36 the late hour. So I will call for the vote again in case people want to rethink their vote. I know
37 this is something we can discus and when we get to protocols and bylaws I think it is an
38 important discussion to have. I don't mean to cutoff the sense of that discussion but we are here
39 tonight to discuss the recommendation with regard to this zoning ordinance. I appreciate the
40 issues that you are raising but let's try and do that for our next retreat.
41
42 So I think we had a vote but let's do it again. All those in favor ofthe main motion please say
43 aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nay) Pat did you vote?
44
45 Commissioner Burt: Yes I did. I was not permitted to speak as the Chair was but I did vote.
46
47 Vice Chair Packer: That's why we have Chairs.
48
City of Palo Alto May 18,2005 Page 57 of 58
1 Commissioner Burt: No it isn't.
2
3 Chair Cassel: Let's continue the meeting.
4
5 MOTION PASSED (4-1:"2-0, Commissioner Holman voted against and Commissioners Griffin
6 and Bialson absent)
7
8
9
10 Vice Chair Packer: We had a vote of four to one with Commissioners Lippert, Burt, Cassel and
11 Packer voting in favor of the motion and Commissioner Holman voting against the motion .. I
12 believe she spoke to why. I believe there was general support for most of this but not all of it
13 from Commissioner Holman and I appreciate that and I appreciate her concern about our
14 decision and I look forward to a further discussion on those issues.
15
16 Before we close this item I do want to thank Staff for all the excellent work and the excellent
17 way all this Was presented to us and the hard work that went into it. I want to thank all the
18 Commissioners for excellent discussions and we had some really good work done tonight and a
19 good meeting. I look forward to our next discussion on these very complex issues where we will
20 not always be of the same mind but we try and get there by working together. Now I can close
21 this item and move on. Do you want me to finish the rest ofthe meeting?
22
23 Chair Cassel: The only other thing is to continue to the next meeting.
24
25 Vice Chair Packer: We don't have any Reports From Officials.
26
27 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
28
29 Vice Chair Packer: We don't have any Commission Member Questions, Comments or
30 Announcement.
31
32 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
33
34 Vice Chair Packer: I think our Commission representation and City Council and committees is
35 set for now.
36
37 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
38
39 Vice Chair Packer: We have no approval of minutes.
40
41 NEXT MEETING: May25,2005.
42
43 Vice Chair Packer: Our next meeting will be May 25,2005. Thank you and good night. The
44 meeting is adjourned.
45
46 ADJOURNED: 10:45 PM
47
City of Palo Alto May 18, 2005 Page 58 of 58
( \
Attachment D
Special Meeting.
October 4, 2004
1. Meeting with Assemblyman Joe Simitian .......................................... 4
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6: 58 p.m ................................. 4
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ...................... · ....... , ............ 11 ••••••••••••.••••••••••••• 1115
1. Ordinance 4842 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo
2.
Alto Approving and Adopting Plans for Improvements to the Baylands
Athletic Center located at John Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area·" ........ 5
Ordinance 4843 entItled "Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo
Alto Renumbering and Amending Planned Community District PC-2592
(690 San Antonio Road) to Permit Certain Automobile Dealership
Design Features" .................... ·11 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••• 11 ••••• 5
3. Ordinance 4844 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo
Alto. Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The
Zoning Map) to Change the Zone Classification of Property Located at
3045 Park Boulevard from 'GM (B)' to 'GM (B)(AD)' and to Change the
Zone Classification of Property Located at 4190 EI Camino Real, 3290
Park Boulevard; 762 San Antonio Road, and 4180 EI Camino Real from
'CS' to 'CS (AD)'I ... ~ ...... ,.", ...... , .. , ....... , ....... , .......................... 111 •••••• 6
4. Ordinance 4845 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo
Alto Creating a New Chapter 18.65 (Auto Dealer Combining District)
and Amending Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) and 18.83 (Off-Street
Parking and Loading Requirements)" ............................................... 6
5. Ordinance 4846 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo
Alto Renumbering and Amending Planned Community District PC-2554
(1730 Embarcadero Road) to Permit Certain Automobile Dealership
Design Features'l .............. II ••••••• '1.1 II II' '" •••••••••••••••••• I'" •••••• , ••• 111 •••• 6
6. Ordinance 4847 -·Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto
Renumbering and Amending Planned Community District PC-3350
10/04/04 1
(1766 Embarcadero Road) to Permit Certain Automobile Dealership
Design Features~"""""""""""""""""""""", .....••.••.••...••.•..••.••••• 6
. 7. Ordinance 4848 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo
Alto Modifying Section 18.43.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and
Rezoning Portions of the Property at 2401, 2409, 2417 Park Boulevard
an'd 101 California Avenue #Dl0l to Allow Office Uses in Parts of the
Ground Floor of Three Buildings on that Site" ................. ; ..... · ............. 6
8. Resolution 8459 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Supporting Proposition lA -Protection of Local Government
Revenues'l
.1' ••• II ••• '" II' ••••• : ••• 11111 ••••••••• ,'11111 •• 1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• t'I, •• 11 6
9. Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto ............ 6
10. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Raines, Melton & Carella,
Inc. in the Amount of $150,000 for the Preparation of a Disinfection
Alternatives Work Plan ............................................................. · ...... 6
11. Annual Public Review. of Stanford University's Compliance of the
Development Agreement for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects ................ 6
12. Amendment No. Two to EXisting Contract No. C2131552 with Blymyer
Engineers, Inc. in the Amount of $93,200 for Construction
Management and. Technical Support Services, and Additional Work
Related to the Design of an Integrated Fueling Facility at the Municipal
Servic;:es Center ......................... · ................... 111 ••••• · •••••••••• I ••••• ~ ••••••• 7
13a. Public Hearing -The City Council will Considerthe Following: Zoning
Ordinance Update: Planning and Transportation Commission
Recommendations Addressing Revisions to tlie .current Office,
Resea~ch, Industrial and Manufacturing Zoning Districts and Related
Definitions, and to Incorporate the Revisions into the Zoning Ordinance
Update (ZOU) Upon Preparation of Draft Performance Standards and
Mixed-Use Criteria ........................................................................ 7
14. Public Hearing: The Palo Alto City Council will Consider the. Proposed
Transportation Strategic. Plan, Iilcluding Transportation. System
Performance. Indicators and Transportation Implementation . Plan
Project and Program. Priorities, to Implement the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, Bicycle Transportation
Plan, and Other Council-Adopted Transportation Policies ..................... 30
15. Public Hearing: The Palo Alto City Council will Consider Adopting a
R.esolution Confirming the Report of Delinquent AdministratiVe Penalty
Bills and Directing that a Lien be Recorded with the Santa Clara
County Recorder's Office Against Properties Located at 1042 Metro
10/04/04 2
(--
Circle, Palo Alto, APN: 127-04-041 and 3376 Ross Road, Palo Alto,
APN: 127-48-033 ..... , .. 1 ••• II •••• '" .,. II •••••••••• ,. , •••••• II II II 1.1.1.1 II ••• , I •• " ••••• 34
16. Adoption of Resolution Determining Underground D.istrict No. 38
Property Owners Who Elect to Pay Underground Conversion Costs Over .
a Period of yearS .... · .................................. ~. , ........ I. II ••••••••••••••• , ••••••• 39
COUNCIL COMMENTS~ QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ....................... .40
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:32 p.m .............................. .40
10/04/04 3
( /
The City Council. of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Conference Room at 6:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch; Cordell, Freeman, Kleinberg,' Kishimoto,
Mossar, Ojakian
ABSENT: Morton
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Meeting with Assemblyman Joe Simitian
No action required. '.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
10/04/04 4
Because she and Council Member Cordell had conflicts on a narrow piece of
the discussion, they were unable to participate as full Council Memb'ers.
Public testimony should be taken on 13 (a) and then taken on the other two
items.
Mayor Beecham said his intent was to give the public five minutes to speak
to any item or collection of items. The public hearing would remain open
when the Council Members returned, at which time they had the ability to
ask questions of speakers.
Council Member Mossar said the issue was of concern on many occasions. A
prior incident occurred where she and Council Member Kleinberg vacated the
room and, in the meantime, the Council made virtually all decisions. The City
Manager, City Attorney's Office, and staff members were asked to structure
agendas in such a way that conflicts did not preclude Council Members from·
participating as fully as they could. The· current agenda disadvantaged
Council Member Cordell and herself.
Mayor Beecham said he was willing to work to allow the Council Members as
much participation as possible. ·If his colleagues were comfortable with the
ide.a of segmenting the public hearing in order to hear only those who
wished to speak on item (a), that would be done.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said item (a)
which related to the Stanford Industrial· Park and other zoned districts was
submitted to. the Council for discussion and direction, and the Ordinance
would return to the Council at a later date. Item (b), relating to low density.
residential (R-E, R-2, and RMD), required that. a formal ordinance be
returned to the Council. Item (c), relating to single-family residential (R-1),
was proposed for Council action at the current meeting.
·Contract Planner Curtis Williams said there had been extensive notice of the
zoning update process, which included legal notification in newspapers,
notices sent to a master zoning mailing list, notices posted on the website,
and focus group meetings. The office, research and manufacturing districts
were before the Council in the past. At that time, staff was directed to look
at a number of items associated with zoning for the districts. Suggestions
were made to look at provisions for the biotech and research and
development (R&D) industries with regard to height accommodations for
extensive equipment needs, to look at provisions for limitations of office use
in the research park (RP) district, and to clarify medical office and medical
research to create a separate definition for medical research that would be
allowed in the medical office and research 'zone. Staff made
recommendations regarding incentives and floor area bonuses. Staff
recommended the Council delete the limitations in the Stanford Research
10/04/04 8
( -.
Park, direct staff to monitor the situation, and return to, the Council if there
were concerns in the future. Medical research was added as an allowable
permitted use within the medical office and research zone and provided a
,definition separate from medical office. '
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Karen Holman said the Planning
and Transportation Commission (P&TC) met on the industrial manufacturing
zone district several times and recommended a 25 percent limit on office.
The reason was to support research in the RP. The P&TC encouraged biotech
research and development and t~x generation by promoting RP.
Mayor Beecham declared the Public Hearing open at 7:25 p.m.
Rachel Samoff, 3527 South Court, expressed appreciation for the evolving
working relationship between the Child Care Advisory Council (CCAC) and
the Planning Department. Staff worked closely with CCAC to insure that
considerations for early childhood programs were considered. The proposal.
to provide bonus floor area for childcare facilities Was supported. CCAC
supported requiring a' conditional use permit (CUP) when childcare facilities
were to be sited in, any of the zones.
I
Ann Balin, 2385 Columbia, said she and her husband were in negotiations
with Stanford Land Management for two years regarding the property at
1501 California Avenue. A clean room was permitted to be constructed
without any input from College Terrace. The Police Department documented
that the noise ordinance was violated. An acoustical engineer, hired by
Stanford, performed the arduous task of showing how noise pollution could
be mitigated and witnessed the foul odors coming from Alza. (She read into
the record a letter she' sent to the ,Council). The Council was urged to look at
the matter.
Therese Brekke, Land Use and Environmental Planning, Stanford University,
asked that the Council delete a phrase in the definition of medical research
that was included by the P&TC at its hearing on June 30, 2004. The phrase,
"located within a medical' officell implied that 'medical research must be
located within a medical office. Stanford University was concerned because
there was a great deal of academic medical research that existed along
Welch Road, independent of medical office use.
Tony Carrasco, 583 Glenbrook Drive, read a letter from John Barton, Chair
of the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. The Chamber was opposed
to any cap on professional office uses, as defined by the proposed ordinance,
and felt it was important to preserve the staff recommendation regarding
how R&D spaces were classified. Placing a tap on professional office use
limited the flexibility of long-term leaseholders arid restricted business
10/04/04 9
flexibility in the RP. Vitality in the RP was critical to the business in the
surrounding neighborhoods and to the community at' large. Overall,
employment in the RP was down since the 1980s. The Chamber asked that
the Council allow the users of the RP flexibility, knowing they were limited by
the terms of their leaseholds with Stanford Management. The staff proposal
of an annual monitoring system for ensuring the balance of professional
office space and other uses in the Stanford Research Park was supported.
The Chamber supported a definition of R&D for manufacturing occupancies,
which permitted the support services to be excluded from' the definition of
professional office use.
Jean Snider, Stanford Research Park· Director, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo
. Park, said Stanford participated in the process during the prio'r years through
numerous study sessions, focus groups, and public hearings, and
commended staff and the P&TC for soliciting input from the many RP'
stakeholders. The staff and P&TC's hard work and understanding of the
complexity involved in the task laid the foundation for the recommendations
currently before the Council. The City and Stanford shared several common
goals, one of which was to maintain the integrity and success of a world-
class research and development business community. The Stanford Research
, Park was considered a best in class example, of successful research parks .
. / -Putting a zoning cap on office uses would not provide a benefit that Stanford
and the City desired, whic;h was to reduce traffic and the use of single
occupancy vehicles by employees of the park. The reason was that densities
for most R&D users equaled that of most office users., There was no
distinction between how many employees occupied each square foot of a
software or. mature biotech company versus a service office user such as, a
law or financial services firm. The City and Stanford needed to continue ,to
work together creatively to change the area. The Zoning Ordinance was an
in'appropriate and ineffectual tool for addressing traffic mitigations. The City
and Stanford shared the common goal of maintaining the research and
development emphasis of ' the Stanford Research Park. Early in the process,
Stanford acknowledged they had a policy in place, through ground leases,
which capped service office uses in the Park. Stanford was diligent and
successful in administering the 'policy, keeping service office uses below the
25 percent cap recommended by the P&TC. Stanford supported staff's
alternative to monitor rather than cap service office uses and would
cooperate with the City to obtain the appropriate data to monitor the service
office percentage. Stanford believed an official cap would create uncertainty
about how a building's allowable use could be affected in, the future, how the
City would administer the cap, and how timely and easy the process would
be for a business.' Stanford was concerned about an additional layer of City
approval in an already complex and extremely competitive environment in
which to do business, and what it would do to undermine Stanford's ability
10/04/04 10
c·
James Freitas, Mozart Development Company, 1068 East Meadow Circle,
was concerned how an office cap would adversely affect the value of his
property. If a cap were approved, the request was the current office uses in.
the existing ground leases with Stanford would be grandfathered in for the
remainder 'of their lease term.
Joy Ogawa; College Terrace, said the maximu.m building height should not
be changed for properties in the RP located adjacent to or directly' across the
street from single-family' residences. If Stanford Management Company
wanted to build structures over 35 feet high on California Avenue, there
should be an application for a variance. The neighbors then had an
opportunity to. have concerns addressed. Biotech companies might cause
environmental impacts and should not be located next to residences. The
office limitation was the "one crumb" that staff and the P&TC offered to , . .
address residential neighbors' concerns. Stanford tried to dictate the wording
of the office limitation to define 100 percent administrative offices as being'
R&D, which would have been a mockery of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC). The P&TC recommended a compromise limitation on professional
offices only, ignoring admihistrative offices. Staff recommended there be no
office limitation included in the PAMC to give Stanford flexibility. The P&TC
and staff recommended that medical research be defined as located within a
medical office was supported.
Bud Mission, Director of Site Services, Roche, 3431 Hillview Avenue,
. expressed Roche's . support in urging the Council's approval of the P&TC's
recommended changes regt;lrding the Zoning. Ordinance Update (ZOU) with
respect to the RP. Roche and Syntex maintained a relationship for 4'0 years
with bordering residential across Arastradero Road for mitigating. odors and
noise abatement. Roche felt staff looked at the height issue in a way that
allowed for additional height with a provision for further setback wben
bordering residential. With the Architectural Site Review Board (ASRB)'s
review, the matter could be sensitively addressed. At the current time, many
companies were at a crucial point in their development, pondering the
economics of whether to continue to operate in a high cost area or pull up
stakes and move to an alternate less-regulated community. Businesses
needed to . know the City was serious about eliminating excessive
regulations.
Lee Wieder, 637 Middlefield Road, concurred with the recommendation to
have a 50 percent bonus if the site were used and shared by more than one
employer. The CUP made issues relating to compatibility of a project in an
industrial park controllable by the Council.
Sid Espinosa, 3000 Hanover Street, representing Hewlett Packard, said
Hewlett Packard was an active member of the community and proud tenant
10/04/04 12
) II j
Council Member Morton clarified staff had the ability to ensure the service to
the community would remain.
Chief Plannirig Official Lisa Grote said there would be a condition of approval
and the facility was required to remain in childcare use' or enforcement
action would be taken.
Council Member Morton asked about staff's reaction to the suggestion that
the height increase not apply to the properties ·that directly bordered on
California Avenue.
Mr. Williams said there was a provision the increase in height, from 35 feet
to 40 feet, be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front of the building.
The buildings generally had a 50-foot landscape 'setback along the front.
Council Member Morton asked whether staff saw a potential for abuse to the
adjoining residents if the five-foot increase were allowed on the properties.
Mr, Williams said staff did not believe that would happen.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved to qccept staff's recommendation
for the Stanford properties with one change on Attachment "A", Section
18.99.020 (m) (3) located on page 14 to remove the .words: "located within
medical office."
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Freeman asked how private offices were protected in the
Welch Road area if the ordinance were approved with the change in
verbiage.
Mr. Williams said there would be no change under the provision. Medical
research was included with the medical office definition.
Council Member Freeman clarified the private practitioner had the same
protection or lack of protection.
Mr. Williams said if the language stayed the way the Commission
recommended, there would be additional protection. If one individual moved
out, another medical office had to take its place.
Council Member Kishimoto asked for staff's comments on the GM-B zone.
Mr. Wilfiams said the GM~B zone was recommended for merging with the GM
zone a year prior when the item was before the Council. The Planning
10/04/04 14
I 1\ I
, I' f
(
Commission made. the recommendation primarily because of the difficulty in
distinguishing between the uses. In response to Mr. Borock/s comment that
the FAR was different, the nonresidential industrial, commercial FAR was the
same for GM or 'GM-B. The, GM zone currently allowed a mixed-use.
residential component for an increase to a 1.0 FAR. Staff would return to the
Council with suggestions on' mixed-use at a later time to address the
residential component.
Ms. Grote' said the "811 combining -district allowed the mixed-use of
residential and nonresidential and was worded in the same manner as the
combining districts in the LM district. There was a limitation on uses in the,
redefined GM district. The General Business Office and Professionql and
Medical Office uses were r.lot allowed in the newly' proposed GM zone.
Administrative Office needed a CUP.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to
accept staff/s recommendation on Stanford properties with the addition of
approving the Planning and Transportation Commission/s recOmmendation
on maintaining a 25 percent cap.
1. ,Provisions for biotech/R&D needs for increased height or other
accommodations for equipment needs '(in RP zone only)
2. Delete provisions regarding 25% office limitations in "Research Parkll
district and replace \Nith monitoring program
3. Clarify "medical officell and "medical research ll
4. Clarifies that generators and other equipment are allowed outdoors
with appropriate screening and setbacks
5. Clarifies "research and developmentll to provide additional examples
Council Member Kishimoto understood the need to update the zoning for the
Stanford Research Park. The City had to be careful not to overregulate.
People chose to c.ome to Palo Alto because the City kept high standards. The
R&D could become as traffic intensive as professional office. The Zoning and
land use was the CouncWs opportunity to deSignate a balance for the City.
, The 25 percent limitation represented a balance.
Council Member Freeman asked whether staff would come up with wording
that encouraged further medical research and ensured medical offices would
remain.
Mr. Emslie said staff hesitated to provide wording "on the spot/I The item
would return to-the Council, at which time incentives could be explored.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF MAKER
AND SECONDER to direct staff to reevaluate the wording on the "medical
10/04/04 15
(_000\
\ offic;:e" and "medical research use" in the Welch Road area to provide
incentives to keep medical offices but without providing a disincentive .for
maintaining research use.
/ :
\
Council Member Freeman said she heard someone say the City was not at 25
percent office in Stanford Research Park at the current time. There was a
mix of businesses other than only R&D. Continuing the R&D side of the
Stanford Research Park was encouraged. The 25 percent was a good number
to start with considering that number had not been reached. The possibility
existed that Stanford could come back and readdress the situation.
Council Member Kleinberg ° asked to what extent the Zoning Ordinance
protected neighboring residential areas adequately from noise and
biohazards.
Ms. Grote said the words, "biological material" were added in the Nuisance.
and Hazards section. That provided the basis for taking enforcement action
against any type of biological materials, nuisance, or hazard. The City had
authority over noise, which was enforced by the Police Department. °
Mr., Williams said the ordinance was reviewed by the Fire Department. There
were changes and references to updated codes ..
Council Member Kleinberg asked why the height expansion was necessary
for biomedical research.
Mr. Williams said the height was primarily for biotech and other facilities that
had extensive needs for mechanical and electrical equipment to properly
control temperatures, collect waste, and maintain a dean environment in the
building. Those facilities took up extensive space between floors or space on
a roof or basement.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether biological material was collected in
machinery on the roof.
Mr .. Williams said he could not respond to that question.
Council Member Kleinberg said the City would use existing noise, fumes, and
odor controls to enforce the existing standards if biomedical research went
on in the Research Park.
Mr. Williams said there had been no significant problems to date.
10/04/04 16
, 11 4
r"····.
(. Council Member Ojakian recalled when Palo Alto Square was before the
Council, a childcare operation wanted to go in there. The question was raised
whether a CUP was required.
(
Ms. Grote said she believed the· existing planned community zone was
amended to add childcare as a permitted use. The P&TC and City Council
review was required to add the use.
Council Member Ojakian said he would vote against the motion. In terms of
the height provisions, he supported keeping the height at the current 35-
foot height limit becaus.e that was applied to all other situations in the City
where operations were close to residential, within 150 feet. Changing the
rule for one situation but not another was a concern. Staff's proposal to
annually monitor the 25 percent restriction on office use was favored.
Mr. Williams said .staff suggested the definition of research and development
be elaborated' on examples of what might be considered research and'
development. Some of the .Research Park business people suggested
including things such as computer peripherals and related products and
instrument analysis. .
Council Member OJakian said the Council gave staff direction for a future
time when the ordinance came back. Staff would come back with
justification for additional items.'
Mayor Beecham clarified the 25 percent cap was not in the staff's initial.
recommendation but was' in the P&TC recommendation. The question was
asked whether there was currently a 25 percent cap.
Mr. EmsJie said there was not a zoning cap. Stanford enforced the height
through its issuance of leases. -
Mayor Beecham said the City needed to provide the appearance of flexibility.
A 25 percent monitoring approach was the way to go.
Council Member Morton said Palo Alto had a world':'class industrial park, and
the Council did not have the skill to micromanage the industrial park.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by
Kleinberg, to support the staff recommendation to accept the Planning and
Transportation Commission's recommendations to approve the proposed
revisions (CMR:439 :04) to the current office research, industrial and
manufacturing zoning districts and related definitions, and to incorporate the
. revisions into the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) upon preparation of draft
performance standards and mixed use criteria. Further, to accept staff's
10/04/04 18
• II I
I~""-~···'
· " , -I
( recommendation to accept an alterna,tive to the Planning and Tra'nsportation
Commission's recommendation for establishing how the 25 percent limitation
on office space is counted in the Research Park (RP) Zoning District, which
would be to delete that proposed revision to the code and to direct staff to
monitor office space in the zone and identify whether, and when, the
amount approaches 25 percent. Also, to approve two additions: 1) remove
phrase "located within a medical office;" and 2) ask staff to incorporate a
statement that the height increase will honor the 150 ft. set back for directly
adjacent residential uses, as applied elsewhere in the community, or at least
(
'come back to Council if it is believed it has a major negative impact on
attracting biotech companies.
Council Member Kleinberg supported the motion because the
recommendation about the 25 percent limitation on office space was a
solution in search of a problem. Stanford wanted a research park and did a
good job balancing the needs. The Fire and Police Departments did not see
any problems. The setback compromise was supported.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the maker of the motion ,would
accept the notion of staff returning with an idea on incentivizing medical
offJce. '
Council Member Morton said' he did not want to include that in the motion
be'cause he did not want it to become a condition for Stanford.
AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE, MOTION: Council Member Freeman
moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to direct staff to reevaluate the wording on
the "medical office" and "medical research use" in the Welch Road area to
provide incentives to keep' medical offices but wi~hout a disincentive for
medical research use.
AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 4-3, Kleinberg, Morton,
Ojakian no. '
Council Member Kishimoto referred to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan),
under "Employment Districts," Po'licy L-42 .indicates "Encourage employment
districts to develop in a way that encourages transit, pedestrian, and bicycle
travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands." A Program
discussed modifying existing zoning regulations and creating incentives for
services to reduce traffic; Policy L-43 said, "Provide Sidewalks, pedestrian
paths, and connections to the Citywide Bikeway System within employment
districts, pursue opportunities to build sidewalks and path and renovation
and expansion projects." A program attached to that said, "Design the path
and sidewalks." The Stanford Research Park had one policy: Pol.icy L-44,
"Develop the Stanford Research Park asa compact employment center
10/04/04 19
('" serviced by a variety of transportation modes." The recurring theme of the
ZOU was to implement the Comp Plan.
AMENDMENT: Council ~4ember Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to
direct staff 'Nhen item returned, to bring back the design guidelines or other
regulations' to add. bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities to make the
Research Park multi modal and implement Comprehensive Plan poliCies L
42, L 43 and L 44.
Mr. Emslie said staff constantly looked at ways of promoting transit use in
the Research Park. There was information that might be beneficial in
evaluating recommendations that staff brought back to the Council. Staff
believed information could be brought back to the Council in a timely
manner.
Council Member Freeman clarified the motion was suggestive of what might
happen in the Stanford Research Park and did' not necessarily regulate
Stanford at the current time to do anything that would monetarily influence
its building. .
Mr. Emslie said that' was correct.
(, Council Member Freeman said the document helped the Council in. the
future.
Mr. Baum said a .motion to amend an amendment was in order but to amend
an amendment to an amendment was not.
Mayor Beecham said the motion was to amend a substitute motion.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED 6-1, Kishimoto no.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to.
direct staff to bring back design gUidelines or other regulations to add
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities to make the Stanford Research Park
multi-modal and to implement Comp Plan policies L-42, L-43 and .L-44.
Council Member Kleinberg supported the poliCies but was concerned about
the creation of bicycle and pedestrian paths for people to .multi-modal with
no particular place to go.
Council Member Ojakian clarified staff dealt with transportation through the
Mayfield agreement.
10/04/04 20
, II (
\,' )
~ ,j t
I
("" Mr. Emslie said that was correct' and the tentative release date was the
middle of October.
f
\.
... '.,
Council Member Ojakian asked why something additional was needed at the
'current time and suggested waiting for the results of the ·Mayfield report.
Mr. Emslie said that was an option. Staff was familiar with the work that
went into the Mayfield report ahd was able to report back in the context of
the Zoning Code. Staff did not anticipate going back to the Council for the
final Stanford Research Park zones until after the Mayfield SEIR.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether Council Members' concerns with the
Comp Plan policies could be considered in the same discussion with the
SEIR.
Mr: Emslie said that was an option.
Council Member Morton agreed having the discussion twice was a burden to
the audi~nce and community ..
MOTION TO TABLE: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Morton,
to table the motion until the· Mayfield Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) returns to Council for discussion and approval since there is
cumulative impact analysis regarding transportation trends and how
different modes of transportation affect the ZOU.
Mr. Baum said under Roberts Rules, a motion to table took precedence. The
Council could do a motion to table or a motion to continue. A motion to
continue was to a date certain or a date in the future.
Council Member Freeman asked how information from the SEIR bridged to
the ZOU.
Mr, Emslie said staff could not have the discussion because it was limited to
the SEIR. There was cumulative impact analysis about transportation trends
and how it was affected by different modes of transportation. Staff
suggested continuing the discussion to a later time.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the Council looked at the ordinance
after the SEIR went through.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member Freeman clarified the Council looked at the information in
conjunction with the ZOU if Council Member Kishimoto's motion passed.
10/04/04 21
Document t' I • t
! ATTACHMENT E
~Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.64
ADDITIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REGULATIONS FOR
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:
18.64.010
18.64.020
1.8..,6.4,Q30
Specific purpose.
Applicability of regulations.
Site development regulations.
18.64.010 Specific purpose.
The additional site development and design regulations for commercial and industrial districts are
intended to modify the regulations of the OR, CN, CC, CS, CD, GM and LM districts in areas where it
is deemed essential to reduce the lighting, noise and visual impacts of commercial and industrial uses in
order to promote development compatible with adjacent residential areas and to preclude inappropriate
or inharmonious building design and siting.
(Ord. 3810 § 1 (part), 1988)
18.64.020 Applicability of regulations.
The requirements and guidelines of this chapter shall be applicable to any portion of a site area in
an OR, CN, CC, CS, CD, GM or LM district which is located within one hundred fifty feet of any RE,
R-1, R-2, RM or PC district permitting single-family or multi-family development.
Design element regulations that are identified as requirements shall be included in the design of a
project. Design elements that are identified as guidelines are recommended for incorporation in the
design of a project. At the submittal of the project to the architectural review board, if these guidelines
are not followed, it shall be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate how the project meets the design
objectives set forth in this chapter.
(Ord. 3810 § 1 (part), 1988)
18.64.030 Site development regulations.
The following design requirements shall apply and the following design guidelines are
recommended for application to any sit~ or portion of a site in an OR, CN, CC, CS, CD, GM or LM
district located within one hundred fifty feet of a residential district, for (1) new construction and (2)
modifications of existing buildings or site improvements which qualify as major projects for the
purposes of architectural review under Section 18.,.76,0.2Q of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; provided,
that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to Chapter
18.76 (Permits and Approvals).
(a) Lighting Impacts. In order to minimize the visual impacts oflighting from commercial and
industrial uses on the residential sites located in close proximity, the following additional requirements
and design guidelines shall apply to the applicable portions of the commercial/industrial site area:
(1) Requirement. Interior and exterior light sources shall be shielded in such a manner as to
prevent visibility of the light sources, and to eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of
the development.
(2) Guidelines.
http://nt2.scbbs.com/cgi-binlom _isapi.dU ?clientID=331345&hitsperheading=on&infobase... 9/21/2005
'" "
/. " " t ,',
0.,
1""